Men to blame for EVERYTHING

[Themightytom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8390055.stm

Men's genes 'may limit lifespan'

Some genes are only passed down by the sperm
Men carry the seeds of their own destruction in the genes present in their sperm, research suggests.

Scientists working on mice have highlighted a specific gene that, although carried by both sexes, appears to be active only in males.

They believe it allows males to grow bigger bodies - but at the expense of their longevity.

The study, by Tokyo University of Agriculture, appears in the journal Human Reproduction.


Although the study was conducted on mice, the researchers believe it could apply to all mammals - including humans.

They studied mice created with genetic material from two mothers, but no father.

This was achieved by manipulating DNA in mouse eggs so the genes behaved like those in sperm.

The altered genetic material was implanted into the eggs of adult female mice to create embryos.

The resulting offspring, completely free of any genetic material inherited from a male, lived on average a third longer than mice with a normal genetic inheritance.

Better immune function

The mice with two mothers were significantly lighter and smaller at birth.

But they appeared to have better functioning immune systems.

The researchers believe the key is a gene passed on by fathers called Rasgrf1.

Although it passes down to both sexes, it is silenced in females through a process known as imprinting.

Lead researcher Professor Tomohiro Kono said: "We have known for some time that women tend to live longer than men in almost all countries worldwide, and that these sex-related differences in longevity also occur in many other mammalian species.

"However, the reason for this difference was unclear and, in particular, it was not known whether longevity in mammals was controlled by the genome composition of only one or both parents.

"Our results suggested sex differences in longevity originating at the genome level, implying that the sperm genome has a detrimental effect on longevity in mammals.

"The study may give an answer to the fundamental questions: that is, whether longevity in mammals is controlled by the genome composition of only one or both parents, and just maybe, why women are at an advantage over men with regard to lifespan."

In the UK the average lifespan for men is 77.4 and for women 81.6.

The researchers said in nature males tended to concentrate resources on building a large body, because strength and bulk help them fight for mating opportunities with females.

In contrast, females tended to conserve energy for breeding and providing for their offspring.

Dr Allan Pacey, an expert in reproduction at the University of Sheffield, said: "The results of this study are intriguing, and this is a topic that clearly needs further investigation.

"However, I would resist the temptation to fantasise about whether this may one day to a medical treatment to extend life through gene manipulation.

"I think humans have a good innings on the whole and we should try and be content with that."

Professor Kay-Tee Khaw, an expert in ageing at the University of Cambridge, said the findings were not necessarily applicable to humans.

She said: "These are interesting findings but I think any sex differences in longevity - which in humans have changed over time and differ in different environments - may have more complex explanations than any single gene."

[Lord of the Abyss]

Interesting. But I have to say that I'm disgusted by this:

"I think humans have a good innings on the whole and we should try and be content with that."

No, we shouldn't be content with having a "a good innings on the whole". I want to live longer.

[wolveraptor]

Interesting. But I have to say that I'm disgusted by this:

"I think humans have a good innings on the whole and we should try and be content with that."

No, we shouldn't be content with having a "a good innings on the whole". I want to live longer.

Maybe, but this method of achieving longevity seems sketchy to me. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that the article is suggesting that we'd have to lose certain male characteristics in order to live longer. I'm probably not willing to do that to live 1/3rd longer.

[Anguirus]

Disgusted eh? Why is that?

If it helps, there are certainly longevity researchers out there who'd agree with you. But extending the individual lifespans of, well, those who can afford to pay for it, is not the most pressing problem confronting our species IMO.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Interesting. But I have to say that I'm disgusted by this:

"I think humans have a good innings on the whole and we should try and be content with that."

No, we shouldn't be content with having a "a good innings on the whole". I want to live longer.

Maybe, but this method of achieving longevity seems sketchy to me. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that the article is suggesting that we'd have to lose certain male characteristics in order to live longer. I'm probably not willing to do that to live 1/3rd longer.

Agreed, but that statement seemed more of a general condemnation of the whole idea of even trying to prolong life. Not "well, I don't like this particular route towards extending life". "Oh well, be happy with what you got" is hardly the kind of attitude that has led to progress in medicine or anywhere else.

Besides; by looking into it, we might well be able to have our cake and eat it too. If the problem is that the body either diverts resources into longevity or getting bigger, a little genetic engineering just might be able to make it do both at once. Probably at the cost of making the growing person hungrier, but we suffer from obesity, not starvation.

Disgusted eh? Why is that?

Because I don't want to die? Because I don't want other people to die?

If it helps, there are certainly longevity researchers out there who'd agree with you. But extending the individual lifespans of, well, those who can afford to pay for it, is not the most pressing problem confronting our species IMO.

That's arguable, and irrelevant. Our species is perfectly capable of working on more than one problem at a time, so the old "it's not the worst problem we face" line means nothing.

And how do you know who will be able to pay for a procedure that isn't even a theory yet?

[Anguirus]

^ You just answered your own question. Drug companies have to make back that R&D money. So the answer is "relatively few."

Our species can work on many problems at once, but not all. I just don't feel the burning desire to live longer personally when we are already pushing the carrying capacity of the planet damn hard, causing not only human suffering but also obliterating species diversity. That might well be the source of a biologist's blase attitude towards let's-live-longer applications.

[Starglider]

^ You just answered your own question. Drug companies have to make back that R&D money. So the answer is "relatively few."

Recouping an R&D spend means finding the point on the price/demand curve that maximises total profit. Selling a treatment to millions of people at a relatively small markup is usually more profitable overall than selling to a thousands of people at a huge markup, particularly since the later falls afoul of both legislation and popular backlash.

I just don't feel the burning desire to live longer personally when we are already pushing the carrying capacity of the planet damn hard, causing not only human suffering but also obliterating species diversity.

The best solution is probably cryo-freezing everyone who dies, with the intention of bringing them back if and when we get to a sufficiently post-scarcity state. The costs of doing this are fairly low, particularly with economies of scale. Most people can't get their head around the notion of cryonics though, even when they are afraid of dying.

[Mr Bean]

So this brings up the question. Males? If a treatment comes online with a sex change attached that provides you with an on average extra thirty years to your life span attached would you go for it? Of course any such genetic treatment being useful for males already in existence is questionable as is the required genetic sex swapping. But what if that was the deal? Would you trade in the man bits for an increase hundred year life expectancy with the max at around one hundred and thirty years?

[Anguirus]

Selling a treatment to millions of people at a relatively small markup is usually more profitable overall than selling to a thousands of people at a huge markup, particularly since the later falls afoul of both legislation and popular backlash.

Selling a treatment for old age to millions of people? Sure, I can see that happening. It won't help the billions of people who will never need or want such a treatment since the world can't even get it's shit together enough to stop them dying of preventable causes, wars, etc.

As far as Mr. Bean's question, honestly, probably not. Gender and sex are very much bound up in the identity of most people, mine included. Besides, even in a "post-scarcity" world I can't imagine that thirty extra years of being over 100 will be all that awesome anytime soon enough for me to care.

[Darmalus]

So this brings up the question. Males? If a treatment comes online with a sex change attached that provides you with an on average extra thirty years to your life span attached would you go for it? Of course any such genetic treatment being useful for males already in existence is questionable as is the required genetic sex swapping. But what if that was the deal? Would you trade in the man bits for an increase hundred year life expectancy with the max at around one hundred and thirty years?

Depends if it is an extra 30 years of the sucky part at the end of my life, or an extra 30 years of the best part. My family history indicates I will likely spend my final half decade suffering from various horrible illnesses, so making it 35 years of horrible illnesses would just be torture. If it was an extra 30 years of the prime of my life, it becomes worth considering. Tough choice, extra life versus loosing all those subtle and not-so-subtle social advantages I likely don't even notice. Not a decision to be made lightly.

[Lord of the Abyss]

So this brings up the question. Males? If a treatment comes online with a sex change attached that provides you with an on average extra thirty years to your life span attached would you go for it? Of course any such genetic treatment being useful for males already in existence is questionable as is the required genetic sex swapping. But what if that was the deal? Would you trade in the man bits for an increase hundred year life expectancy with the max at around one hundred and thirty years?

Well, I'd consider it second best, but if it also fixed the brain to go with the rest of the body* I'd go for it. I'm something of a "the body is just a vehicle for the mind" type myself. And its not like women are the tentacled Slug Monsters of Altair.


* Because by the accounts of the transgendered, a brain-body gender mismatch is pretty unpleasant.

[wolveraptor]

^ You just answered your own question. Drug companies have to make back that R&D money. So the answer is "relatively few."

Our species can work on many problems at once, but not all. I just don't feel the burning desire to live longer personally when we are already pushing the carrying capacity of the planet damn hard, causing not only human suffering but also obliterating species diversity. That might well be the source of a biologist's blase attitude towards let's-live-longer applications.

Is there really any evidence for this? As population grows, won't our lifestyles simply change to accomodate our new pop. density? Americans, and even Westerners in general, are pretty spoiled when it comes to private space - we assume we NEED this much in order to live.

[Starglider]

Selling a treatment for old age to millions of people? Sure, I can see that happening. It won't help the billions of people who will never need or want such a treatment since the world can't even get it's shit together enough to stop them dying of preventable causes, wars, etc.

So? Rich countries already spend vastly more on healthcare including lots of marginal treatments that less developed countries would not bother with. Small teams of scientists or for that matter all the money spent on medical research globally can do jack shit about all the political and economic crap you're whining about. They should not feel in the least bit guilty about that, since they have already worked a nearly endless string of miracles in improving the standard of living across planet earth. If you really care about that stuff go complain at all the politicians and lawyers and bankers and other people who consume massively without producing anything of actual value.

[Lagmonster]

So this brings up the question. Males? If a treatment comes online with a sex change attached that provides you with an on average extra thirty years to your life span attached would you go for it? Of course any such genetic treatment being useful for males already in existence is questionable as is the required genetic sex swapping. But what if that was the deal? Would you trade in the man bits for an increase hundred year life expectancy with the max at around one hundred and thirty years?

It seems to me that the sensible answer to that question is, "It depends on which thirty years you're talking about".

Trading death at 70 for death at 100 sounds like crap if those thirty years involve being handicapped by a major disease and witnessing the passing of everyone and everything you've ever loved and cared about.

It would also make a big difference if you were starting this procedure at 30 or at 10. If you switch while you're young, you might adjust. If you switch at 30, you might be throwing a big fucking wrench into your sexual identity and family life.

[Drooling Iguana]

Maybe, but this method of achieving longevity seems sketchy to me. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that the article is suggesting that we'd have to lose certain male characteristics in order to live longer. I'm probably not willing to do that to live 1/3rd longer.

About half the population manages to get by without those characteristics. It doesn't seem like it'd be too great a loss.

[Sarevok]

You may live longer as a woman.But you would be spending those extra years as a sick old lady. Does not sound attractive compared to options like genetic engineering to slow down ageing altogather.

[Anguirus]

^ You just answered your own question. Drug companies have to make back that R&D money. So the answer is "relatively few."

Our species can work on many problems at once, but not all. I just don't feel the burning desire to live longer personally when we are already pushing the carrying capacity of the planet damn hard, causing not only human suffering but also obliterating species diversity. That might well be the source of a biologist's blase attitude towards let's-live-longer applications.

Is there really any evidence for this? As population grows, won't our lifestyles simply change to accomodate our new pop. density? Americans, and even Westerners in general, are pretty spoiled when it comes to private space - we assume we NEED this much in order to live.

Oh, I'm the first to agree that part of the reason that the human-capacity of this planet is more stressed than it ought to be is because of extravagant lifestyles. But it's also true that we don't particularly want to live on a planet of twelve billion people who all live like a current average denizen of sub-Saharan Africa. I believe that human society should work to provide each man, woman, and child a decent lifestyle before it works simply to provide more humans. Also, the only reason why we haven't seen mass famine yet is because of the Agricultural Revolution, which saved and created billions of human lives, but with significant ecological consequences (phosphorous runoff).

Currently, the human population is growing at a higher-than-exponential rate (as I recently learned from my ecology professor and read in my Primer of Ecology, Fourth Edition, by Gotelli, and you can no doubt find more resources on this using Google or Google Scholar). That is, faster than bacteria in a petri dish that are not resource-limited. It is my fear that an enormous amount of suffering and death will result when we finally hit that long-delayed Malthusian limit, which will happen at some point, as we can only use land so efficiently. Most biologists are probably well-acquainted with this, and you think it's surprising that one goes "meh" when asked about the longevity-increasing implications of his research? If you suddenly tacked 30 years onto lots of people's lives, the problem gets worse instead of better. Climate change isn't doing us any favors at the moment either.

Here's a resource on carrying capacity and human population growth: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa ... n_pop.html

So? Rich countries already spend vastly more on healthcare including lots of marginal treatments that less developed countries would not bother with. Small teams of scientists or for that matter all the money spent on medical research globally can do jack shit about all the political and economic crap you're whining about. They should not feel in the least bit guilty about that, since they have already worked a nearly endless string of miracles in improving the standard of living across planet earth. If you really care about that stuff go complain at all the politicians and lawyers and bankers and other people who consume massively without producing anything of actual value.

It may surprise you to learn that I agree with all of this. You are proceeding from a false premise; that I believe longevity research is immoral and/or a waste of time. I do not. I see it as a field with vast potential, and it is morally good to work in such a field.

That said, there will be many educated people who disagree with the premise "it's very important for humans to lead individually longer lives," for the reasons I observed above as well as others. I think it's overselling it to label such an opinion as "disgusting," which is the only reason that I chimed in in the first place.

[Sarevok]

If we are planning for the long term its worth realizing there is an entire solar system around us. Humans can keep on munching more resources instead of downsizing if that could be exploited. Of course that is still far into fantasy land. But when you are considering far future initiatives like immortality for all its worth keeping in mind that in the big picture there is no limit to how much junk we can gobble up.

[Anguirus]

^ There is a not insignificant risk that we'll kill ourselves off before we manage to do anything like that. There are a lot of hurdles. The only place to live for the realistically foreseeable future is Earth. Space exploration and colonization (which I am aggressively for) will not replace the need to get our house in order.

[Starglider]

It may surprise you to learn that I agree with all of this.

Even supposedly intelligent people sometimes throw their arms in the air and shout 'but we can't build a moon rocket, what about all the starving children!'. Perhaps an excess of compassion vs rationality is forgivable, but it is not acceptable.

I think it's overselling it to label such an opinion as "disgusting," which is the only reason that I chimed in in the first place.

It doesn't seem disgusting now because most of the population has rationalised 'death is ok' to avoid going mad from fear and powerlessness. I guarantee you that future generations raised in an era where aging is the passtime of a few self-destroying eccentrics will consider 'you must die of old age' to be disgusting.

[Anguirus]

I guarantee you that future generations raised in an era where aging is the passtime of a few self-destroying eccentrics will consider 'you must die of old age' to be disgusting.

To paraphrase Jack O'Neill, is that a "money back if not completely immortal" guarantee? You're awfully confident in your understanding of the potential of genetic modification, human psychology, and the inevitability of a "post scarcity economy" in a day and age when we are quite literally talking about science fiction.

[Starglider]

To paraphrase Jack O'Neill, is that a "money back if not completely immortal" guarantee?

One step at a time. Actual immortality requires a different class of (significantly more transhuman) technology - which is also under development. Halting aging would be a huge improvement though - aside from the ethical and qualify of life benefits, we spend a vast amount of money on care for the elderly and mitigation of age-related conditions, and lose a lot of productivity to people being too old to work. Curing aging would free up lots of resources for other things.

You're awfully confident in your understanding of the potential of genetic modification, human psychology

Yep. Technology - making nature mankind's bitch since 7532 BC - and everything we've done to date was just warming up.

and the inevitability of a "post scarcity economy"

I only mentioned that in the context of bringing back millions of people stored via cryonics. It is neither required for nor a consequence of the elimination of aging.

in a day and age when we are quite literally talking about science fiction.

So why this thread is in the 'non-fiction' section?

[Simon_Jester]

The best solution is probably cryo-freezing everyone who dies, with the intention of bringing them back if and when we get to a sufficiently post-scarcity state. The costs of doing this are fairly low, particularly with economies of scale. Most people can't get their head around the notion of cryonics though, even when they are afraid of dying.

There are also some practical problems with culture shock.

So this brings up the question. Males? If a treatment comes online with a sex change attached that provides you with an on average extra thirty years to your life span attached would you go for it? Of course any such genetic treatment being useful for males already in existence is questionable as is the required genetic sex swapping. But what if that was the deal? Would you trade in the man bits for an increase hundred year life expectancy with the max at around one hundred and thirty years?

Hmm. I think Dermalus and Lagomonster's point is important.

Given that humans in real life who live to an immense age just get extra years of old age, definitely not. I do not think Tithonus is not to be envied, even if we make him into Tithonia. If we were talking about having the onset of old age delayed by, on average, thirty years... I would have to seriously consider whether or not I would consider that offer in real life. I don't know what I would do because I don't have the weighting vector to use in my decision nailed down.

Well, I'd consider it second best, but if it also fixed the brain to go with the rest of the body* I'd go for it. I'm something of a "the body is just a vehicle for the mind" type myself. And its not like women are the tentacled Slug Monsters of Altair.

* Because by the accounts of the transgendered, a brain-body gender mismatch is pretty unpleasant.

That is also a good point, and taking it into account, I'd have to say "no, I would not take the deal." I don't think they could really rewrite the brain as part of the treatment. Even if they did I'm not sure it would be me at the end; it might just be "Simonia who remembers being Simon with discomfort." And assuring extended life for Simonia isn't necessarily a worthwhile deal for Simon.

About half the population manages to get by without [male sexual] characteristics. It doesn't seem like it'd be too great a loss.

Not in the sense of "it is better to be Y than to be X." But there's a difference between that and "I, who am Y, would not want to be transformed into X." Ask people who already have a woman's body, but feel like a man inside their heads, whether or not that's a good deal, whether they would rather live X+30 years as a man-in-a-woman's-body than X years as a man. Most of them will probably say "no," I'd expect.

Of course, for this to actually work, you're talking about children who were born women as the parthenogenetic offspring of other women... but in that case, I still don't like the deal, for the obvious reason that I don't get descendants under this plan. Someone else's kids get a longer lifespan than my kids would normally, but that's not an obviously good deal for me.

Yep. Technology - making nature mankind's bitch since 7532 BC - and everything we've done to date was just warming up.

Why 7532 BC specifically? I think fire was pretty important on that account...

[Themightytom]

I feel like a genetic treatment to extend life by making men into women is a little bit after the fact? The article suggests that women pace themselves better than men because they are holding out for child bearing, whereas men use up their shit faster trying to be aggressive hunters. Switching to womanhood after living a full life is still a bit too late.

[Anguirus]

So why this thread is in the 'non-fiction' section?

Because a real scientist found results that indicate that male mice have a gene that shortens their lifespan, and a journalist asked a "so can this result be directly applicable to humans" question to interest his/her layperson readers. Another real scientist shot her the fuck down (politely) and added a brief rumination on how perhaps humans should be happy with what they have. And now we forum-goers are wildly speculating about it.

The article is science. "Let's chop our dicks off and live thirty years longer" is science fiction.

Starglider, perhaps you would understand my attitude about your "wholesale genetic modification for everyone's comfort and convenience is inevitable" thing better if you imagined me saying to you, in all seriousness, "making a 'good' AI who loves humans would be a trivial affair. All you have to do is make 'i heart humans' flash in front of its eyes like in Terminator!"

An understanding of the history of technology is not the same thing as an understanding of all technology. The insane rate of technological and scientific innovation that characterized the 20th century is already slowing down, and even very well-respected futurists are respected because of getting a few things right, not even more things right than wrong. I'm extremely skeptical of any pronouncement of the inevitability of progress considering that one of the few pretty solid future predictions we can make is the impending/worsening ecological crisis and we can't even get up off our asses as a species and successfully deal with that.