Live data from Hacker News

The economic value of targeting aging

nature.com

11–20 of 162 posts

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#11
post #8

"the WTP at birth for the initial 1-year increase in remaining LE from 78.9 to 79.9 years via rectangularization is US$118,100, the WTP at age 60 for the first 1-year increase in remaining LE from 21.7 to 22.7 years through lifespan improvement is US$257,700." Who the fuck did they get to determine willingness? Most people don't have the money to spend. If it takes you years of extra work to pay for a one year life e…

At a guess, old people have a house or something they can sell for that much.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#12
post #3

The average age of university presidents and members of Congress in the USA is in the 70s. At the risk of sounding callous can we fix our gerontoctratic system and then fix aging?

My favorite response to this and related objections to ending aging (such as “what about the dictators”): imagine a scenario where humans did not age, but still had the problems of “gerontocracy” and dictatorships. Would you propose subjecting the whole of humanity to debilitating degenerative diseases and ultimately death to solve these societal problems?

I picked this up from Ageless by Andrew Steele, a highly recommended and very current overview of the field of aging research.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#13
post #11
post #8

"the WTP at birth for the initial 1-year increase in remaining LE from 78.9 to 79.9 years via rectangularization is US$118,100, the WTP at age 60 for the first 1-year increase in remaining LE from 21.7 to 22.7 years through lifespan improvement is US$257,700." Who the fuck did they get to determine willingness? Most people don't have the money to spend. If it takes you years of extra work to pay for a one year life e…

At a guess, old people have a house or something they can sell for that much.

Given the massive gap between what people should have for retirement and the little they actually save, they probably need that money for necessities. That's what most people using reverse mortgages use it for today.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#14
This reminds me of some articles that came out when the states sued the tobacco companies in the 1990s. Many asked why the US federal government did not sue as well, and the answer turned out to be that smoking is good for the federal government finances. It tends to kill people quickly (heart attack) just after they retire and start collecting social security.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#16
post #3

The average age of university presidents and members of Congress in the USA is in the 70s. At the risk of sounding callous can we fix our gerontoctratic system and then fix aging?

Honestly why is that a problem? Wouldn't one thing that we'd want the people with the most experience in higher level management positions. I don't think the problem with Congress is that members are in their 70s. The problem is that ideally they would have real jobs till their 60s THEN run for government. Instead they bum around various government roles till they get elected in their 30s and once they are there dig…

Self-fulfilling policy is the best policy.

Also: "...like tic[-tac-toe]

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#18

It’s obvious that healthy people that live shorter are better for the ‘economy’ but clearly humanity doesn’t live to optimize for the economy. If we did, we would be fighting obesity with 10x the seriousness of how we fight COVID.

basically anything that wasnt a long term compounding investment would be illegal... Obvious things like smoking and vaping, but maybe even time wasters like social media (you could be learning something...)

Luckily human life is more than just economy (as expressed in GDP) optimization.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#19
I only skimmed past the abstract (wolverine case is gold, lol) feel that such an analysis gets squirrely, both morally and technically.

A few years back, there seemed to be a desire to justify cigarette taxes with a "it costs the state money when you get cancer" rationale. Some of the analysis seemed to indicate opposite results. Lung cancer, for example, tends to kill more quickly than age related diseases, saving on nursing home costs and palliative care. Everyone dies of something after all, and death is expensive as is aging.

Either way, it seems kind of strange to place economic values on life itself. I mean isn't economic utility premised on life?

In any case, it seems trivially true that economic measures will always correlate with either population size working age population size, depending on the model.

I feel like these kinds of papers only exist to be cited in support of cheap rhetoric.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#20
post #8

"the WTP at birth for the initial 1-year increase in remaining LE from 78.9 to 79.9 years via rectangularization is US$118,100, the WTP at age 60 for the first 1-year increase in remaining LE from 21.7 to 22.7 years through lifespan improvement is US$257,700." Who the fuck did they get to determine willingness? Most people don't have the money to spend. If it takes you years of extra work to pay for a one year life e…

Back when I was _really_ into longevity stuff, aubrey de gret etc... I seem to recall that even if we removed all forms of aging people would have an expected lifespan of roughly 1000 years due to trauma death (eg: getting hit by a bus) . So that could serve as a rough rule of thumb for how to think about risk/reward on increasing health in later years. That is it generally has a good EROI for how safe (accident wise) our society actually is.
Post reply on HN