>>2496
Probably quite a while. This is interesting science, but to get it in humans you'd either have to mess with those genes before fertilization (political nightmare) or use some sort of gene therapy (which you can count on one hand the number of times we've gotten to work).

Also I'm not so sure messing with tumor suppressors is a good idea. But if we can figure out a way to locally and temporarily inactivate them? Fuck, this could be really useful.

I'd say a century (low end) before it becomes feasible to pull this off in humans.

>>2498
>Also I'm not so sure messing with tumor suppressors

Kinda the same logic thats suppressing a lot of things for aging as well, as this article sums up pretty well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

>Mice make telomerase throughout their lives, but the enzyme is switched off in adult humans, an evolutionary compromise that stops cells growing out of control and turning into cancer. Raising levels of telomerase in people might slow the ageing process, but it makes the risk of cancer soar.

Both of these techniques would probably be better used for short term therapies rather than long term alterations.

All I know is that 126 years ago, life extension science was limited to eating well and not getting a degenerative wasting disease. And antitoxin. 25 years ago, we made a vaccine for hepatitis A. Three years ago, they developed "embryonic stem cells" from human skin cells.

By 2064, I fully expect my life expectancy to shoot up by a thousand years.

Oh, another related story. I nice summary of what I had to take Human Genetics to learn:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/human-genome_b_803069.html

tl;dr This is why we don't have cloned warriors/facists.

>>2659
>What's even more striking is that if your DNA is tagged by an environmental factor, such as a pesticide, the impact this environmental factor has on your genes can be passed down through generations. The "epigenome" become inheritable. That means if your grandmother ate too much sugar, or smoked, or was exposed to mercury from too much sushi, the genetic modifications she incurred from this exposure could affect you. Her epigenome would carry an increased risk of disease that could be passed down from generation to generation. Interestingly, the Darwinian and Lamarckian worldviews are intersecting in 2010.

Holy hell I've been pondering this for ten fucking years. I thought I was crazy for even considering this was legitimately possible.

>>2665
So it turns out Lamark was right.