What is Digg?61 Comments
- bryan314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Overpopulation? Doubt it. Humans like any other species eventually come into some sort of equilibrium with their environment. Industrialized countries are already see their birth rates declining. Japan is in actual negative population growth. And besides, over time eventually everybody's chance of getting hit by a bus (or other fatal accident) becomes 100%. Murphy and Darwin eventually win.
- wtfunkymonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Too bad they can’t find the gene that keeps you from getting hit by a bus.
Actually, I see this as being only bad. Overpopulation anybody?
Increasing lifespan only means more people. If such a technology is actually used anytime within the current level of societal evolution then it will only be used to facilitate a wider chasm between the classes. It could, and probably would, lead to an aristocratic over class served by poor and ailing proletariat.
However, ideal, in a perfect world this would be a good thing. Sadly we do not live in a perfect world. - gbm85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thisist isist excellentist!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I keep hearing people say that a billion people live on a dollar or less a day. None of them are going to be spending money on gene therapy. People doing ten times as well as those billion still aren't going to even hear about it. Those Brazillian women who spend a week's earnings to buy one tube of lipstick like they see on American magazine ads are going to have to save a lot longer than that to have their genetic traits altered. The ten million illegal aliens in the United States won't hear about it out in the lettuce fields. And of course the 150 million overweight Americans can still die of a stroke or a heart attack even if their genetic alarm clock isn't going off. I wouldn't worry about the effect of this on population all that much. The affluent are going to keep looking great and now they'll live forever. If there was ever a motivation to become upwardly mobile I'd say this is it. Now if we could just convince the religious element of society that this is in defiance of God's Will. Man, if the Pope would just condemn gene therapy I think we could seriously start to thin the herd. Heh...dugg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>Can you imagine getting up and going to work every day for 500 years? I think I would kill myself long
>before I would die of old age.
Hmm...in my imagination if people lived to be say a couple hundred years old, you could have basically multiple of what we call lives today.
First 75 years -You go to school and become an engineer, and have a couple of kids
Second 75 years - You retire and live it up in europe and get a bungalo in the tropics and write that book you always wanted to.
Third 75 years - You go back to school, study law and maybe become a judge.
Fourth 75 years - you retire again to a remote part of Austraila and become a semi-professional astronomer
Imagine all the money you could accumlate over a couple of hundred years of productive living, peoples savings would go up by a huge amount and whole family trees would become richer.
Of course the obvious problems is that if you double the life expectancy you basically just sort of doubled the population of the planet, and that might be a problem. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow. Biological DRM.
- LordRahl72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can you imagine getting up and going to work every day for 500 years? I think I would kill myself long before I would die of old age.
- Durrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sweet... modify people's genes so they stop aging, toss them in a self-sustaining spaceship and send them on to neighboring solar systems/galaxies
/runs to fox with TV idea - tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It drives me nuts every time I read about someone worrying about the "overpopulation" problem. There is no such thing. #1 scientists have shown that the entire population of the entire world could fit into the state of Utah with a population density the size of New York City and leave the rest of the entire world for crops, animals or anything else. That is more than enough space, and NYC is not THAT bad. If we added an extra state like Wyoming then the entire population could even DOUBLE and still just be as dense as NYC. NYC still has room for parks, etc too. This means that anyone worrying about this is #1 simply paranoid. #2 wants attention. #3 wants money for grants which aren't even necessary. #4 Closed minded and ignoring all the other research showing that over-population is a joke that will likely never EVER become an issue (except that different religions would still keep bickering with each other over who God really is, and kill each other to prove they're right and the "chosen ones" accidentally nuke the entire population and then we're all screwed).
- bejitunksu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11000 year old here I come!
Dugg - dark_helmet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1but how would we change a gene in an already living human?
- tubachuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you could buy yourself immortality then you might live long enough to pay off the debt.
- Biohacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry for the spelling error on "Scientists" in title :) (note to self: always check the spelling before submitting a story)
- SethX9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's like programming, you can't have programming without an initial programmer."
Then who programmed the programmer? And who programmed THAT programmer? ...ad infinitum...
This is the most idiotic of all the ID arguments. Since you ID ***** obviously have a disdain for science why do you keep trying to unload your mythologies onto everyone else by trying (poorly) to present logical arguments as PROOF of god? Just say you have faith and get comfortable with hanging your worldview on a peg that cannot be proven to exist. Its your faith; it can't be proven. - miles32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1antons key in reverse
- djinfidel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+125 years to life could now have a completely new meaning
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oi, I'm about 30 and I estimate I'm going to live to about 100. That's already too long. I'm not suicidal or anything, but life aint exactly a rose garden either. 100 is more than enough thank you. Now if there was a gene that could make that 100 years all happiness and joy, now then you'd have something I'm interested in.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personally, I don't think there would be any negative physical effects by modifying this gene. For anyone religious (who has read the Bible ie Christians and Jews), you'll remember that in the early days of Genesis people lived hundreds and hundreds of years. Some lived over 900 yrs. Then Noah came around and was told to cry repentence to people for 120 yrs. At the end of that 120 yrs the Lord told him to stop preaching and build an ark because he was going to flood the Earth. The Lord then decided that 120 yrs would now be the new lifespan of man, or in other words our "time of probation" to repent and turn to God, symbolizing the 120 yrs time he gave the people in the days of Noah to repent. Rarely does mankind live past 120 yrs old now (and those claims that state people lived that long are not reputible sources with official/verifiable birthdates).
In other words, this may be the evidence that God changed the "lin-4" gene to make humans die before the age of 120 where before it was "over-expressed" to allow people to live hundreds of years. This means that tweaking the gene to "over-express" it may simply be turning humans back to normal (ie the way they were originally). Granted if you believe this is the means that God used, then you would also have to agree it is a bad idea to try to change the gene. God purposely wanted us to die by age 120, so tweaking the Gene to live longer than 120 would be mocking God. He probably would not be too happy with that now would He?
So technically, it should be fine physiologically to manipulate the Gene to allow someone to live longer. After all, religiously speaking we can assume that Gene used to be "over-expressed" in the past (or more technically speaking, it used to be normal and now it is mutated to be "under-expressed" to make us die quicker). So if we do try to play "God" with this gene, He will either cause something bad to happen, or else He purposely set it up to cause bad things to happen. Who knows. Maybe He will actually allow it since the Bible prophesies "Ye shall be AS Gods". Maybe He REALLY meant that by learning genetic manipulation we would eventually become "AS GODS" and would be ok with us figuring such things out. Who is to say how things should be interpreted? Sometimes it is better to play it on the SAFE side of the interpretation though... :) Just my $0.02 - hexalite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Actually, I see this as being only bad. Overpopulation anybody?"
In the short term, yes. However, as the population gets used to longer lifespans, marriages and births will be pushed further into a persons lifeline and the population will adjust. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Soo... lemme get this straight...
God (or other Deity who potentially created humanity... or didn't, as the case may be) stamped an expiration date on people's foreheads?
*grabs xacto knife* - Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Wow, you'd think that after "millions" of years of "evolution", we'd have weeded this gene out. [rolls eyes]"
How is a longer lifespan conductive to gene proliferation? - mmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Gee, you stop aging, but what about your organs?! If your body doesn't age, also, will it stop you from decomposing? I didn't think so.
- evizaer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting article. Dugg.
Does modifying this gene actually extend each part of life or does it simply allow you to live longer?
Would human beings still go through adolescence at 11-23, or would that period, along with all others, be extended? - WiFi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The world's oldest tree is said to have lived for 4,767 years, showing that if kept in the right conditions it will basically live forever. Maybe the same is for humans without this gene?
- motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting:
MicroRNA Gene That Regulates Lifespan Found By Yale Scientists
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051224094102.htm
then 3 days later...
Fish Evolve A Longer Lifespan By Evolving A Longer Reproductive Period, Researchers Find
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051227110640.htm
Gee, I wonder what the relationship is here? - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well if there's a gene for it, don't you think we should keep it the way it is?
- Biohacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apache2, this work was published in Science in December 23, 2005 issue, it's not dupe. Please check www.sciencemag.org, if you have doubts.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, it's definitely not a dupe. Apache2 is confused by a different, yet SIMILAR article/gene/discovery. I read about something VERY SIMILAR on Slashdot several months ago about a gene that helps to regulate aging and bookmarked it. However, it was an entirely different issue, and they found that Gene actually had very negative side-effects when manipulation was attempted. I can understand why people would think it was a dupe, but it's not.
- ibrudiiv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Selective tampering rates are as follows:
$1,000,000 - Add 10 years to your life!
$5,000,000 - Add 20 years to your live!
$1,000,000,000 - You're imm0rtal biatch!
Lol. :) - ericvdb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah...Moses heard about this 6000 years ago....dupe....blah blah blah. The article is dated Dec 25, 2005 idiot.
- crapiolio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Living too long sucks. You'll feel it when you're old.
- vipsta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like to think of genes as settings, stored in a configuration file inside our bodies. Our bodies, of course, are the operating system and are controlled by the settings.
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, the secret to interstellar travel is EXTREMELY long life spans. 1000 years is a pittance compared to what is needed. All you overpopulation naysayers need to take a lesson from the overpopulation fear mongering of the past.
And whoever said they need to take the movie idea to fox... I second that. - amitrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well the good part of this research is that the future Einstein will be with us FOREVER...we dont wanna lose brilliant scientist like him, now do we?????? or maybe we dont??? time will tell.
- mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"when, when are they going to discover the jean that regulate spelling those scientitists? when?"
you should learn how to spell yourself. "jean".. haha - Cognitive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have to agree with Tidu to an extent.
I mean, say we were to "edit" this gene as such. What would happen, if as a result of the change to the gene, other cells and/or genes, mutated??
Although, being able to extend your life would be pretty awesome, but at what cost to your organs and mental health?? - ibrudiiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Add 20 years to your life!*"
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 tidejwe , you are a person of deep wisdom, or just fraking common sense. I think I'll see what you've submitted....
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just because something is a "DCMA violation" now doesn't mean it always will be, nor does some "rule" ensure people won't do it. There's a "rule/law" that says don't go above the speed limit, yet most people do break it sometimes, even if just a little. There are "unethical" scientists too, believe it or not. What is to stop someone from doing this in their basement or some lab and not telling anyone? How would they even find out? What are they going to do, kill off anyone who lives too long, even though they didn't actually do anything to themselves or have a choice in what happened to them as a fetus? PLEASE. . . Also, what is to say that the "rule" won't change some day? Threat a violation never stopped scientist from continuing research on stem cells and cloning. . . they just moved places, and pushed laws and it got more and more relaxed little by little and "rules" changed a bit.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0monolith-
I only have time to check DIGG while at work on weekdays = no time to submit articles. I check Digg, slashdot, wired and a few other technology and news sites on occassion. I haven't submitted anything yet because #1 someone else has already submitted it (even though sometimes their description is such that it will NEVER attract enough attention to make the front page). #2 I spend most of my time commenting on current diggs, and rating comments. I sometimes feel like NOBODY else ever rates comments (at least not the good comments), so I am trying to help digg out by marking which comments are good (even if they are against my own opinion, they are sometimes good comments) so people can choose to read just the good comments and skip all the mindless bs comments. Improving comments and insightful debates is really the only way DIGG will ever beat sites like Slashdot, and "most" people don't seem to care so far. In short, I spend more time TRYING to help improve Digg by way of comments & ratings (which few people do), than "finding" diggs since thousands/millions of people are already working on finding diggs. That's why I haven't spent time posting them. Besides, I won't post a Digg unless I am sure it is front page worthy and not a DUPE.
Secondly, it's true, I consider myself a fairly religious person. I have done a lot of research on most religions. Basic Christian, JW's, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, etc. Spent countless hrs of study on all of them. I consider myself VERY open-minded, and I like to debate things from all sides. IF too many people are attacking one side of an issue, and I disengage myself from my own opinion and try to see things from another person's or group's point of view and help argue for them whether I personally believe it or not. It helps me understand things better, and sometimes even solidifies my own opinion or even change it if I find good insight by so doing.
As I've said in earlier posts. My personal belief is that God uses natural means to accomplish His purposes. I think it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to prove God exists (see Hitch-hiker's God to the Galaxy's explanation on the Babelfish). I believe science basically 100% even over religious explanations. Science will tell us everything about the heavens, and earth and even how we got here (yes, I fully believe in Evolution), and I believe religion will tell us how to get to "heaven".
In honesty. . . I believe there is a "truth" out there, and all the wrong religious or non-religious people will not "punished" for believing the wrong thing. All things will be taken into account (family, environment, etc). It's not someone's fault they were born into a certain religion or a certain S.E.S. Everyone will be given a chance to learn and understand the truth. Believing "fundamental beliefs" established by tradition and assumptions/interpretations of men of any current religion are all ridiculous! Anyway, I won't get into that too much right now.
Web_weasel--
I have read both sides and looked up both of their sources. Populations could easily be shifted to allow for farming in certain areas, especially if they did the verticle farming (which isn't technically necessary, but could be used in case populations refused to move). As a last note, I think the whole idea behind Intelligent design is RIDICULOUS! Not all religious people believe or support the ID movement when they think for themselves. I believe/support Evolution all the way! - tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That would be funny. . . instead of puberty/zitty faces/squeeky voices lasting a few years, this might make them last for DECADES! Also, like evizaer mentioned, instead of going through adolescence between age 11-23, you might not even hit puberty until you're REALLY old. Could you imagine being 60 yrs old and finally being able to start having kids and feeling like you're 20 yrs old?
- ichthus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, you'd think that after "millions" of years of "evolution", we'd have weeded this gene out. [rolls eyes]
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ichthus: "Wow, you'd think that after "millions" of years of "evolution", we'd have weeded this gene out. [rolls eyes]"
HAHAHA! No, quite the opposite. We've had millions of years as hunter-gatherers that needed to survive off of available sources.
How many kids do you think you would have if you lived to be 1000, and remained fertile since puberty?
That's about 33x longer than a normal breeding life. Even woefully underestimating by assuming that people only ever have five kids (two times the 2.5 average) you would be exponentially increasing the population growth rate.
In reality, ancient people would probably keep having kids until they died of unnatural causes, so the population would only be limited by the availability of food - and having a nomadic tribe of ten thousand strong converting lush land into desert in a non-stop march while in constant starvation is not a good way to keep the species alive, as they would be weakened and very vulnerable to plague and disaster.
Geeze, at least run some simple models; overpopulation becomes a huge problem damn quick as you increase the breeding life length and maximum number of cycles.
Now, you would think an Intelligent Designer would have thought of that, and made it so that humanity has a mild hive-mind that temporarily sterilizes people if the optimum population in the area has been reached.
Sloppy work, really... they could have easily stolen some code from their insect and frog projects for it. - Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Even if you stop the aging proceess there is still the issue of genetic damage and replication errors. Take the aging process away and you get 100% chance of cancer.
@tidejwe
You might want to do some research on population from more unbiased sources. I've heard it before and it always seems to come from the same people who promote "Intellegent Design". - unScarred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here come the stabilization serums!!! Tar-sardar-Gor!!!
- timewarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have seen similiar news before atleast three years ago.
- ZombieLordzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0if you were imortal, you could put off having kids for several million years (think galactic corporation, trying to climb that ladder) and think nothing of it. overpopulation isnt a problem when this happens
- optimusfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tampering DNA DRM is a DCMA violation.
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ack, nothing submitted, and I missed your first post. It seems that you are also a deeply religious person? Maybe? Well, we all have our little quirks. At least your's is harmless.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bravo. A standing ovation to these genetic bioligists (i guess that's what you'd call 'em)
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is