NationStates

Well perhaps "New" is a slight misnomer an already existing diabetes drug is being looked into for anti aging purposes it's suggested that it could increase the human life span by up to 50% leading to people living to 120 on average. From the NZ herald:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11553026

The world's first anti-ageing drug will be tested on humans next year in trials which could result in people being able to live healthily well into their 120s.

Scientists now believe it is possible to stop people growing old and consign diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's to history.

Although it might seem like science fiction, researchers have already proven that the diabetes drug metformin extends the life of animals, and the Food and Drug Administration in the US has now given the go-ahead for a trial to see if the same effects can be replicated in humans.

If successful it will mean that a person in their 70s would be as biologically healthy as a 50-year-old.

So this would obviously be a pretty big deal if it were successful not only does it increase the lifespan but it also increases the "Healthspan" possibly literally making 70 the new 50.

And from a second source this time the express
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/622976/Trials-testing-metformin-drug-live-120-anti-ageing

The trials are expected to take five to seven years. The drug will aim to attack the process of ageing, rather than individual diseases, one of the project's members, Prof Stuart Jay Olshansky, has explained.

"We lower the risk of heart disease, somebody lives long enough to get cancer," he said in an interview earlier this year.

"If we reduce the risk of cancer, somebody lives long enough to get Alzheimer's disease.

"We are suggesting that the time has arrived to attack them all by going after the biological process of aging."

This exert explains a bit more in combating aging we're really also combating disease in fact the two are synonymous. Age related diseases are diseases that you can theoretically get earlier in life but that are more likely because of age so if we can prevent as many cells from displaying old age characteristics we can reduce the likely hood of those diseases and thus allow people on average to live longer. It's by no means a silver bullet to all aging after all of the current age related diseases are only as prolific as they are now because we have defeated many of the other diseases that previously claimed us before they became problems. But in making progress in extending the human life we buy ourselves more time to make progress further hopefully reaching the point where we can continually fight the effects of aging with more and more advanced technology.

So, what do you think the possible ramifications of this probable biological breakthrough NSG? I think this could give the whole economy a boost in the short to medium term if 70 year olds can become as productive as 50 years olds then tha'ts a massive pool of labour opening up, Over the long term we'll end up with about the same amount of people to support except they'll be 100 year olds now if we don't continually push the frontier of medical science in this direction that is. But Older people being able to be more productive in the economy and not being forced to just living off accumulated wealth has the potential to be very positive indeed I think.

The human condition being what it is, I dont see extending the age of venerability as any great benefit. For the most part, we will just mess about longer, creating bigger problems for the upcoming generation that now has to wait longer in the wings before coming onto the stage to attempt redressing the wrongs.

More recreational chemicals for the filthy rich.

An interesting development indeed. We'll have to wait and see what the results are of course, but if successful it will be truly groundbreaking and amazing.

Gauthier wrote:More recreational chemicals for the filthy rich.

Eh, the drug has been around since the 20's and dosages cost pennies per day.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Gauthier wrote:More recreational chemicals for the filthy rich.

Eh, the drug has been around since the 20's and dosages cost pennies per day.

As Denis Leary put it, "...It's the worst years, isn't it? It's the ones at the end. It's the wheelchair, adult diaper, kidney dialysis %*#&ing years, you can have them, we don't want 'em!"

On a more serious note, how much of this extra 20% of existence is spent in anything other than abject misery?

Anyone realize how long the clinical trials will have to last on this to see if it works?

Zakuvia wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Eh, the drug has been around since the 20's and dosages cost pennies per day.

As Denis Leary put it, "...It's the worst years, isn't it? It's the ones at the end. It's the wheelchair, adult diaper, kidney dialysis %*#&ing years, you can have them, we don't want 'em!"

On a more serious note, how much of this extra 20% of existence is spent in anything other than abject misery?

If humans react the same way that animals in testing, we'd be younger longer. I think the example they gave was a 70 year old would have what we consider to be the level of health that would be expected at 50.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Zakuvia wrote:
As Denis Leary put it, "...It's the worst years, isn't it? It's the ones at the end. It's the wheelchair, adult diaper, kidney dialysis %*#&ing years, you can have them, we don't want 'em!"

On a more serious note, how much of this extra 20% of existence is spent in anything other than abject misery?

If humans react the same way that animals in testing, we'd be younger longer. I think the example they gave was a 70 year old would have what we consider to be the level of health that would be expected at 50.

If this works, I'm thinking this could either fix social security or break it beyond all repair.

Galloism wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
If humans react the same way that animals in testing, we'd be younger longer. I think the example they gave was a 70 year old would have what we consider to be the level of health that would be expected at 50.

If this works, I'm thinking this could either fix social security or break it beyond all repair.

Society would have to change massively. I'm thinking mandatory private pensions, a cap on social security in terms of number of years and a mandatory retirement age. All combined with voluntary euthanasia at zero cost.

This is certainly an interesting development. Granted, I doubt it'll be much of a success, but that's just my realism talking.

I'd never take the drug, I'd much rather not live past 80.

Galloism wrote:Anyone realize how long the clinical trials will have to last on this to see if it works?

Well the trials are going to be 5-7 years, in which case they'll see how much that person has aged biologically compared to the control study. Of course, due to lifestyle choices, genetics, and other factors, people already age at different rates but I'm going to be optimistic and say they've already taken that into account.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:This is certainly an interesting development. Granted, I doubt it'll be much of a success, but that's just my realism talking.

I'd never take the drug, I'd much rather not live past 80.

Why not?

Fartsniffage wrote:

Galloism wrote:If this works, I'm thinking this could either fix social security or break it beyond all repair.

Society would have to change massively. I'm thinking mandatory private pensions, a cap on social security in terms of number of years and a mandatory retirement age. All combined with voluntary euthanasia at zero cost.

Or we just bump everything up. So school lasts a bit longer until entering the workforce and whatnot as an example.

Napkiraly wrote:

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:This is certainly an interesting development. Granted, I doubt it'll be much of a success, but that's just my realism talking.

I'd never take the drug, I'd much rather not live past 80.

Why not?

Life is miserable as is. Why extend the misery?

Mike from Progressive wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Why not?

Life is miserable as is. Why extend the misery?

I'm trying to find the joyous parts of life and focus on them.

There goes the economy/environment...

Oh well. Wasn't fond of them anyway. GIMME.

Napkiraly wrote:

Mike from Progressive wrote:
Life is miserable as is. Why extend the misery?

I'm trying to find the joyous parts of life and focus on them.

Aren't we all?

Napkiraly wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Society would have to change massively. I'm thinking mandatory private pensions, a cap on social security in terms of number of years and a mandatory retirement age. All combined with voluntary euthanasia at zero cost.

Or we just bump everything up. So school lasts a bit longer until entering the workforce and whatnot as an example.

Hypothetically, if this were to occur, I think we should give five years paid leave for mothers and fathers to produce children somewhere in the early 20s, then we could extend retirement age up to like 90.

Might bring our birth rate back up, at least in places where the birth rate needs to be brought back up.

Gib immortality.

Mike from Progressive wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:I'm trying to find the joyous parts of life and focus on them.

Aren't we all?

Depends on how far into the abyss you've fallen.

Galloism wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Or we just bump everything up. So school lasts a bit longer until entering the workforce and whatnot as an example.

Hypothetically, if this were to occur, I think we should give five years paid leave for mothers and fathers to produce children somewhere in the early 20s, then we could extend retirement age up to like 90.

Might bring our birth rate back up, at least in places where the birth rate needs to be brought back up.

Extending everything in this manner makes the most sense, though i'd be even more hesitant to use this drug pre-puberty, it seems to me that that might require seperate trials to see how it effects sexual development, and that's got a whole plethora of issues.

EDIT:
Shit. I mean, the whole "growing" thing might be extended. You don't grow to 6'6 and your body goes "K done now."

You grow a little bit over time during a period where your body is growing, and each step is just an incremental one. Eventually that time period ends, and you are what height you end up as.

Give kids this drug and we might end up with fucking giants and stuff, which has it's OWN problems. (Giganticism and all that.)

Galloism wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Or we just bump everything up. So school lasts a bit longer until entering the workforce and whatnot as an example.

Hypothetically, if this were to occur, I think we should give five years paid leave for mothers and fathers to produce children somewhere in the early 20s, then we could extend retirement age up to like 90.

Might bring our birth rate back up, at least in places where the birth rate needs to be brought back up.

Well, I'd prefer later 20's since I think people would be more prepared by then but yeah stuff like that can be on the board.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Galloism wrote:Hypothetically, if this were to occur, I think we should give five years paid leave for mothers and fathers to produce children somewhere in the early 20s, then we could extend retirement age up to like 90.

Might bring our birth rate back up, at least in places where the birth rate needs to be brought back up.

Extending everything in this manner makes the most sense, though i'd be even more hesitant to use this drug pre-puberty, it seems to me that that might require separate trials to see how it effects sexual development, and that's got a whole plethora of issues.

Fair point. I just meant that we have a really weird situation:

For a lot of people, when they are financially secure enough to have children, are already getting too old to have children. I think we should have some years of paid leave early, then we take that onto the retirement age. This allows people to have the time and money to raise children at least until they get into kindergarten.

Any time of that 5 years not used for that purpose would allow them to retire early by that amount of time.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Galloism wrote:Hypothetically, if this were to occur, I think we should give five years paid leave for mothers and fathers to produce children somewhere in the early 20s, then we could extend retirement age up to like 90.

Might bring our birth rate back up, at least in places where the birth rate needs to be brought back up.

Extending everything in this manner makes the most sense, though i'd be even more hesitant to use this drug pre-puberty, it seems to me that that might require seperate trials to see how it effects sexual development, and that's got a whole plethora of issues.

EDIT:
Shit. I mean, the whole "growing" thing might be extended. You don't grow to 6'6 and your body goes "K done now."

You grow a little bit over time during a period where your body is growing.

Give kids this drug and we might end up with fucking giants and stuff, which has it's OWN problems. (Giganticism and all that.)

Indeed, I don't think this is something that should be used until probably in someone's early to mid 20's.