Harvard researchers have appeared to reverse the aging process in mice...
Next, the researchers will try to better understand precisely what causes the youthful bloom to return to the mice when the telomerase switch is flipped on, and also follow mice for a longer time to assess whether there may be a risk of cancer, according to the Boston Globe.
The obvious benefit would be that you could live to be 100 -- or more -- and not have the bad health that usually goes with being 100.
Is that good or bad?
The ethical question in all of this is can the nation afford for people to live longer?
"Are we set up for people to live 50 years after they retire?" ethicist Jason Roberts asks. "Do you change the retirement age? If you live to 120, do you retire when you are 90?"
No hurry on this question, apparently. Today the the commission considering ways to cut the deficit released its report. Despite criticism, it's recommending the Social Security retirement age go up to to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075.
The Harvard researchers might finish their work before the country agrees on the Social Security changes.
In the meantime, to what age do you want to live?
I'd rather live to an age around 75. I dont want the bad side effects of not being able to do what I love without arthritis pains, or not remembering important information, or getting that old person stink.
I'd rather enjoy my life with a higher risk of dying earlier than going by the book and following the rules so I can spend 10-20 years in a home...
Although I feel like the only 100% answer I can give is that I want to live as long as my wife.
I have no desire to live to say 200, but living to 120 - 150 years old and looking like I was in my 30's would be GREAT!
I believe effective anti-aging therapies are going to be a reality much sooner than we think.