111–120 of 120 posts
If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get sterilised at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Don't worry, poor people will still age and die.
Many medications stay expensive because not big enough number of people are affected. Also don't think U.S. only: how do you stop people from going to China to get the cheap (but well tested) copy of a medication?
"Prime time for an impact" is kind of an ironic title IMHO. People already live quite long, so it takes a long time for longevity to take any significant effect. If a 20yo man became immortal today, he will be 100 in 2099. Who knows what kind of world we'll be living in then? My point is : longevity is such a slow motion process that its impact on society is not as relevant as the pace of technology in other fields.
Having a treatment that allows 20 year olds to live healthily to 120 likely helps the contemporary 85 year olds to live a few more years without being dependent on other people. Ageing populations are a huge problem in many first world countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not climate change? In my mind's model of the future we're going to die within 50 years, this research is useless when the infinitely aged doesn't have clean water to drink.
If "old people" weren't sure they would die within the next 30 years anyway, then perhaps they would actually start caring about the planet.
"Prime time for an impact" is kind of an ironic title IMHO. People already live quite long, so it takes a long time for longevity to take any significant effect. If a 20yo man became immortal today, he will be 100 in 2099. Who knows what kind of world we'll be living in then? My point is : longevity is such a slow motion process that its impact on society is not as relevant as the pace of technology in other fields.
Would anti aging cure mental deficiencies that occur with aging. We lose our ability to learn the more we age. I'd much rather be able to learn like an 18 year old for my while life and die at 70 then be a senile man and live till 100
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If "old people" weren't sure they would die within the next 30 years anyway, then perhaps they would actually start caring about the planet.
As an "old person" this feels personal. What evidence do you have that supports such a claim for "old people"?
Only 29% of Americans over 55 think climate change will pose a serious threat in their lifetime :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's an extreme example, and the figures have moved since that article was published, but currently a wealthy citizen of Scotland can expect an extra 25% life expectancy compared to a citizen raised in relative poverty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an "old person" this feels personal. What evidence do you have that supports such a claim for "old people"?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-y... Only 29% of Americans over 55 think climate change will pose a serious threat in their lifetime :(
In fact, the headline stat of that linked survey is "56% of Americans over 55 worry a great deal about global warming".
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.
In short, the actual overhead needed to produce useful citizens in today's complex society is enormous, relative to the total lifespan of that person.
It wasn't a problem in the hunter-gatherer days because we didn't need much education to learn some simple non-written language, nor much training to go throw a spear and kill some animals and cook them. Things are very different now.
Extending useful and healthy human lifespans would change that equation, and be a huge boon for modern society. Just look at how many women end up postponing having children, or giving up on it altogether, because it just doesn't fit in with a high-paying career. As a result, developed nations are seeing negative population growth, which isn't sustainable.