As if AI and CRISPR babies weren't enough to worry about regarding the fate of all of us, and quite possibly even likely, disparate, difference between rich and poor now the beginnings of actual advancement in prolonging life, at lest for the rich, enters the scene. Here's the beginning of a news feed I've just read...

Now a new US Startup is marketing injections of telomeres for a staggering $1,000,000.00 a dose. It is entirely unproven and holds great risk, even the possibility of detrimental effects, but already they have paying customers. Whatever else, this will advance the cause since it will be the first attempt at such gene therapy on humans. Whatever the results, it will provide actual evidence to begin narrowing the field. Advances and possibly greater setbacks are sure to follow, but fundamentally it is known that on a biological level it is doubtful there is some hard limit on how long humans can live and not only that but how long one can live healthy and what would be seen as "younger" by most people from an earlier time. We have considerable DNA with a common ancestor, Yeast, which is essentially immortal so there is no inherent "sell by date" in the process of DNA. There literally may be NO Limit.

I mention "earlier time" because it should be obvious that cliches like "40 is the new 20" didn't exist until the late 20th Century. The boldness of that cliche should tell us a lot for a 20 year "improvement" to even be contemplated as not utterly a fiction. Imagine how it may be when that cliche changes to "60 or 80 is the new 20". That is one messy can of worms the subject has such broad consequences both individually and on the whole.

So I'm wondering how many here even hear or follow such "technological progress" and more importantly how you react.

Would you, if money was no object, try a dose of telomeres at $1,000,000.00 a pop, wait for the next or a later phase, or never even consider such a thing?... and your reasons are welcome.

I did not vote, because I too well remember my old aunt who was ready to go, but did not go until three years later . . . .

My guess is that most who could pay, would pay, because we are nothing if not self-involved and self-important.

And the less they have done to deserve it, the more likely would be they to spring for it.

(Sounds like the "full medical" from Beyond the Blue Event Horizon.)

I've had enough of this world as it is; why would I want to "prolong" my life ?

Telomerase levels are high in cancer cells. That's why those cells are almost immortal. People who fool around with telomerase levels (assuming such a thing becomes possible) are simply going to turn their bodies into cancer factories. Serves them right!

I don't want to live forever. I just want to live for as long as I have a good life. And I hope I die before I get Alzheimer's.

Yeah, cancer was definitely the first thing I thought of when reading the initial post. But I doubt just injecting telomeres will have any effect whatsover. They need to attach to a cell's DNA to do anything, right? I guess they'll just float around in the blood before eventually being filtered out by the kidneys. So you can have really expensive urine...

Nope, notta, no way, bù xiè xiè etc...

Will cause far more problems then it could ever solve, solutions rely on simplicity/understanding/wisdom/experience.

"The 10,000 things rise and fall as the Self watches their return." Lao Tzu

Remember, Bill Gates and crew are in favor of population control, methods like this are simply tools to help achieve that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

I'd hang around for a few more centuries if I had taken it when I was young.

If I were 95 I might not be so willing to stay if my eyesight and mind and body are gone to heck.

Jokes on them, they'll have to live in the future they shaped.

Most people do the crazy stuff they do because they know they'll be dead before anything really bad catches up to them.
But, on the other hand, they have the resources to stay out of the really nasty stuff, but the point still stands.

The longer they stay, the worse it gets, until things get better of course, but I don't see that happening with the current batch of "rich ruling elites".

Like other complex organisms, humans age and die because it is biologically advantageous. Complex organisms reproduce sexually for the same reason. Each generation passes the genetic baton on to the succeeding generation, shuffling the genetic deck in the process, thereby keeping us genetically agile and adaptive. Without this constant 'changing of the guard', the species becomes genetically stagnant and rigid. After passing the baton, the old generation has to make way for the young; that's part of the deal. Messing with something this fundamental cannot yield good results.

But all life doesn't work like that. Single-celled organisms never die; they just go on dividing. There is never a genetic reshuffle. And yet these organisms are very successful. It's often been said that the dominant group on earth isn't us, it's the bacteria.

Even some multicellular organisms live a lot longer than we do. There are ancient yew trees in some English churchyards that go back at least a thousand years. How have they managed to be so successful without a genetic reshuffle every thirty years?

You're right about bacteria, without them we'd be toast, and with them it's ensured that we become toast once we're dead, or bread, so to speak.

Anyway, the brain might be the weak link here.
Great atheletes with well maintained bodies and great diets, and overall good genes can eventually become senile even if their physical shell is relatively fresh even in old age.
Imagine the first 150 years going okay, but then it all dips down for some reason we don't know yet.
What then? Get a brain transplant? But who will you then be? Still yourself? And who would donate? Surely not your fellow rich people, they're busy living forever with their brains as long as they can, too.

Etc.

I don't know enough about this particular gene therapy but it is my understanding that multi-celled organisms like ourselves can potentially remain quite young in a loose definition of that term once what we call aging ends at the cellular level, basically constantly renewed and replaced with new healthy cells. That level of therapy may be a very long way away, but many biologists and geneticists say there is nothing to make this impossible for DNA lifeforms. Aside, we'd better have a lot more room if this ever becomes common but then again given the cost of this crude "therapy" and combined with whatever CRISPR will evolve into, only the very rich will survive... or wipe themselves out in the attempt. It is, at least at this time, quite the Pandora's Box.

Bacteria generally have a higher mutation rate (i.e., on each division there is a possibility for changes in the genes). There is also Horizontal gene transfer.

Maybe by being really poisonous?

That's a good point. Even if there is some magical mechanism to get the telomerase into cells, it's unlikely to get past the blood-brain barrier.

Perhaps eventually they'll be able to replace their brains with electronic devices, which in true Hitch-Hiker fashion would be programmed not to mind.

A vial of insulin costs $26 to make. The retail price at a pharmacy is $1200. I've paid that once.