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

101–110 of 120 posts

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

#101

Post by dmortin »

bogle wrote: post #66
dmortin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich and powerful would not allow this. They will be the first in line for anti againg treatment, and also they will be the first who can afford this. So prepare for some very old rich people ruling the planet who will live much longer than the serfs.

So, a bit like now, then?

Not really, because rich people today don't live longer than average people.

But imagine a world where we have, for example, 100-120 year old rulers while the average people live 70-80 years.

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

#102

Post by TheCoelacanth »

adrianN wrote: post #63
c1sc0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it takes a generation or two for parents to adapt to the new reality of children actually surviving into adulthood & living prosperous lives.

It will likely also take a generation or two until our anti-aging technology actually works and is cheap enough to have a meaningful impact on the planetwide population.

Exactly, do people really think that anti-aging technology is on the verge of becoming available to people who currently have trouble getting clean drinking water or who are dying because they can't get a few dollars worth of anti-malaria drugs or antibiotics?

A lot of the world can barely afford dirt cheap medicine from decades ago. They aren't going to be able to afford state-of-the-art anti-aging treatments for a long time.

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

#103

Post by milimetric »

saiya-jin wrote: post #87
lm28469 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Maybe people are psychopaths because something goes wrong with their cells, and this research will cure that. Can’t know anything like what you or I are suggesting, but we shouldn’t always guess pessimistically.

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

#104

Post by magduf »

antt wrote: post #30
dtujmer wrote: post #24

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html And here it is in video form as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

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.

People are living longer and longer already, compared to ~50 years ago. Scientific progress doesn't seem to be slowing down, though it has shifted to different fields.

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

#105

Post by magduf »

antt wrote: post #30
dtujmer wrote: post #24

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html And here it is in video form as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

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.

Why would Stalin still be in power because of lack of aging? Stalin was quite likely murdered, though it was never proven. This is usually what happens to horrible leaders when they're in power too long.

Of course, Stalin was so popular that huge crowds showed up to honor him, and 100 people got crushed in the crowding. Over in Spain, Franco was apparently so popular that they never bothered to oust him at all. So if you don't like dictators like Stalin and Franco, that means you also don't really support democracy, since in a democratic system these people would have also been in power due to massive popular support.

Losing leaders to aging has historically robbed us of great leaders too, don't forget. Elizabeth I was considered one of England's best rulers, her reign considered a golden age of 40 years. Marcus Aurelius is considered one of Rome's best emperors, and he was infamously replaced by the horrible Commodus after he died. I wonder how history would be different if Marcus Aurelius had reigned for another few centuries.

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

#106

Post by magduf »

RickJWagner wrote: post #76

Advances against aging are great, but they also call for advances in finances for the aged. With every advance in medicine, your chances of outliving your money go up as well. Better feed the pig!

What are you talking about? If people live longer, healthier lives, then they can work a lot longer.

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

#107

Post by adrianN »

neekburm wrote: post #94
adrianN wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd be worried that Newton would be spending an even higher percentage of his time on alchemy research than he already did, and using his reputation to push promising scientists to do the same.

Modern chemistry was born from Alchemy research. I find it unlikely that Newton would have continued to do exactly the same kinds of things for centuries more.

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

#108

Post by Nasrudith »

xiphias2 wrote: post #95
kristofferR wrote: post #7

This recent interview with Aubrey de Grey (main popularizer of anti-aging science) is really worth listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk (1.5x speed is fine) He seems to think that anti-aging science has speeded up drastically recently, both in terms of the science itself, the funding and the popularity. I really love what the SENS Foundation is doing in terms of spinning research avenues into sta…

I'm still not sure if SENS should stay non-profit. It produced great results, it would get much more money if it would convert to a for profit company. At the same time it's important to keep the control near Aubrey de Grey, as he has a great track record of staying focused.

Non-profit doesn't mean they can't make money - just that they can't outfunnel it to shareholders/owners.

Whether they would get more research funding from accepting investment instead of donations or if the mission would survive is a separate topic.

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

#109

Post by Nasrudith »

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…

I suspect the opposite given history. Humans are very reactive to incentives - more deaths leads to more reproduction so that when threats are gone they stop trying to "out-compete" it. The deadliest wars in history failed to make a dent but peaceful first world nations are leveling off to replacement rate or worse or only achieving it through immigration. Furthermore living long encourages even the selfish to care more about sustainability since "whatever I'm not going to be around for it" wouldn't be a thing.

As for "only the rich" there are only two kinds of tech roll outs - cheaper alternatives to the existing or for the rich first. The previous while impactful tends to be less groundbreaking by definition because it isn't anything "novel". The latter is how it always has been.

We always here "but what about the consequences" but I have yet to hear a proper forecast. Which means it ammounts to stopping development for imaginary fears, pointless. The time to stop is if there are problems in testing /after it actually exists/.

It is one thing to say cancel carbon nanotube body armor or structural components due to being too carcinogenic - it is another to stop development for fear it will somehow create a new ice age, grey goo, or similar.

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

#110

Post by LinuxBender »

lm28469 wrote: post #20
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main connections to longevity people usually miss in this whole "climate change" discussion is one of the main psychological reasons people don't take care of the environment in the first place: and it's arguably their lifespan. Everyone in the west knows that they will die at most ~100 years of age, and if you are basically not in some top percentile morality-wise (and also at that point in your life wher…

But that's two sides of the same coin, individualism. Even if we lived 120 years in average, do you think the game would change a lot, I don't. I don't see drastic changes in young people today, yet they'll most likely be alive in 60-70 years. And for argument's sake, even if it does we still end up with much more people living on the same resource limited planet at the same time. You can already bump your life expec…

I imagine that governments would want to squeeze more taxable years out of people and bump the retirement age to 85 or higher.
Post reply on HN