21–30 of 112 posts
Whats interesting is that according to the Bible humans lived from several hundred years to ~1000 years. Now this article is saying "The increase in lifespan would be the equivalent of a human living for 400 or 500 years, according to one of the scientists." Mind blown! Ages of the Patriarchs from Adam to Noah: 1. Adam 930years Genesis 5:4; 2. Seth 912years Genesis 5:8; 3. Enosh 905years Genesis 5:11; 4. Cainan 910ye…
Why does it seem no one worries about what we might break in humanity by disrupting the evolved pattern of death. It's a network characteristic selected for in living system, and very few creatures have survived into our epoch without developing the capacity to die.
It's literally an evolved feature of our lifecycle and our existence within this web, and it terrifies me (esp everything going wrong already in our world) that we're not being more critical and cautionary toward life-extension....
Every time I read about life extension, I have almost zero positive thoughts about its effect on our common good, and it's just "oh shit, this is going to have bad outcomes for us all" :/ It's pursuit feels like peak selfishness in our individualistic society, one that really need collectivist thinking.
All longevity accomplishments work better with smaller animals. The increase of the lifespan decreases with the size of the animal. If the increase of healthy human lifespan is something like 5% that would be a huge accomplishment and nothing to sneer at.
Many orthopaedists in my circle tell me that with all the office work we probably should be glad if we die with 60. These approaches focus on cardiovascular system and general cell renewal, but I guess there are just a few more steps until immortality.
To the joint problems you are mentioning: we are already replacing various joints and bone parts in the body. The solutions aren't perfect though, there are risks of infection, death by septic shock, people often have pains, etc.
Surprise, a counter-argument on hacker news! :) Why does it seem no one worries about what we might break in humanity by disrupting the evolved pattern of death. It's a network characteristic selected for in living system, and very few creatures have survived into our epoch without developing the capacity to die. It's literally an evolved feature of our lifecycle and our existence within this web, and it terrifies me…
Surprise, a counter-argument on hacker news! :) Why does it seem no one worries about what we might break in humanity by disrupting the evolved pattern of death. It's a network characteristic selected for in living system, and very few creatures have survived into our epoch without developing the capacity to die. It's literally an evolved feature of our lifecycle and our existence within this web, and it terrifies me…
Surprise, a counter-argument on hacker news! :) Why does it seem no one worries about what we might break in humanity by disrupting the evolved pattern of death. It's a network characteristic selected for in living system, and very few creatures have survived into our epoch without developing the capacity to die. It's literally an evolved feature of our lifecycle and our existence within this web, and it terrifies me…
These conversations frequently tend to devolve into a long discussion about the negative on hacker news.
In fact, 3 years ago I wrote that this story should be banned from HN:
https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...
“Death gives life meaning”
“It’ll only be for rich people”
“The money should be spent on something better.”
If we spent as much time trying to solve the problem, rather than having philosophical discussions, we’d all probably be living to 200 by now.
Surprise, a counter-argument on hacker news! :) Why does it seem no one worries about what we might break in humanity by disrupting the evolved pattern of death. It's a network characteristic selected for in living system, and very few creatures have survived into our epoch without developing the capacity to die. It's literally an evolved feature of our lifecycle and our existence within this web, and it terrifies me…
All longevity accomplishments work better with smaller animals. The increase of the lifespan decreases with the size of the animal. If the increase of healthy human lifespan is something like 5% that would be a huge accomplishment and nothing to sneer at.
Many orthopaedists in my circle tell me that with all the office work we probably should be glad if we die with 60. These approaches focus on cardiovascular system and general cell renewal, but I guess there are just a few more steps until immortality.