• Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Godammit lemmy. Can’t we even enjoy a fucking cancer cure for a few minutes before the communist ranting begins?

            • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is kind of an annoyance. I don’t even think communists are all the way wrong tbh. I think there must be a middle path between what we’ve seen historically in communist countries and the slavish capitalism of the United States.

              Thing is that isn’t the sole and single thought in my mind.

              Like, I can see a scientific breakthrough for instance and be amazed and grateful.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Just in to say, not middle ground, different path. It’s not a 2d spectrum, despite what they teach us

                The way I see it, authoritarianism and centralization are the big bad - capitalism works great with intense competition (it just incentivizes the opposite), and communism doesn’t require central planning

                You have to minimize and have constant churn in every locus of power, or power hungry people will be drawn in and entrench themselves

        • Beardedsausag3@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Full of cold I sniggered way too hard at that and 3 years of shnots came out. Cheers for the laugh and clear out. Happy new year

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s the thing: we’re not getting many people to the natural limits of the human body’s age much less working out ways to go past that.

      Jeanne Louise Calment was 122 when she died. There’s a hypothesis that she switched identities with her mother at some point, but most scientists who study aging don’t consider it credible. Many other supercentenarian claims don’t hold up; they often come from places that had bad record keeping a century ago, and they just forget how many birthdays they’ve had. 115 seems the typical limit for most people, but even that might have very few legit claims.

      There are so few people who make it that far that they’re basically rounding error even when including incorrect claims. Monaco has the highest average life expectancy at 87. We should be able to add almost 30 more years to that before we even talk about extraordinary youth serums.

      Better cancer treatments will be part of getting us there, but far from the only factor.

      • xor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        telomeres are cells’ biological clock… they get shorter with each division, and is the general cause of your body breaking down, round the 80’s.
        telomerase and other chemicals can reset those telomeres, but also cause the body’s existing precancerous cells to go malignant. (telomeres also limit cancer cell growth, and creating telomerase is one of the mutations required for full on cancer)
        so, if we can regrow cells telomeres without causing cancer… we have a youth serum.
        but there’s already other telomerase gene therapy in development anyways…

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          and is the general cause of your body breaking down

          This is the step where a heavy [citation needed] comes along. There are a lot of complex processes involved in aging, we have no idea if simply “make the telomeres longer!” is going to solve all of that. Frankly it seems unlikely that that’s all there is to it.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m an optimist when it comes to longevity research. I think aging is a problem that will eventually be solved. But there’s not going to be just one “cure for aging”, there’s a lot of things that go wrong over time and we’re probably going to have to find ways to fix each of them as they come along.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right. You would have to look at alzheimers, osteoporosis, arthritis, liver failure, heart failure, gut microbe health, and a million other things that can go wrong in old age. It’s a tall claim to say “all this can be solved by telemerase”. In fact, having one thing claiming to solve a million different issues is a big red flag for quack medicine.

            • mriguy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              A good rule of thumb in medicine is “anything that does everything probably does nothing”.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One of the “blue zones” (places with long lives) famously had:

        1. No birth certificates
        2. A post war government pension to anyone over 60

        So lots of 40 year olds in 1940 suddenly claimed to be and were recorded as 60. Then in 2000 100 (80), then in 2020 120 (100)

        So what appeared to be exceptional lifespans were really just fraud

        Though our telomere limit appears to be 120 or so, so maybe some are trying the truth

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      How so? Cancer is something that one would be statistically likely to get eventually if you didn’t first die of anything else I suppose, so it’d certainly be useful in extending effective lifespan if you already had a youth serum, but how would a treatment for cancer do anything for other age related disease?

      • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        You get cancer all the time your body has natural mechanisms of finding and breaking down the cancerous cells. As we age some of these mechanisms start to falter, cells divide, but small errors over time accumulate.

        A youth serum is really not the goal, the goal is fixing errors in these systems, maintaining current functions and creating a new mechanism.

        This would work like a booster for this mechanisms and effectively make it possible to maintain and improve these systems. The side effect being an increase lifespan to some degree.

        I suppose this I just the cancer component, but several other things are still needed on the field of longevity research for a “youth serum” to be viable.