The economic value of targeting aging • Hacker News Board

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#101

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:30 PM UTC

cptaj wrote: post #48

epicureanideal wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's true. We invest a lot of money in making people productive at their jobs, basically 0-25, and then they only work another 40 years after that. If they could work another 60-80 years instead, the return on investment is much better.

I think he means under the current life expectancy and quality of life in the final decades. He probably means those final decades are completely unproductive and taxing on the whole economy, so a productive person dying just before becoming unproductive would be optimal. Naturally, if you give people more productive years then it changes.

[deleted]

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#102

Post by eitland » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:30 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #72

ohazi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no cohesive "humanity" with any sort of desire or ability to optimize for "the economy." Individuals optimize for their own (often short-term) economic benefit. That's it. The corporate overlords at ACME don't care about fighting obesity, because there are more than enough non-obese workers for them to exploit, and they don't want to cannibalize their highly profitable line of products that obese people need…

> humanity is innately selfish and short-sighted. If this can't be fixed, we are completely fucked. The communists tried pretty hard to do that, and just made things much worse.

This is an incredibly important fact that is often downplayed.

We remember the Inquisition and the Vikings but they are small fry compared to Communists (and Nazis).

I'm not saying Communists are inherently evil - most of them are well meaning I think - but almost every single time it has been tried it has ended in genocide!

The one single exception I am aware of is the Israeli Kibbutz system.

Edit: communism has killed more people than nazism, probably because most people realize nazism is more or less pure evil while communism looks nice (edit:) on paper.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#103

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #97

kiba wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange. Obesity is our biggest preventable health problem, and it gets almost no attention in the media or by public officials. We heard endlessly from health officials and news media personalities to wash our hands, stay indoors, wear a mask, get vaccinated, but nothing about eating healthier, eating less, exercising more? Because it's been going on in the background so long, that it became part of the backgro…

> recommendations and guidelines we should lose weight and get more exercise We also don't understand it, not well at least. You can't go to Walgreens, get a shot and be cured of obesity.

What part of obesity is not well understood?

Societies with easy access to calories and sugar/carbs/sat fats and reduction in movement and increase in sitting have more obesity, right?

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#104

Post by sharadov » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

throwkeep wrote: post #55

mensetmanusman wrote: post #17

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.

It's strange. Obesity is our biggest preventable health problem, and it gets almost no attention in the media or by public officials. We heard endlessly from health officials and news media personalities to wash our hands, stay indoors, wear a mask, get vaccinated, but nothing about eating healthier, eating less, exercising more? "Obesity steals more years than diabetes, tobacco, high blood pressure and high choleste…

Really? There are multi-billion dollar industries catering to the obesity issue - health food, supplements, exercise equipment, exercise gurus. Employers offering incentives since it leads to lower insurance costs. In the USA, health food options have grown tremendously in the last 10 years, but at the same time obesity has gone up.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#105

Post by ben7799 » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:34 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

ben7799 wrote: post #88

This article seems to be about the economic value gained by reduced health care or something. If you actually extended lifespans by a significant margin (say to 200 years) there would be other knock on effects that would completely derail the global economy & markets. This study doesn't seem to think about how those things could actually negatively impact economics. Eventually if you're intelligent and you're trying…

> If you actually extended lifespans by a significant margin (say to 200 years) there would be other knock on effects that would completely derail the global economy & markets Re-structure? Sure. De-rail? No. One could imagine our current low-interest rate environment (interest rates and time horizons are fundamentally linked) as a first step towards that world. You're highlighting a problem of retirement savings run…

Retirees running out of money because the economy is crashing doesn't really match up with "they'll just go back to work".

People might stop having kids too, then there will be no new workers entering the work force eventually if lifespan was extended indefinitely.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#106

Post by apocalypstyx » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:35 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #85

godelski wrote: post #46

I'm reminded of Nick Bostrom's story called "The Dragon Tyrant"[0][1] and David Foster Wallace's "This is Water"[2]. The dragon became so normal in our lives that we do not even question it, like a fish does not question what water is. That we've created a society around this how to deal with this inevitability. But at the end of the day if we could, killing the dragon would be more beneficial and reduce harm by a si…

> My personal belief is that we do not go quiet into that dark night I think many do. One of my takeaways from the pandemic is that there are people--intelligent, informed, unoppressed people--who will self select away from benefits. Even seemingly obvious ones. The fictional dystopias of the last century would have had an immortal elite keeping aging treatments from clamoring masses. I don't think that's how it woul…

Or those who prefer not to (for whatever reason) may be categorized in a way similar to the way we treat the suicidal. Anyone unwilling to attempt to live forever would be considered mentally ill.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#107

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:35 PM UTC

throwkeep wrote: post #55

mensetmanusman wrote: post #17

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.

It's strange. Obesity is our biggest preventable health problem, and it gets almost no attention in the media or by public officials. We heard endlessly from health officials and news media personalities to wash our hands, stay indoors, wear a mask, get vaccinated, but nothing about eating healthier, eating less, exercising more? "Obesity steals more years than diabetes, tobacco, high blood pressure and high choleste…

> It's strange. Obesity is our biggest preventable health problem, and it gets almost no attention in the media or by public officials.

I have seen many, many reports, news specials, CDC website reports about being overweight and obese driving increases in health risks. Michelle Obama, as First Lady, was on top of it and reformed the food pyramid nonsense.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#108

Post by kiba » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:35 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #69

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…

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 heard the effect was effectively not much, so you should be OK exercising. Just that your muscle gain will be a little bit less. This is just what I heard from other people though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Even if hinder muscle growth by 50%, I might still take it.

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.

I doubt calorie restriction actually works for us. I find intermittent fasting easy.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#109

Post by kiba » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #103

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> recommendations and guidelines we should lose weight and get more exercise We also don't understand it, not well at least. You can't go to Walgreens, get a shot and be cured of obesity.

What part of obesity is not well understood? Societies with easy access to calories and sugar/carbs/sat fats and reduction in movement and increase in sitting have more obesity, right?

Societies with easy access to calories and sugar/carbs/sat fats and reduction in movement and increase in sitting have more obesity, right?

I am doubtful that easy access to calories means more obesity. The Japanese is a wealthy society and is less obese than the American, for example.

Also, societies that move more doesn't necessary have an increase in TDEE as society that move less. Your basal metabolism adjusts and accounts for physical activities. you would probably need to go to extreme to adjust your TDEE upward.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#110

Post by fennecfoxen » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

syoc wrote: post #99

908B64B197 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. When you have guaranteed pension funds for an ever growing number of bureaucrats, you HAVE to find new ways to tax. Taxing unpopular things is the easiest thing (and doesn't hurt for reelection).

Tobacco tax does not make or break any budget, at least not where I live. It is also taxed with the intention of reducing sales, which in turn reduces tax income. This is also by large the result.

Heard of tobacco bonds? Financed with securitized tobacco revenues? While many of these are tobacco-settlement more than tobacco-taxes, they've done more to break budgets than to make them.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-wall-street-tobacco-d...