Ask HN: What are you surprised isn’t being worked on more?

I actually wanted to start a social network / organizing app. Around this. People essentially 'volunteer' to move where we need them to. But they actually would move for a few years. Maybe even stay there, permanently. As long as they live there, they can vote there.

Emphasis at first would be red states close to turning blue, or with large electoral college votes. Then maybe states needed for local change, could ask people to move to 'support' the changes needed. Like legalizing cannabis in Utah (we'd need a lot more blue for that to ever happen even via ballot initiative, it's a miracle we got medicinal).

You're right that it's being worked on - organizations like the SENS Research Foundation have been advocating it for years and pushing the field. From what I see though, far more resources are spent attempting to fix symptoms of aging (cancer, heart disease, frailty), than on preventing those conditions from occurring in the first place.

If we cure cancer, at best we're adding a few years to the average lifespan before something else kills you off. If we rejuvenate the immune system to that of a 20 year old, not only are those cancerous cells far more likely to be killed off at an earlier stage, but also prevent a ton of other age related diseases.

I don't think it's something that should just have a blank cheque written for it, but I think that governments should encourage young people to become researchers in the field and should spend far more resources on basic science. We can change the incentives for insurance companies to pay for preventing diabetes instead of treating it.

Climate change is solvable - it requires both research and effort to get us there. Many people are simply not willing to sacrifice to solve it since it won't affect them. We also have tons of older people who go from producers to consumers, and are not contributing to fixing climate change. A 75 year old can be building windmills instead of hanging out on a golf cart in florida. A research scientist can continue their work instead of experiencing cognitive decline. We'd probably experience a short term increase in carbon emissions but I think the long term trend would be much lower since we'll get past the technological hurtles quicker with more people working on the problem.

Two things I've been thinking in this regards:

1. Social network that people vote on where in the political quadrant something is, at the same time it takes into account their own political leanings/upvotes/etc. So you can say this is lefist, I'm right-leaning, but I still like the article, and think it's newsorthy so I'll upvote it.

Basically adding a lot more granular user sentimentality around articles. Letting users organically fact check, but having it all be transparent, you can see the user, and they're color coded by their political leanings so you can know you're talking w/ someone who supported Biden or Trump.

2. News show like Morning Joe with Krystal Ball, Cenk, Tucker Carlson, Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Cuomo, Anderson. -- Essentially voices from left, right, center-left, center-right, and mid-center. All with equal air-time on the issues.

Format could be something like: Announcer announces topic/news. Each person gets 1 minute to respond, 15 seconds for rebuttals. Then move on to next topic.

At the end of the show, fact checkers will grade each person's performance based on the percentage of factual statements vs lies and post it online with the video segment for transparency.

It definitively does. The plasticity of the mind decreases with age, so if we're able to rejuvenate the brain, we would also increase it's plasticity, and we won't stagnate.

If everyone has been rejuvenated, then age would no longer matter. Someone who is 100 can have just as valid opinion as someone who is 25. Better yet, someone who is 100 will still able to contribute intellectually rather than needing to be taken care of by someone younger.

I understand the fear of a geneontocracy, but I think it's unfounded. New people will still be born, older people will get tired of living and opt to end their lives. If age no longer matters, the range of people in ones social group would only expand. The only advantage longer lives people would have is wealth and influence. We can solve the former with taxation and the latter is more dependent on the individual.

I would expect people to live until they got bored.

I don't have the exact number, but without aging, we'd statistically only live until ~1000 on average before getting hit by a bus or choking on a bite of steak.