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

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#61

Post by kiba »

courtf wrote: post #35

The quest for immortality is popular, but it would mean the end of physical and cultural evolution. Seems as though this topic is gaining steam now, only as a large corpus of aging narcissists are finally grappling with the concept of death. It's another sign of the selfish immaturity ingrained into our culture.

This is nonsense. We change everyday through forgetting and remembering and learning. Physical and cultural evolution don't stop.

It's another sign of the selfish immaturity ingrained into our culture.

Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture.

One of our very first epic poems, the Epic of Gilgamesh basically railed against immortality and accepting one's fate.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#62

Post by dalbasal »

jjoonathan wrote: post #26
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 do…

This has a "trolley problem" feel to it. It's a contrived scenario that doesn't reflect real life.

I'm not suggesting that all our decision making is good. Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. A model of the world where everything competes with everything isn't a good one for decision making. Just like "don't build a particle collider until we have solved poverty" is not a workable approach.

Terrorism & heart disease don't have the same consequences, socially, politically or geopolitically. We're not machines. Even in machines' decision making, such moral calculus doesn't really play. Self driving cars won't, and don't need to solve the trolley problem any more than we do.

..and don't underestimate our instincts. They may not be as "perfect" as legible reasoning, but they are far more complete.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#63

Post by courtf »

kiba wrote: post #61
courtf wrote: post #35

The quest for immortality is popular, but it would mean the end of physical and cultural evolution. Seems as though this topic is gaining steam now, only as a large corpus of aging narcissists are finally grappling with the concept of death. It's another sign of the selfish immaturity ingrained into our culture.

This is nonsense. We change everyday through forgetting and remembering and learning. Physical and cultural evolution don't stop. It's another sign of the selfish immaturity ingrained into our culture. Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture. One of our very first epic poems, the Epic of Gilgamesh basically railed against immortality and accepting one's fate.

> Physical and cultural evolution don't stop.

If someone lives forever, they don't evolve physically. This is basic. To the degree we evolve culturally, most of our culture comes to us in our eponymous "formative years." Leaving those behind tends to result in comparatively little change in culture over the remaining course of our lives.

> Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture.

I rest my case.

> One of our very first epic poems, the Epic of Gilgamesh basically railed against immortality and accepting one's fate.

This was not a call to try and live forever, this is a call to live boldly, take risks and not to fear death. Striving for immortality is the absolute opposite, the coward's response to the challenge made in the poem.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#64

Post by ska »

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…

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

It's an interesting area, and at least some empirically useful work is being done, but both the expectation and the timeline here seem pretty ambitious.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#65

Post by ska »

philipkglass wrote: post #2

A cure for aging only needs to get through human clinical trials for treating one aging-associated condition like osteoporosis. Once it has FDA approval for treating that one condition it can be prescribed off-label by a willing physician. If the osteoporosis treatment has unusual side effects of also making skin appear more youthful, improving short term memory, and increasing libido, then there will probably be a l…

If anyone actually comes up with an empirically verified treatment for aging (let alone a "cure"), market access or payment is not a problem they will face.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#66

Post by sigstoat »

courtf wrote: post #63
kiba wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. We change everyday through forgetting and remembering and learning. Physical and cultural evolution don't stop. It's another sign of the selfish immaturity ingrained into our culture. Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture. One of our very first epic poems, the Epic of Gilgamesh basically railed against immortality and accepting one's fate.

> Physical and cultural evolution don't stop. If someone lives forever, they don't evolve physically. This is basic. To the degree we evolve culturally, most of our culture comes to us in our eponymous "formative years." Leaving those behind tends to result in comparatively little change in culture over the remaining course of our lives. > Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture. I r…

> If someone lives forever, they don't evolve physically.

you skipped some lessons in biology class; you're not doing any evolving over the course of _your_ life. regardless of how long or short it is.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#67

Post by Ostrogodsky »

courtf wrote: post #63
kiba wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. We change everyday through forgetting and remembering and learning. Physical and cultural evolution don't stop. It's another sign of the selfish immaturity ingrained into our culture. Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture. One of our very first epic poems, the Epic of Gilgamesh basically railed against immortality and accepting one's fate.

> Physical and cultural evolution don't stop. If someone lives forever, they don't evolve physically. This is basic. To the degree we evolve culturally, most of our culture comes to us in our eponymous "formative years." Leaving those behind tends to result in comparatively little change in culture over the remaining course of our lives. > Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture. I r…

Please feel free to end your life at your convenience, billions of others will take the opportunity of living for as much as possible.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#68

Post by [deleted] »

p1esk wrote: post #23
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

[deleted]

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#69

Post by nostromo »

I used metformin for a bit, but stopped because it was found to hinder muscle growth. I decided for the time being I’d rather look and feel good and not be a fragile waif in the hopes of living a bit longer.

I came to similar conclusions about calorie restriction. These schemes tend to slow or restrict growth and energy levels, which is a real side effect we should be discussing more.

Rapamycin seems promising though. It appears you can cycle on and off it and get most of the anti-aging benefits, while limiting the effects of blocking protein synthesis.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#70

Post by courtf »

sigstoat wrote: post #66
courtf wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Physical and cultural evolution don't stop. If someone lives forever, they don't evolve physically. This is basic. To the degree we evolve culturally, most of our culture comes to us in our eponymous "formative years." Leaving those behind tends to result in comparatively little change in culture over the remaining course of our lives. > Selfish immaturity? It seems that you yourself is a reflection of culture. I r…

> If someone lives forever, they don't evolve physically. you skipped some lessons in biology class; you're not doing any evolving over the course of _your_ life. regardless of how long or short it is.

Evolution, by definition, occurs over the course of generations. So angry and yet so wrong.

If a population lives forever, do you really think they'll continue having kids the entire time? Of course not.

Post reply on HN