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

111–120 of 162 posts

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#111

Post by xorfish »

gpt5 wrote: post #100
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…

That's not what happened in practice as health care improved. The retirement age has been increasing together with life expectancy. The market balances itself so that the cost of living adjusts so that an average person would need to work until retirement age. That's why the cost of living is significantly higher in the bay area. For better and worse, this capitalistic dynamic is what makes the US so productive as a…

The retirement age has risen far slower than life expectancy.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#112

Post by hellbannedguy »

giantg2 wrote: post #29
maerF0x0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I did construction, many conversations were about the generous retirement benefits.

It was always, "When I retiree I will be able to do this, and that, in comfort."

There was always the big decision of shouid I retire at 25 years (25 year old working 25 years), or get a few hundred more if I wait until 65?

I knew a person who worked accounting at the union.

She told me the average retire whom waits for the bigger pay day, cashed 3 checks.

3 checks----dead. (I was so shocked by this I never told anyone including my father.)

The wives did get 1/2 of the retirement, and lived off that for 10-20 years.

(I guess I should have been content with any work that offered a retirement?)

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#113

Post by godelski »

gpt5 wrote: post #100
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…

That's not what happened in practice as health care improved. The retirement age has been increasing together with life expectancy. The market balances itself so that the cost of living adjusts so that an average person would need to work until retirement age. That's why the cost of living is significantly higher in the bay area. For better and worse, this capitalistic dynamic is what makes the US so productive as a…

> The retirement age has been increasing together with life expectancy.

I'm unsure with what the issue with this is. But this also isn't true. People have been living longer in retirement. This is often a talking point when people talk about social security. There's a growing gap between when people retire and when they die, and this means people need to save more and that there is more being drawn from social security.

But I do see a huge difference here. If you can live a thousand years then what's the issue of working your first 100? Or 500? Or 900? You talk about capitalism but recognize that capitalism is about consumption. If you generate enough money to live on passive income you don't stop consuming and the wheels don't stop turning. No one stops consuming till they die, capitalism or not. The rich still get rich. But I'd rather have 100+ years of retirement than 20, even if nothing else changes.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#114

Post by lotsofpulp »

kiba wrote: post #109
lotsofpulp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

I’m sure there are cultural and genetic components also, but you can simply compare parents and their children over the past few decades in countries with obesity problems to control for some of that.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#115

Post by WalterBright »

eitland wrote: post #102
WalterBright wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 kil…

The Kibbutzen don't work, either. The Israeli government taxes the capitalist businesses in order to subsidize the deficits of the Kibbutzen.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#116

Post by titzer »

WalterBright wrote: post #80
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.

I am constantly attempting to improve myself. Sometimes, I wonder if I will finally achieve perfection only to run out of time and die :-/ There's a heluva lot I wish I could tell my 20 year old self. Sometimes I counsel my friends in their 20s, but they don't believe me, as I didn't believe this stuff in my 20s.

The bandwidth on that connection isn't great. You can't fit 20 (or 40) years worth of experience through the narrow tube of spoken language without massive compression. A single sentence can stand for years and years of trial and error. Or it could stand for nothing but frustration and regret. Young people have no context or wisdom or experience to relate to. So it's kind of impossible.

Likewise it is impossible to communicate what 20 years of adult experiences feels like to someone who is barely an adult; not all years are the same. And then when they get to 40, likewise, communicating another 40 years of life experience to them doesn't work either. Growing up and aging can only be done first hand.

Compound this with the fact that some old people are just dumb and angry. So young people can and should just shrug off some of what old nutters say.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#117

Post by dalbasal »

jjoonathan wrote: post #91
dalbasal wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Terroris…

> It's a contrived scenario Any time you help people is a contrived scenario? Uhh... I certainly hope not. Putting a valuation on life is not a result of philosophical debate, it's a direct, unintentional, unavoidable consequence of any real-world action we take that helps people. The only way to avoid it is to avoid helping people. Which is ludicrous. > Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They sure…

No, the trolley problem (an example used in moral philosophy) is a contrived scenario.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#118

Post by bserge »

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…

They're not DIYers when using a prescription drug. Something inaccessible to the majority of the population.

Can't wait for a time when trying to delay your death requires serious justification and approval from some asshole whose only authority comes from 5+ years of overpriced formal education.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#119

Post by whatshisface »

apocalypstyx wrote: post #106
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That would require them to be a small minority, which the OP is suggesting would be the opposite of the case.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#120

Post by bserge »

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…

> off-label by a willing physician

Just great.

Post reply on HN