Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

news.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#81

Post by majewsky »

buboard wrote: post #49
adrianN wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going faster means expending more energy. At some point it won't make economic sense to go faster, even if technically you could. Freeze dried wombs don't care whether the journey takes a thousand years or five hundred, but the costs are very different.

It takes the same amount of energy to accelerate at any speed in space. The limit is our determination really, it is possible to visit our nearby star with ~200 hydrogen bombs

No it doesn't. Your mass increases the faster you go, so that more and more energy needs to be expended to accelerate more. At 50% light speed, you're 15% heavier. At 90% light speed, you're 129% heavier. At 99% light speed, you're 608% heavier. Your mass goes to infinity as you approach the speed of light, which is why the speed of light is unattainable for objects that have mass.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#82

Post by majewsky »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #74
adrianN wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused by people having too many babies. It is also not a problem in countries where anti-aging treatments are likely to be available first and even less of a problem in the rich population that will be able to afford them at first. On the other hand, the promise of remaining able bodied until you die from an accident might reduce the number of ch…

> Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused by people having too many babies. Exactly, so if we don't sterilise people who get anti-aging treatments, what's to stop them from having a litter of children every century or so ?

Probably war.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#83

Post by AstralStorm »

adrianN wrote: post #64
raugustinus wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not free to end our own life when you feel you had enough. There's laws for that. But yes, I'll reflect on my options whether or not I'll have that chemo when I'm in my sixties/seventies.

I doubt that they'll put you in jail after you killed yourself.

On the other hand, they could do that if you don't. There are a few scifi novels where the concept of forced retirement (in form of euthanasia) is explored.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#84

Post by AstralStorm »

adrianN wrote: post #43
garmaine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be no thousand year journies. You’d be overtaken by the generation after which left in faster ships and arrived in half the time. Make the trip in a few decades or don’t bother making it at all.

Going faster means expending more energy. At some point it won't make economic sense to go faster, even if technically you could. Freeze dried wombs don't care whether the journey takes a thousand years or five hundred, but the costs are very different.

At the same time, you could send information, compressed, enough to accurately reconstitute the travelers in spacetime. That would take some raw materials and a plenty of energy. However, the required devices might be much more resilient to acceleration and radiation than any possible human body.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#85

Post by lawlessone »

PavlikPaja wrote: post #72

What you actually see if you study aging carefully is that it isn't anything like accumulation of damage the body cannot repair, it's the accumulation of damage the body can repair. In fact, among the most consistent things you can see is the accumulation of iron, and to a lesser extent other minerals, such as calcium. The body seems to have a really big trouble regulating those minerals, it doesn't even have its own…

Gonnna need citations for all of that..

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#86

Post by AstralStorm »

shard wrote: post #73
SCHiM wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enter K-level thinking: What if we did send a ship on a thousand year journey, and learn more about building fast ships than if we hadn't? Such that the second ship we send, would be quicker than the first ship we'd have sent if we waited a few decades?

Do you put off buying electronics knowing that next year's product will be faster than this year's? At some point you just got to say, screw it, I'd rather do this now instead of waiting for some hypothetical future where the cost-benefit ratio is at its highest.

Additionally, why do you expect the old ship cannot be retrofitted or replaced and travel sped up incrementally?

It should be easy to find a hot broadcasting object in space and rendezvous with it. The crew might face some future shock.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#87

Post by saiya-jin »

lm28469 wrote: post #13
guzik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aging is a disease, there should be no doubt in that. What makes aging unique is that it affects 100% of the population.

That's also the only thing that keeps our population in check. Let's see how we handle the incoming retirement issues, that'll give us a good indication (less workers, more retired people pretty much everywhere in the west, peaking in the next few decades). Living long won't help much if it just means more people consuming our limited natural resources and weighting on our social infrastructure. At any rate most coun…

Not only that, longevity might be proper route to hell for mankind - take the worst dictators, what would they achieve with much longer time on earth. Psychopaths in power don't get better with age, do they.

Generally as with any powerful new tech, inventors/scientists fail to anticipate worst possible usage for it, which is how it will be (also) used.

There would be no way to anyhow regulate it, people would go to great lengths to get it (just look how some are OK with driving animal species extinct just to get potence medicine which is proved to be not working).

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we can avoid it, but it will bring some nasty consequences before it will become a net gain for mankind.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#88

Post by saiya-jin »

adrianN wrote: post #41
antt wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world in which Stalin was still in power. That is what amortality looks like. I can't help but think that this would also completely retard scientific progress. Imagine tenure that lasts a milenium or more. We would still be discussing scholastism.

Imagine a world where Newton could still contribute, peak scientific output wouldn't be before the age of 35, and politicians would tackle long term problems because they will be affected by them too. That is also what amortality looks like.

Politicians tackle quick wins that get them good PR and re-elected in next 4/5 years cycle, plus of course return back all the favors/contributions/etc to shady characters behind governments.

No amount of longevity is going to fix that, in contrary it could contribute to entrenchment of those behind curtains as permanent puppet masters. And we all know that if power corrupts, then semi-eternal power ...

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#89

Post by adrianN »

majewsky wrote: post #81
buboard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes the same amount of energy to accelerate at any speed in space. The limit is our determination really, it is possible to visit our nearby star with ~200 hydrogen bombs

No it doesn't. Your mass increases the faster you go, so that more and more energy needs to be expended to accelerate more. At 50% light speed, you're 15% heavier. At 90% light speed, you're 129% heavier. At 99% light speed, you're 608% heavier. Your mass goes to infinity as you approach the speed of light, which is why the speed of light is unattainable for objects that have mass.

And objects that have to carry their own fuel have problems even at much lower speeds.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#90

Post by buboard »

majewsky wrote: post #81
buboard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes the same amount of energy to accelerate at any speed in space. The limit is our determination really, it is possible to visit our nearby star with ~200 hydrogen bombs

No it doesn't. Your mass increases the faster you go, so that more and more energy needs to be expended to accelerate more. At 50% light speed, you're 15% heavier. At 90% light speed, you're 129% heavier. At 99% light speed, you're 608% heavier. Your mass goes to infinity as you approach the speed of light, which is why the speed of light is unattainable for objects that have mass.

right i assumed low-relativistic speeds. also i got the number of bombs wrong, it's 300.000 not 200. Here's the relevant pbs video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZGPCyrpSU

Post reply on HN