Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The economic value of targeting aging

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 162 posts

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#21

Post by deegles »

There are a lot of DIYers experimenting with senolytics and Rapamycin therapies for longevity. I expect that in the next 10 years or so evidence will be clear that at least some of these therapies work. It will be undeniable as more and more people start to hit their 80s, 90s, and beyond in very good health.

I'm in my 30s so not in need yet but I'm keeping a close eye on the science.

For example, this clinical trial [0] is studying the safety of various dosing schedules of Rapamycin, and a planned followup study will use the safest dose with a larger group and longer timeline.

[0] https://www.lifespan.io/campaigns/pearl-participatory-evalua...

edit: fine, maybe more than 10 years but within my lifetime :)

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#23

Post by p1esk »

deegles wrote: post #21

There are a lot of DIYers experimenting with senolytics and Rapamycin therapies for longevity. I expect that in the next 10 years or so evidence will be clear that at least some of these therapies work. It will be undeniable as more and more people start to hit their 80s, 90s, and beyond in very good health. I'm in my 30s so not in need yet but I'm keeping a close eye on the science. For example, this clinical trial…

the next 10 years or so evidence will be clear that at least some of these therapies work.

I think you forgot an extra zero

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#24

Post by t_serpico »

dalbasal wrote: post #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 o…

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

Agreed. The authors already made up their mind regarding the conclusion before writing the paper. This is an analysis that should be done by a group not involved in aging research so it's 'unbiased'.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#25

Post by writeslowly »

wgolsen wrote: post #12
mkoubaa wrote: 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 reco…

I've never considered this question before, but if people did live forever, requiring people in certain positions of power to be subject to some sort of incurable, debilitating disease or guaranteed death seems like a pretty reasonable safeguard to me.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#26

Post by jjoonathan »

dalbasal wrote: post #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 o…

Any action you take to preserve life has the side effect of putting an economic value on life.

You invest some amount of effort into the action and the action has some amount of efficacy, so you can always divide the two to find a valuation. I agree that this exercise usually winds up as cheap rhetoric, but I'm not fully convinced it's the fault of the exercise.

Refusing to calculate a value doesn't mean the value doesn't exist, it just means we are letting our instincts decide the value for us, and our instincts are prone to doing silly things like spending the wrong amount of attention on anti-terrorism vs heart disease.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#27

Post by courtf »

wgolsen wrote: post #12
mkoubaa wrote: 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 reco…

... yes? Preventing immortal dictators is absolutely worth keeping death around.

It's hilarious to me how shortsighted this whole thing is, if immortal dictators rule humanity indefinitely, how long do you think they'll let you live?

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#28

Post by wpasc »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #20
giantg2 wrote: 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…

If you don't mind me asking (off-topic), are you less into longevity stuff now? if yes, what made you less into it/possibly more skeptical of it?

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#29

Post by giantg2 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #20
giantg2 wrote: 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…

Sure, it's generally safe. The point I was trying make is why work extra years to pay for a single year when it's not guaranteed. I'd rather quit at 60 and die at 78 than pay $200k, quit at 64, and die at 79.
Post reply on HN