26
GLP-1 drugs extended mice’s lives by 12%. If humans respond similarly, that could mean nearly 9 extra years of life—and a huge shock to pensions, Social Security and healthcare. (www.nature.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [M] to c/futurology@futurology.today
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"Mice that took semaglutide also did better than control animals on tests that evaluated coordination, muscle function and how the body processes sugar. Moreover, when the researchers investigated a set of cellular and molecular changes thought to drive ageing in the body — including inflammation — they found that their effects were dampened in treated mice compared with untreated ones."

In most rich developed countries average lifespan is about 83 years. If this GLP-1 effect holds true for humans, that would bring their lifespan to 93. Furthermore, the GLP-1 drugs improved the quality of those years.

Taking 65 as a retirement age, then this might double the amount of time a pension could be paid out. People already worry about supporting an aging population in the future, now this "problem" could be more acute. But of all the problems facing humanity, this is one of the best to have. 9 extra years of life is overwhelmingly good news, and we'll learn to adapt, as humans always do.

Can GLP-1 drugs slow ageing? Mouse study shows promise

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

As / if caloric restriction is the main driver, it is not a great sign for a human longevity. It seems that caloric restriction have comparably much smaller effect on humans. The leading theory is that life extension effect observed in short lived animals is an evolutionary adaptation for natural famines. Genes wants to propagate, so when there is a famine, a short lived specie rather live longer to have offsprings rather than dying. For them an extension of life by 1 year is significant in comparison to their usual life. But for long lived species there is no significant evolutionary pressure to develop and maintain this, as humans can more easily wait thru even longer famines and reproduce after that. There are some effects on humans, but it is definitely so clear cut as with mice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Don't use years.

    Use cell division or heartbeats.

    If you keep trying to think of it like you are, you'll never understand it.

    Organism run off biological clocks, not how many times the planet rotates the sun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    I basically agree. But cell divisions and heartbeats are not best measures. Humans are already outliers when it comes to number of heartbeats per life. And with advancements of therapies for repairing damage caused by aging we potentially can extend both of them quite substantially.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    Humans are already outliers when it comes to number of heartbeats per life.

    Buddy...

    So is every domestic animal.

    You know house cats don't live to be 18 years old in the wild, right? They'd have stopped being able to feed themselves, or became food for something bigger, or succumbed to disease or fluke accidents

    Humans are domesticated, so 2.5 billion heartbeats to age 70

    Just cooking and clean water are huge contributers, but obviously we don't have natural predators either. So for most animals the first sign of aging is a death sentence, but we have literal elder care and spend billions prolonging life. I'm barely in my 40s, a tiger would pick me off like nothing and would have years ago. In my 20s tho, I'd have lived long enough to pass on genes.

    It's not a fucking gypsy curse that everyone dies at a billion heartbeats. And rather than humans being an exception, were just the only animal we spend so much time and resources on prolonging life, even just as a tool to extract wealth from grieving family members.

    That's why humans are 2.5x the lifespan cap by heartbeats. We're not physically special.

    Edit:

    And with advancements of therapies for repairing damage caused by aging we potentially can extend both of them quite substantially.

    Well never repair damage from aging...

    Anyone claiming that would need to rewrite the DNA in all of your cells, then exterminate all your natural cells....

    What we could do, is extend telemeres, but telemeres are there for a reason and if they never wore down cancer would skyrocket. It makes us die of old age, but without it cancer would be almost constant and likely kill people way earlier.

    And because again, it would need 100% "cell coverage" so it would need to be done to the very first cell we start out with.

    Anything attempting to convert a live human, would require nanobots the size of microtubules that somehow the body accepts, and it would need to act on any untreated cell while making sure not to "redo" a cell even if got treated 20 generations ago

    It's just not fucking feasible if you know how any of it works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I have never written that humans are biologically special. My argument was that number of cell divisions and heartbeats is inadequate measurement for length of life. It is a good measurement of biological state of body through. But even then it have to be considered in context of other measurements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Your argument about unfeasibility of aging damage repair reminds me of arguments of people avoiding to which a human body would be torn apart if humans would travel by train into tunnel at the "staggering" speed of 30 km/h. They had basically well sounded arguments that time. Then people have tried it and find it working 🤷🏼‍♂️

    Yes, repairing all damage caused by aging is very, very hard. But it is neither needed to be done completely to have some meaningful effect (partial repair provides partial life extension), nor we need to work by nanobots on DNA of every cell (in many cases it is sufficient to kill old cell and provide a new one).

    It will take some time and a lot of effort. But for meaningful results we do not need such sci-fi tech you have described.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •