27 Jul '08 07:17>1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThey are just proposing a conundrum, if they figure a way to increase life span genetically, and it may be possible, time will tell. They are just doing a what if kind of thing, nobody knows if there will be a real connection to sexual proclivity or not, my guess is longevity increase would make sex possible for longer times not shorter. Telemere's getting shorter has certainly been noted but there may be ways to add telemere units without causing cancer but it has certainly not been proven that dealing with the short telemeres will cause life extension, that is a whole other issue and first they have to figure out how to do that at all, THEN see if it leads to longer life AND without cancer. Our little moral dilemma's are most likely 100 years into the future anyway, if not later than that. I don't think anyone alive today, even an infant, will have to worry about it. The nearest thing to lire extension today for real is dietary restriction, seeing that restricting calorie intake in mice leads to a 30% increase in lifespan, but usually what works for mice does not always work for men and it will be a long time even before THAT technique will be proven one way or the other.
What utter hogwash.
You'd expect more in the Independent (or not... who cares?).
Old age comes about by chromosomes becoming ever shorter.
At the end of each chromosome there is a bit of repetitive DNA called telomere.
This protects the DNA and also causes cell division.
Each year, this area of DNA becomes shorter, cells stop dividing and the .
And to address your other hypothesis, no. I'd rather die at 25 than give up one orgasm.
For sure we have plenty of lifespan SHORTENING techniques available, just drink to excess, smoke tobacco and engage in life threatening activities like bungie jumping, car racing or speed chess๐