Extending Life

[_BiB_]

I was listening to a piece on NPR driving home today, that I find disturbing. Your thoughts?

 

Now there is a technique known as RNA Interference, the gist of which is that individual genes can be shutdown, manipulating protein formations and hence, metabolism.

 

One group of researchers is specifically targeting the aging process, and have determined that gene manipulation can greatly increase life span.

 

Is this another case of can we do something without regard to should we do something? What if, down the road, the human life span is extended to say, 150 years.

 

We already can't fund social security. We already have population issues. Should people remain productive to the age of 130, how is everyone going to be accomodated by a job market that is shrinking through technology changes and a shift in consumer goods philosophies?

 

What's wrong with the way things are?

 

I can see the true value in the areas of disease therapy, and possibly the correction of birth defects and the like, but why the life span issues. Are we collectively that afraid of dying?

[stuckincincy]

I was listening to a piece on NPR driving home today, that I find disturbing. Your thoughts?

 

Now there is a techniques known as RNA Interference, the gist of which is that individual genes can be shutdown, manipulating protein formations and hence, metabolism.

 

One group of researchers is specifically targeting the aging process, and have determined that gene manipulation can greatly increase life span.

 

Is this another case of can we do something without regard to should we do something? What if, down the road, the human life span is extended to say, 150 years.

 

We already can't fund social security. We already have poulation issues. Should people remain productive to the age of 130, how is everyone going to be accomodated by a job market that is shrinking through technology changes and a shift in consumer goods philosophies?

 

What's wrong with the way things are?

 

I can see the true value in the areas of disease therapy, and possibly the correction of birth defects and the like, but why the life span issues. Are we collectively that afraid of dying?

112003[/snapback]

 

I'm all for things that alleviate suffering. But the technological extension of life has the problems you allude to. I recall an article written by a physician when I lived in Pittsburgh. It was about extraordinary life support. She ended the article by saying that the last thing she would like, as her death approached, was the gentle holding of her hand, not the sound and feeling of someone crushing her sternum.

 

My Mom, who passed away in 2001, requested that this be read at her memorial service:

 

Miss Me, But Let Me Go (by Robyn Raneman)

 

"When I come to the end of the road

And the Sun has set for me.

I want no rites in a gloom filled room

Why cry for a soul set free!

 

Miss me a little, but not for long,

And not with your head bowed low.

Remember the love we once shared,

Miss me but let me go.

 

For this is a journey we all must take,

And each must go alone;

It's all part of the Master's plan

A step on the road to Home.

 

And when you are lonely and sick at heart

Go to the friends you know,

And bury your sorrows in doing good deeds,

Miss me, but let me go.".

[_BiB_]

I'm there.

 

And I don't even care if anyone misses me. I already know no one will. I don't like this "playing God" stuff. Curb suffering, yes. But just making people healthier extends life. Now how much medicine is devoted to rescuing us from our bad habits. You think Cro Magnon man was worried about acid reflux?

 

Something never mentioned in the medicine debate is that very issue. How many medicines are out there simply to save us from our lifestyles, and also to extend life past a reasonable point? If one pours pork fat down their tubes for 40 years, why B word about paying $80.00 per bottle for cholesterol medicine?

[/dev/null]

I was listening to a piece on NPR driving home today, that I find disturbing. Your thoughts?

112003[/snapback]

 

yes, i do find listening to NPR can be quite disturbing

[Berg]

I was listening to a piece on NPR driving home today, that I find disturbing. Your thoughts?

 

Now there is a technique known as RNA Interference, the gist of which is that individual genes can be shutdown, manipulating protein formations and hence, metabolism.

 

One group of researchers is specifically targeting the aging process, and have determined that gene manipulation can greatly increase life span.

 

Is this another case of can we do something without regard to should we do something? What if, down the road, the human life span is extended to say, 150 years.

 

We already can't fund social security. We already have population issues. Should people remain productive to the age of 130, how is everyone going to be accomodated by a job market that is shrinking through technology changes and a shift in consumer goods philosophies?

 

What's wrong with the way things are?

 

I can see the true value in the areas of disease therapy, and possibly the correction of birth defects and the like, but why the life span issues. Are we collectively that afraid of dying?

112003[/snapback]

 

For those who believe in God, why do you think <he> gave humankind a brain? Assuming we have freewill, with an omniscient supreme being, don't you think this was anticipated? If the capability exists within the human physiology to support extension of a lifespan, I find it trite to argue against it because of finances (i.e. Social Security), the job market, or overpopulation. It is akin to saying why bring a baby into a world where you know he/she will experience hunger, pain, sadness, disappointment, violence, etc.

 

The Earth's ecosystem will adapt over a period of time to whatever we do, and so must we or become extinct.

 

I don't see the cause for fear here.

[Wacka]

RNA interference (RNAi) is a natural process that is being investigated for switching bad genes off.

Genes make messenger RNA (mRNA) which codes for proteins. Until the late 70s , the gene was thought to be one piece with a control sequence or promoter upstream of it. The rest of the genome was thought to be junk or had some structural function.

In 1977 it was found that the part of the mRNA that codes for the protein is not all together. The mRNA is spliced to produce the fianl mRNA that codes for the protein product. With the dystrophin gene (if bad causes a a form of MD) the parts cut out are much, much larger than the protein coding parts. The parts of the mRNA that are cut out are called introns.

Recently, it has been found that small parts of these introns and small RNA coded for in the "junk" DNA in between genes can bind to the control regions (promoters) of some genes, adding another layer of control to the "normal mechanisms of control proteins binding there.

What I think they may have referenced on NPR is that people are studying a nematode worm of about 1000 cells called C. elegans. It has been found that knocking out a single gene in it can make them live twice as long. They may be trying RNAi to turn it off. I think this may be the reporter taking the research to an extreme as the press usually does. When genes for several maladies were found in the 80s, the press always said that this will lead to a cure. Well, it mauy in 50-100 years, but probably not in our lifetime.

 

There are two articles on RNAi in the October Scientific American (you only get the first two paragraphs online).

[_BiB_]

I get all that. I understand they were using roundworms for the research, start low-work up.

 

It's the philosophy of it I was thinking about. As for Berg, my question, once again is should one do something just because they can? To me, it's easy to say the world will adapt. There has been a natural order for thousands, millions of years. Now we have the raw intelligence to possibly circumvent it.

 

Just because it is not within our lifetimes, does it make it irrelevant. It is a concious choice of what is marketable now. Perhaps, 90 years from now a drug to enhance lifespan is introduced at $3,000 todays equivalent per dose. 10 years later, the masses are suing, voting, rioting, etc. because the cost of the dose is too high. for things to balance, there will have to be a reduction in the birthrate. We become a society of multi-octogenarians. then two hundred years later, there are no longer enough young to make for a meaningful society.

 

I use this as an example, this is our trend. Someone give me a good reason why we should live past 80? Haven't we been saying "He/She led a good life" at less?

[Berg]

I get all that. I understand they were using roundworms for the research, start low-work up.

 

It's the philosophy of it I was thinking about. As for Berg, my question, once again is should one do something just because they can? To me, it's easy to say the world will adapt. There has been a natural order for thousands, millions of years. Now we have the raw intelligence to possibly circumvent it.

 

Just because it is not within our lifetimes, does it make it irrelevant. It is a concious choice of what is marketable now. Perhaps, 90 years from now a drug to enhance lifespan is introduced at $3,000 todays equivalent per dose. 10 years later, the masses are suing, voting, rioting, etc. because the cost of the dose is too high. for things to balance, there will have to be a reduction in the birthrate. We become a society of multi-octogenarians. then two hundred years later, there are no longer enough young to make for a meaningful society.

 

I use this as an example, this is our trend. Someone give me a good reason why we should live past 80? Haven't we been saying "He/She led a good life" at less?

112093[/snapback]

 

Why is it that it is very commonly argued that what we humans do is outside the realm of nature? I believe we should use our most significant biological asset - our brain (ok for some anyway) - just as other organisms use their strength, speed, senses, roots, or whatever. Are we not natural

 

My belief is that the universe is the grand equalizer. We focus so much on our puny concept of reality and time that we don't realize things will all balance out in the universe's own good time.

 

PS - 'sup BiB

[_BiB_]

I don't see the cause for fear here.

 

BTW, fear doesn't enter into this at all, at least not from my end. It's a question, not an indictment. I have my opinion. Why do some of us fear dying so much?

[_BiB_]

PS - 'sup BiB 

 

I don't know. You never call, you never write, Oy Vey! What's a mother to do?

[Thailog80]

Can you imagine being behind a 125 year old woman in traffic?

[Alaska Darin]

Can you imagine being behind a 125 year old woman in traffic?

112111[/snapback]

Wearing a hat?

[_BiB_]

Why is it that it is very commonly argued that what we humans do is outside the realm of nature?  I believe we should use our most significant biological asset - our brain (ok for some anyway) - just as other organisms use their strength, speed, senses, roots, or whatever.  Are we not natural 

 

My belief is that the universe is the grand equalizer.  We focus so much on our puny concept of reality and time that we don't realize things will all balance out in the universe's own good time.

 

PS - 'sup BiB 

112105[/snapback]

 

Once again, is our "moral maturity" (I can't think of a better term, and I'm not speaking religiously) keeping up with our intellectual maturity? Have you taken a good look at the world lately? We are developing technology at an exponential rate. we are not developing judgement at the same rate. Sad to say, I think in that department we are headed the opposite direction.

 

Also, once again. Look at the prescription drug problem. The majority of drugs out there tie to this very issue. Extending life past the point of our lifestyles. We, as a whole, take little responsibility not only for our lot in life, but our very health and our ability to pursue it. Medicine is expected to bail us out from ourselves. Can this have anything to do with health care costs? What's the level of obeisety in this country? And we want cheap health care to cover every ailment resulting from.

[Berg]

Once again, is our "moral maturity" (I can't think of a better term, and I'm not speaking religiously) keeping up with our intellectual maturity? Have you taken a good look at the world lately? We are developing technology at an exponential rate. we are not developing judgement at the same rate. Sad to say, I think in that department we are headed the opposite direction.

 

Also, once again. Look at the prescription drug problem. The majority of drugs out there tie to this very issue. Extending life past the point of our lifestyles. We, as a whole, take little responsibility not only for our lot in life, but our very health and our ability to pursue it. Medicine is expected to bail us out from ourselves. Can this have anything to do with health care costs? What's the level of obeisety in this country? And we want cheap health care to cover every ailment resulting from.

112121[/snapback]

 

My point is your sample set is way too small to draw any sort of conclusion, your historical data is subjective, and I submit you are ignoring analogous occurences elsewhere in nature that would run contrary to your argument.

 

Other than that I agree with you...

[_BiB_]

My point is your sample set is way too small to draw any sort of conclusion, your historical data is subjective, and I submit you are ignoring analogous occurences elsewhere in nature that would run contrary to your argument.

 

Other than that I agree with you...

112128[/snapback]

 

Thanks Tom. (****)

[OGTEleven]

Good points Berg and BiB. For the most part, I agree with Berg, but I understand BiB's points. Actually, I want to agree with BiB because if this comes to fruition you can bet the baby boom generation will be all over it. It will be yet another example of that generation thinking only of themselves. It will be a very stark example.

 

The reasons I agree with Berg aren't exactly the ones he cites. I think that if we don't take advantage of our brain power, it will atrophy collectively. If drug companies have no incentive to develop new drugs for example, the first generation may miss out on new drugs, but the next will lose the ability to develop them. I think we need all the brain power we can muster to adapt to the ecosystem/universe (the opposite of it adapting to us). The survival of the species is important but we know that in a few billion years the sun is going to flame out. Clearly we'll need to advance in space travel or we'll be toast (literally). Between now and then we have the threat of asteroids and other niceties that likely make our deadline sooner. There are many steps to do what we must. Maybe this is one of them.

 

To BiB's point of further developing judgement, I hope for that as well. We shall see. The stakes are likely to continually get higher and come along more quickly. The ever improving distribution of advancements via technology gives every individual more leverage, but also allows people to "opt out" and still demand more and more.

[GG]

My question is, where do we draw the line on ethical decisions involving scientific/medical advancements? Don't artificial/transplanted organs represent a mean that we've used to defy nature's way? What's the difference between a synthetic heart made of composite material and a synthetic arm made out of one's cells? There is the moral distinction that people try to make, and if the argument is of the slippery slope variety, I'd argue that we were on that slope as soon as the synapses started connecting in the first humans.

 

You can look at any advancement in humanity that has directly led to an increase in our life spans and either praise it or downgrade it.

 

My view is that if a person elects to have a procedure, he should. Human vanity and fear of death will trump every other decision.

[Campy]

My question is, where do we draw the line on ethical decisions involving scientific/medical advancements?  Don't artificial/transplanted organs represent a mean that we've used to defy nature's way?  What's the difference between a synthetic heart made of composite material and a synthetic arm made out of one's cells? 

112239[/snapback]

That was the pretty much the same debate I had with myself while reading it: I really don't like the idea of artificially prolonging lifespans, but haven't we already crossed over that threshold?

 

This thing is just crying for some serious Philosphy thesis papers to be written.

[_BiB_]

I some times feel like the smoking man.

[Thailog80]

Wearing a hat?

112119[/snapback]

 

And listening to Streisand.