Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

3512 readers

54 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

WhoRoger@lemmy.world

RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world

Awa@lemmy.world

Why longer lives for our dogs could mean longer lives for us (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/health@lemmy.world

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Drugs aimed at extending the life of our four-legged friends could lead to benefits for humans, some scientists believe

Every six months, Casey undergoes careful cardiac testing at a lab; she has been through extensive genetic profiling and is now enrolled in a drug trial that researchers believe could extend her life. Casey, an 11-year-old labrador-German shepherd cross who lives with her owner Kate Saunders in Massachusetts, is part of the growing effort to help dogs live better for longer, and which gerontologists hope may improve human longevity too.

Late last year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) centre for veterinary medicine gave conditional approval for a drug created by San Francisco-based biotech company Loyal that could be available as a life-extending tool for large dogs by 2026.

The news from Loyal has given fresh hope to Saunders, and numerous other owners for whom extra “healthspan” (the healthy period of life) for their pets is a chance not to be missed. The new drug, LOY-001, targets a growth hormone called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor), the presence of which is some 28 times greater in large dogs compared with small ones. (It occurs naturally in humans too.)

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But do humans really need to be living longer lives?

I posit not. 120 years is a perfectly acceptable upper limit to the human lifespan. Plenty of time to achieve goals, while still making room for the next person without monopolizing too much time or space.

What we could use is a more functional life time up until that upper limit. A raising of the average lifespan to that limit, and a way to make everyone that much healthier and functional - mentally and physically - right up until the final few days. Because I see far too many older people linger on in suffering with currently-incurable ailments such as Alzheimer’s or other neurological issues that radically decrease quality of life.

But yes. Dogs do need longer lives. No way in hell is 10-16 years adequate for such fine creatures who have such boundless and unconditional love for us.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

But do humans really need to be living longer lives?

Nobody wants to die.

Death is the ultimate form of oppression, the removal of existence itself.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You can also think about this in another way:

Death is the great equalizer.

No matter how rich, corrupt, brutal, or powerful you are. You will eventually die, and your power will die with you, providing equalization for everyone else.

Imagine the dystopian hell scape we would live in if dictators, aristocrats, and the massively wealthy never died due to age-related illness over the last 200 years...

Rockefeller being alive today, and with wealth and power equaling that of the largest countries in the world. That's not a headache I'd want to live in.

It's quite an interesting dissidence. Everyone wants to live longer (in good health ), the longer people live the more wealth they can acquire, which means that long lives disproportionately favor those who are already wealthy.

[–] MaxHardwood@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'd argue that pooping is the great equalizer. Getting equalized when you're dead isn't helpful to anybody; but everybody poops. Doesn't matter how rich or attractive you are, there are days where it's going to stinky liquid coming out that end.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Rich people have the money to spend on those frivolous tablets that (supposedly) make your shit smell like salted caramel and underpants that capture farts and spray a fresh pine scent instead.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

I think people dying is important for a society to not get stuck and can modernize itself. Old ideas often need to die with their people.

One could argue that this is just because of incompetence of specific people, but I think more and more, that it's ingrained, that we have a build our image of the world to fit our needs and then work with it. Besides some extensions and modifications, it seems that the basics/primitives are staying the same, even when ideologies change.

IMHO we need to die just to give room for new people and ideas

(don't have any source for any of this, so maybe it's just made up bullshit)