digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Longevity Pill Tested in Humans

technologyreview.com — What if I told you there was a pill that slows aging and allows you to live a healthy life to age 100? Such a pill may exist right now.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • twrife, on 10/10/2007, -46/+2Now you are starting to bend the laws of nature. I don't want it.
    • becominglumberg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29So is any other medication for an illness that used to prove fatal to humans. Is it wrong to want more life?
      • mikesty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24I want more life, *****!
      • twrife, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1You are only supposed to live for so long.
        • jotate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And this supposed age has increased quite a bit over the last few centuries. You attribute it to the laws of nature. I bet if you plot a graph of the average life span of a person against the amount of damage our species is single handedly causing to the natural environment, it would be quite apparent that nature's will and laws have little control over how long we get to live.
        • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If you wish to set an artificial boundary on your life span then you are free to do so. I however expect immortality though I'd accept a few thousand years.
    • meetthescott, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Can I have yours, then?
    • dichotom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I've been alive ever since I was born. They are only extending that.
    • noodlez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1EDIT: nm. i retract my statement. it could perhaps reverse the idiocracy effect.
      • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't a one-time shot feature a greater risk of negative consequences than an interruptible stream?

        Couldn't you describe food as a constant stream of nutrients?
      • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thanks for making me look crazy, noodlez.
    • Marijuana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6A typical evangelist.
    • nikkesen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4We bend the laws of nature every time we take medication to end any pain or suffering or cure, or treat ailments.
    • kebwi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Who are you to dictate the laws of nature? I wasn't aware that they are as clearly defined as you seem to claim.
  • qwerty1024, on 10/10/2007, -2/+64I dont know if it exists or not but I do know this: I can't afford it
    • superpotential, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9why not? if you live longer, you can work that much longer.
    • rodgy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8What about a pill to die younger, for those who don't want to see what the future is cooking?
      • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Try arsenic.
        • Stevethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Where is the good old knot? I mean it worked for thousands of years now and saved the world from many miserable people. Have we grown lazy enoigh that even that we are expecting to get from the medical industry?
      • understudy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm sure a three pack-a-day habit will take care of you in a couple of decades.

        _
  • thepuma77, on 10/10/2007, -32/+11I like turtles.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11You're .. good.. zombie!
    • h0merg0mez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is a time and place for all Jonathan the Zombie quoting.
      • ejmpower, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, like when your answering an unrelated question.
  • JergoR, on 10/10/2007, -10/+26No one tell my brother. The Elston estate shall be mine!
  • futureb, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5MDMA?
  • soulpunisher, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37If you get me to that old then I will also need a pill to get rid of my wrinkly ass.
    • geezas, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1would have dugg, but it had 847 diggs - my phone's area code ...and I just can't screw it up now can I ;]
  • rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4did anyone notice the picture of kevin rose on the ad banner at the top. he looks like a junkie.
  • Urzeitlich, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I've heard this descriptions hundreds of times on the midday infomercials my grandma used to make me watch during The Price is Right.
  • suriyou, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8I love how it says "(At least in fat mice.)"

    I guess this pill will only work on fat humans.
    America ftw!
  • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+67Global Overpopulation Pill confirmed!
    • h0merg0mez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9China rejoices!
    • superdupergc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6tell that to europe
    • EmperorAwesome, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13In an unrelated story, Sirtris Pharmaceuticals has developed a new dietary supplement they're calling "soylent green".
    • kebwi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2That pill was invented a long time ago by a number of religions.
      • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The funny thing is, if that pill doesn't work there won't be any way to get your money back.
  • Kenzan, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6I can haz enternal life?
    Or
    My Grandslam was supposed to come with immortality...
  • Abbeygargoyle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21*flash forward 100 years*
    I remember when I was your age, we had to type on a keyboard after walking uphill 15 miles in a blizzard to post on the internet. You kids of the 22nd century have it easy...
    • profertel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I may have to plagiarize this remark shamelessly because it's hilarious.
  • Alconis, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7Does anyone really want to live to 100? I mean if your life span is that long wouldn't you have to retire at a later age? Say 70-80?
    • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Retirement? I'm thinking quality of life. Bleh.
    • surKaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4People won't care... The point is... They want to live longer.
    • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes and Yes.

      I don't want to become so old that I can no longer function well enough to work (requiring me to retire). If this extended the quality and length of my life, i would gladly take it.
    • profertel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Find a job that you actually like and stick with it. By your remark, I think you must be from my parent's generation.
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'd be fine living to 10,000 years or longer as long as I get to keep the body of a 20 year old.

      If I was 150 and had the body of a 150 year old... I don't think it would be that attractive to stick around (for me and other people who had to look at me).
    • feoren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Of course longer life means you're going to spend those extra 30 years in a dead-end job you can't stand. For smart people, it means they'll go back to college (or stay in college longer), become more educated, invest more in their future, switch jobs when they're unhappy, and generally have a long and happy life.
  • tas246, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17Will it blend? No seriously... at 100 there's no way i'll have any teeth left...
    • volvinator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Aw come on guys, it was kind of funny
  • BkatinUSMC, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I think that old people would be even worse drivers.
    • archd3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i hope cars are driving themselves by the time most diggers hit 100. ...less traffic jams, faster speeds.
  • f4nt0m4s, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I wonder if they are using a placebo to test this pill. It will be interesting to see if the patients on the placebo benefit in similar ways as the people taking the pill...I've always believe that having less stress and maintaining a positive attitude are key factors to staying healthy along with the obvious eat lots of good foods and exercise.
    • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'm sure that's why the mice lived longer; they thought positive! ;)
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Healthy food also means: organic.
      Rats fed organic food had a much stronger immune system.
      Hundreds of studies have shown that organic food contains at least 30% more vitamins,...
      If you do not like stress...it means you do not like capitalism...and I agree! Getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with cooperation would also boost our life expectancy.
      • Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Competition comes from the latin Competere - which means to train together. It's like how olympic athletes compete: they train together, then they compete. Unfortunately, with how modern day capitalism works, companies are competing from the very beginning - which only means they don't have any competition later on. Which makes them worse.
  • Mafoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Wow, how will social security survive!!
    • EmperorAwesome, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Let's hope this does it in. It was a permanent solution to a temporary problem. ***** you, FDR.
      • abdrahman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3FDR never intended it to go this far. SS benefits starting at age 65 back in WWII = maybe 2-3 years of benefits, because most people didn't live into the 70's back then.
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We'll tax the unborn!
  • rrasco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17relative to what? assuming you dont die from cancer, aids, illness, car accidents or bushisms.
  • idc5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Another way to achieve "immortality" :

    'The enzyme telomerase has been proposed as the key to cellular immortality, as a veritable "fountain of youth" '
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase
    • SomaSynth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Telomerase does not repair chromosome damage, nor does it reverse crosslinks, amongst other problems. It would certainly reduce chromosomal breaks, but that only means a certain undetermined extension to life, until other problems begin to pop up. Not that the quote is inaccurate, as telomerase would in effect allow the cell to continue dividing indefinitely, but the cells will still continue to accumulate defects as they divide.
      • EdwardsNH, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"as telomerase would in effect allow the cell to continue dividing indefinitely"

        Yes, that's also known as cancer. Seriously, this has been well researched
    • pr0t0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Also check out the work by Aubrey de Grey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

      He looks like a freak, but is on the forefront of human life extension. I believe his focus is primarily on cellular aging due to mitochondrial mutation and clutter. I think the argument goes: Humans age because the cells age. The cells age because the mitochondria can not effectively clean sub-cellular content because they clog over time. Kind of like a vacuum cleaner that needs the bin changed.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Anyone with a beard that extensive sets off my snake-oil-salesman crystal-healing alarm. I'm not sure why.
    • subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The key is to keep the cells entertained.

      Everyone knows that aging and death are cause by cellular boredom.
  • AlexBellisBrown, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Great, more annoying old people, why cant they make a pill to make women young and beautiful? I could buy that for my wife!
    • ByronT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I'm telling her you said that... tonight.
  • coolmike129, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2It said it worked well in fat mice. So if I get nice and plump that pill might have a better affect on me? I better buy a surplus of twinkies asap!
    • d33money, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dug down for trying to sound really cool.. and having "cool" in your name..

  • idc5, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7They say "30 is the new 20"
    in a few decades, we'll be saying "100 is the new 50"
    • surKaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0or it could be the other way round... 50 is the new (and old) 100..
    • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11And if you date anyone under 30, you will be branded a pedophile and sent to jail. Welcome to the future!
  • ghostlywind, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2If it doesn't slow down my body from aging and make mind still competent, then i don't want.
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5If there was a pill, that could make you live longer... All I know is that it would be very expensive.

    If mankind could ever become immortal, only the few rich jerks out there would be allowed too...
    • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes. Like all the other drugs we can't get... like... um...
  • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1In soviet russia, PILL TAKES YOU!
  • aedes, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8people living *substantially* longer is a terrible idea. Imagine what the world would be like if there were still a bunch of people around from say the 1500's or 1600's. I think it would be much less likely that, say, women would have the right to vote, etc.

    the pace of social change would go from being painfully slow, to practically non-existent.
    • noisician, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4why digg this comment down? he has a good point

      it is often said that scientific advancement is made on the deaths of old scientists. until the old guarde dies, it is often difficult for the young people with new ideas to get into power. and science is theoretically more open to change (since mechanisms of change are built into it) than certain other social, political, or religious institutions.

      substantially longer lives will almost certainly lead to a slow down in change, unless there is some new counteracting force
      • loginx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't really agree with that... If Einstein was still alive and working on his research today, he would very likely have been able to come up with some further breakthroughs, all the while a new generation of scientists would definitely be able to work on their own theories at the same time...
        • aedes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1most of Einsteins most important contributions to science were made when he was younger. the problem arises when older people tend to control more than younger people, simply because they have more experience. But at the same time, that tends to make them more resistant to anything that's not the norm, therefore, stiffling change. Right now, I may be young and reasonably open to new ideas... but if I was still practicing medicine by the time I was 150, I have a feeling that I may not be giving the best care to my patients.

          I think living longer would be less of a problem if there was also some way to maintain youthful mental function along with it... or maybe in order to take the longevity drug, you would have to take some sort of cognitive test to ensure that you are still thinking 'properly'???? i don't know.
        • abdrahman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Look at most nobel laureates... they did their ground-breaking research before they were 35, especially when it comes to fields like Physics. In order for advancement to occur, you need new, fresh ideas about old and new problems; this doesn't occur when you have older people, because they have already invested their life into a narrow field.
  • ByronT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Am I going to get spam on this "longevity pill" in my inbox, too?
  • bdubya, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's not going to make everyone live to 100. It will extend the life of fat and lazy humans with metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Unfortunately, that's a fast growing percentage of our ever increasing sedentary society. Did you break a sweat today?
  • josegutz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Where is my bacon and homefries? I want my breakfast NOW!!!
  • masterstanf2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This just makes it THAT much harder for paris hilton to NOT get any inheritance from Barron :)
  • Enochyang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It's people. SRT501 is made out of people! They're making our food out of people! Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!!!!!
  • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Society depends upon a steady turn over from the generation prior to the generation coming with regards to the workforce. If that turn over gets delayed, as it has with the relatively healthy Boomers, then you see social issues with the generations following because they are forced to wait their turn in entry level positions until the Boomers finally retire (some of them say they will NEVER retire).

    Suddenly this pill comes along and the Boomers who were hoping to stick around until 70 could contemplate sticking around to 90. That adds a couple more generations who will work most of their lives for peanuts while the Boomers walk away with four generation's worth of income. The Gen X, Y, Z and later generations won't be able to afford the "Immortality" pill and so can't even try to make up for lost time.

    Ain't gonna happen without a major revolt.
    • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Society depends upon a steady turn over from the generation prior to the generation coming with regards to the workforce."

      This is because the guy being replaced is dropping off in quality as he gets older. Not because he couldn't do the job as well as the new guy. It "depends" on them because the previous guy will die, not because the new guy is automatically going to be better simply because he's new. That's probably the opposite of how it is.

      It's my experience that these seats you think we are all waiting for are rarely the location of change in our society. Usually some new ideas create a new company, like a Google or Microsoft, who bring about drastic changes. They basically do their thing until somebody else comes along and does it again.

      I seriously doubt this process requires people dying to work.
      • Fartag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It seems like the brain can be kept very flexible when it's exercised (like nearly everything else about the body) which may ward of dementia and keep people "current" and doing new things for a very long time. Maybe stem cells can fight degradation to failure, replace 0.01% of the brain at a time with stem cells that grow new neurons, allow the neurons to 'acclimate', and repeat every so often. We'd need to find much better cancer treatments. Then ancient people can just hang around with all of us getting older and not caring about it once we're plugged into some improved-Matrix and getting busy working out how to fix our longer term problems (sun issues, universal cooling, galactic collisions, etc).
      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It doesn't require people to actually die, just for them to leave the workforce, i.e. retirement. There are plenty of people at 65 who are still rather competent and many who are more competent than the youngsters who will replace them. Nonetheless, mandatory retirement has as a key component phasing people out of the workforce so that jobs open for people going through the most expensive period of life - childrearing. The people most able to give up the jobs are the ones whose kids are gone, whose house is paid off, etc.

        As an example, I'll use my company. We have three managers, all between 45-50. They have all been with the company for their entire careers, all entered the career straight out of High School. a) they wouldn't qualify for their own positions should they come up for bid today because they don't have the minimum qualifications. b) they got these positions over 20 years ago, now, when they were between 20-25. Their replacements, 20 years from now when they retire will come from my generation (I'm 35) and we'll be over 50 ourselves when they retire. Unless I leave the company to forge my own company, I won't get out of the entry position for a full 25 years later than they did and I'll have the priviledge of spending far more on education (and housing, transportation, etc.) just to qualify for the very same position. If you extend their workable life past 65, then you lock me out of those upper positions for ANOTHER 20 years, when I'm already in the hole 25 compared to the previous generation.
    • davidswelt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Life expectancy in the developed world has been growing tremendously over the last centuries, for various reasons. That's a long-term process, of course, but society has adapted to this. For a more sudden change, look at the late 60's/early 70's, when the introduction of birth control left its mark on the age distribution: people have fewer children, and it seems to me that they begin having children at a later point in life. That has consequences. For example, I'm turning 30 next year, and at this time, I'm in full-time eduction (that is, if you count a PhD program as education and not primarily as research work). And I am prototypical of many who do gap years and postgraduate studies and MBAs and trainee programs and what not. Careers are slower, but maybe that is something that makes life more enjoyable - as long as the conditions of work are equally good at the bottom, and overall, they are.

      But my guess is that while this new drug may reduce some parts of ageing, there is still a good chance that you'll be more and more prone to certain common cancers and other diseases as you age.
      • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Have we been adjusting? Americans and Canadians are carrying record debt levels. Adult children living at home is a very common thing, common enough to make every major lifestyle magazine. Relative to the average wage, every major purchase from education to housing to cars is all more expensive, by far, than our parent's generation paid. Net educational debt has skyrocketed, too, because our parents didn't even really need to go to school to get a decent job - my father and his friends ran one of the biggest chemical plants in the world, each of them earning more than 100K a year (in 1980 dollars to boot) and not a one of them had more than a High School education. To get those same jobs, now, you need at least a couple of degrees.

        Our costs are higher, our pay is lower (relatively) and we have to spend a LOT longer in school to get a similarily paying job. That adds up to having less in your pocket at 65 because you don't have as many earning years or you spend a ton of them just paying off the debt you incurred in order to get the position.

        I wholly disagree that we are "adjusting".
  • surKaz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I agree aedes.. We need to recycle humans in order for progress to take place..
    • aedes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0would we still go in the blue recycling box? and would we need to be seperated from paper and plastic?

      for some reason i keep on imagining the skit from search for the holy grail... "bring out your dead!!!"... (i'm not dead yet!)
    • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I disagree. Humans are living longer now than ever before. Arguably as a species we are doing better now than ever before.

      Explain how adding 10-20 years to our lifespan in the last 100 years is somehow different from doing it again. Seemed to work out pretty well the last time...
      • aedes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Adding 20yrs onto our lifespans DID make a huge difference to our health. Alzheimers, stroke, atherosclerosis, diabetes, osteoperosis - all diseases that were relatively uncommon in the previous century. the probability of diagnosis all increases with age (and is of course, dependent of lifestyle...). The likely reason that these diseases are present in our population right now, and haven't been selected against over the course of evolution, is that their phenotype does not tend to exert itself until after the prime reproductive age of our species. therefore, genes for these diseases are still present in the population from generation to generation.

        A bit of a paradox: improving health care leads to longer lives... leads to more new health problems. Here in Canada, one of the major concerns with our health system is the cost associated with joint replacements. The older the population tends to get, the more people will inevitably need hip and other joint replacements... the higher the cost on society.

        Would we be able to a support a world in which a significant percentage of the population is elderly and living with chronic disease?
        • merper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If the scientists who are actively working to combat and treat these diseases live longer? Yes.
          • aedes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0assuming these scientists retain mental capacity, and aren't the type of people who would be afraid to admit that 25years of their life's research was wrong, based on some new discovery, then yes. :P
  • TomT223, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1If this was true we would be seeing old winos everywhere we liiked.
  • MacAttack1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Interesting how it's a chemical that is similar to what is in wine. Italians (in Italy) have a pretty good life expectancy (80 years average).
  • zyl0x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Extended LIFE or extended YOUTH?

    The former not as desirable as the latter..
    • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Kind of like Dune, the spice can make you live forever... but not in forms that you may like.
  • madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Check out this RadioLab Episode on the topic of Mortality, if you are interested:
    http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/06/15
    This contains an interview with the creators of such a pill, not sure if it's the same.
  • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Awesome. So if i take this pill, I have to work until I'm like 90? AWESOME

    THANKS SCIENCE.
  • bytecolor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"What if I told you there was a pill that slows aging and allows you to live a healthy life to age 100? Such a pill may exist right now."
    Well, my first question would be, "Do side effects include your spleen falling out of your ass?"
    • aedes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1..."side effects may include: premature death..."...
  • jenesys, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Great, now I'll have to wear diapers for 40 years instead of just 20.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That would be a disaster. I can't say that extended life is desirable, extended youth -on the other hand- kind of contradicts your statement, you won't wear diapers at all in that case.
  • Crimsoneer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1As if our pension crisis wasn't screwed enough already.
  • jenesys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Plagerize away my friend...
  • behlib99, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1yay to overpopulating the planet!!!
    • xerodeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yay to overpopulating other planets!!!
  • republicker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Ive already tried drinking 750 bottles of wine, I quit at 4.
  • warped, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Kevin Rose looks high on the ad linked to the article.
  • sventolabile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Aging is a disease. And mankind will defeat it, as soon as it becomes possible. Obviously, this would mean longer youth, not only longer and depressingly grayer life. Pensions system, boredom, overpopulation are all false problems. Humanity is used to adapt to revolutions. Just remember that medicine and science in general exist to fight and postpone death. Otherwise we would still die at 30, as in medieval times.
    Fortunately, this is not the only research going on in this field. Check out the work of Aubrey de Grey and watch his talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39.


  • Humanesque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it does work, it will not be covered by your health insurance.
  • Fuline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6they're basically chemically synthesizing the naturally occuring substance "resveratrol". So in other words the longevity pill is already out there: blueberries, billberries, cranberries to name a few.

    I'm a bit sceptical in using a substance in its isolated form because of s-y-n-e-r-g-y:
    "In a human study, 30 healthy individuals whose diets were supplemented with 500 mg vitamin C/d showed an increase of oxidative damage in the DNA isolated from lymphocytes"
    But there are a truckload of studies showing the benefits getting vitamin-c from fruits and vegetables..

    "[...] the benefit of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables is attributed to the complex mixture of phytochemicals present in whole foods. [...] This partially explains why no single antioxidant (vitamin C is an antioxidant) can replace the combination of natural phytochemicals in fruit and vegetables in achieving the health benefits"


    sources:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/517S
  • ChileanGoD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Great, the ones rich enough to afford the drug will live longer. Just fking great.
    • abdrahman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0if you are poor, you should die off as soon as possible to save us from supporting your ass for another 50 years.
  • invariantrob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I can see the headlines now: "man overdoses on life extension pill!"
    • scheibs14, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"...still living at 200 yrs old, driving his flying car to the store to purchase the new Duke Nukem Forever."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.