1161
Stanford scientists regrow lost cartilage and reverse arthritis in major breakthrough
(www.sciencedaily.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
1161 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
85515 readers
4276 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No worries about that, there is no changing the maximum age seemingly, not unless you genetically engineered babies with tech we don't have yet.
Everyone is born with stem cells that carry so many copies of cells that are preprogrammed to die after a point to then be replaced by those stem cells. No drug can make more copies after the fact.
Then of course the dna gets denatured just by radiation and pollution and time.
Neither of these will or can be solved after someone is born. They can extend the average lifespan of a group, but they can't exceed the maximum, which has remained constant throughout human history even as the average has changed drastically.
I thought the central problem was telemore degeneration, not anything to do with stem cells per se.
Happy to be corrected if wrong; I never worked anywhere near this category in my very long ago now pharma/biotech phase.
That is part of it, which is what I alluded to in the degeneration of the dna. The stem cell thing too though. Our bodies aren't programmed to live beyond a certain point. We learned about this in a Nature of Disease course at University.
All of those things seem to be related to information processing, not any inherent property of atoms.
"Then of course the dna gets denatured just by radiation and pollution and time."
Pretty sure "dna" isn't just present in one cell in the body.
Also, how can two thirty year olds make a zero year old baby?
Have you read anything about this before espousing your grand pronouncements here?
Seriously, like, you are so far in left field here, I can't even respond.
https://vadim.oversigma.com/MAS862/Project.html
But lay on MacDuff, pour your great knowledge upon me. Tell me how a carbon atom knows it's in a thirty year old body or 95 year old?
"Also, how can two thirty year olds make a zero year old baby?"
Surely you can respond to this puzzler? Even if I'm in the left field of the Andromeda Galaxy?
Explain away, professor!
If you want to address the scientific points I made, I will respond. Your poetry is neither here nor there, pal.
What's the maximum? About 120?
Imagine having 100 or more healthy years. That seems like sci-fi, but may be possible one day still.
It will also mean working until you're 100 before the national pension kicks in unfortunately lol
Around 120 is maximum yes. I think some french woman might have gotten near 130 but I forget.
Unless you believe the bible, in which case hundreds and hundreds of years. And woman was made from man's rib. Makes sense.
Ngl, you had me in the first half...
They nearly had me in the first quarter, but now I no longer believe I'll ever see it. Not enough young people are born. My generation is enough to support the current old people, but there won't be enough people to support my generation.
Are there enough people at the current system where the top 1% get 99% of the resources? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But there will 100% be enough people to keep the basics going
We are thousands of times more efficient than we were a couple hundred years ago.
The top 1% don't get 99% of the resources, they get 99% of imaginary wealth. It can't be sold off en masse.
Ergo, we don't have a magical extra 100x increase in actual goods and other physical resources per person coming if we just kill the 1%. Things could be distributed much more fairly for sure, but it's not as simple as "these few people own everything so if they're gone, everyone else is a millionaire".
Anyway, much of the "basics" is going to be in person care work with an aging society. We haven't handed that off to AI yet, nor medicine, but once that's happened then yes we can actually handle social safety nets in an aging society. Right now the solution they're going for is a constant increase in retirement age to keep the tax revenue high enough to pay for retired people's needs.