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

141–150 of 162 posts

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#141

Post by maerF0x0 »

retzkek wrote: post #76
giantg2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same person, but it used to excite me when I was younger. Now I realize that life is mostly full of bullshit outside our control. I hate my job, so why would I want to live significantly longer when it means working longer? Political and cultural changes could be difficult to handle too.

Climate change is also going to make the world increasingly less pleasant to live in over the next couple decades, directly (weather, flooding, drought, famine, etc) and indirectly (instability, social unrest, war). Unless you can extend your life long enough (and otherwise have the means) to see the other side of this epoch, suffering through more of it is probably not desirable.

honest question, do you think this is true even for middle class or wealthier people from wealthy nations? I imagine we have the resources to just move and adapt.

The way I understood it it's the poor nations that are really screwed. They cannot afford to relocate, and some of them have the worst weather already (feeding into why they're already poor).. .

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#142

Post by cwkoss »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4
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 you have a great way to cure aging but are worried that the FDA does not recognize aging as a condition, that's how you get the treatment to market If you have a cure for aging, I'm decently sure you can earn your ROI without respect to the FDA.

Yeah if you cure aging, fuck the FDA, sell it to billionaires for $1B/year until they are broke, then buy congress so you control the FDA

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#143

Post by Ericson2314 »

ohazi wrote: post #59
Ericson2314 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Individuals optimize for their own (often short-term) economic benefit. That's it. Don't go to too far with this sort of atomistic analysis. Large firms are better at enforcing coordination than "society at-large" or other groupings. The fact that at different scales the coordination is markedly different has a huge affect. We're not an "economy of households" as the orthodox macro might have one model.

> Large firms are better at enforcing coordination than "society at-large" or other groupings. The "large firms" that I'm familiar with are cesspools of political infighting, gamesmanship, and backstabbing. People in positions of power at these firms use their influence to achieve their own goals, often at the expense of the firm and its employees. The counterexamples to this are so singularly rare that they are the…

It's still miles above the e.g. non-interaction of neighbors in the same cookie cutter subdivision.

The fact that people fight over how to divy up a budget vs have completely separate revenue and accounts says a lot, despite all the stuff you talk about.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#144

Post by _carbyau_ »

godelski wrote: post #51
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine being fresh out of school, competing in the job market against a huge pool of people who have been working for a century. Now that I think of it, though, what's the difference between a gerontocracy and hiring the most experienced senior candidates? Is it just government vs private sector?

Imagine going to school for 50 years? You're still a child at 100? Imagine being able to use compounding interest for a hundred years before you start work. I do not think we can approach this world with our current perceptions.

The biggest concern I have is that with current societal expectations an infinite life span would mean working for thousands of years for someone else with little to no retirement phase of life. Effectively, infinite slavery. No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive.

Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever.

Also even if it does compound forever, your trifling savings compounded for 100 years means very little compared to all the elder around you who have also compounded their much larger wealth(having compounded across previous centuries too) across that time. Which means you will still be significantly outbid by most of the customer base for anything you could want.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#145

Post by godelski »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #144
godelski wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine going to school for 50 years? You're still a child at 100? Imagine being able to use compounding interest for a hundred years before you start work. I do not think we can approach this world with our current perceptions.

The biggest concern I have is that with current societal expectations an infinite life span would mean working for thousands of years for someone else with little to no retirement phase of life. Effectively, infinite slavery. No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive. Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever. Also even if it…

> No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive.

I agree. But unfortunately my understanding of history suggests that cultural and political change is reactionary, not forward thinking. I'd love it if it was forward thinking but I'm not hopeful that this time it'll be different. But if I'm right (and I think most people will agree) then there's no real point to this aspect of the argument because it's not something we can solve.

> Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever.

Do you have evidence of this? This is essentially what generational wealth is.

> your trifling savings compounded for 100 years means very little compared to all the elder around you who have also compounded their much larger wealth

I have a bit of a controversial opinion on this (though I'm not sure why). I don't think it is about how far the ladder goes up, I'm more concerned with where the lowest rung is. If moving the lowest rung up requires shortening the ladder, so be it. But if it doesn't, so be it. If you can have a house, food, healthcare, and all your basic needs taken care of (which I presume will continue to increase as we take care of more needs. Moving goal post) then that is a win. I don't care how high the ladder goes if the lowest rung is post scarcity. If every person can has all their needs taken care of I don't care if there's a few x-airs that have quantum space yachts with holodecks. You don't have to compare yourself to everyone else. Everyone doesn't need to be equal. That's not a requirement to create a post scarcity world where everyone can pursue their dreams without worry of hunger or health. Inflation adjusted, food has become become a lot cheaper over the last hundred years, so at least one of those things is on the right track. What we're talking about would put healthcare on the right track (especially if you're pro single payer). Seems the other ones will similarly decrease in price as they become necessary (again, back to the reactionary nature).

Maybe you disagree though. But as long as there are people, like you, pushing for these things, I have good reason to believe we will obtain them.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#146

Post by apocalypstyx »

whatshisface wrote: post #119
apocalypstyx wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess it depends on the validity of the arguments put forth in Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death.

The important distinction between longevity and the situation surrounding the pandemic is not the rejection of a benefit, but the construction of a fantasy that allows the rejection of the benefit by re-framing it as a detriment. The pandemic itself is recast as 'not that bad' or a 'falsification', further removing the contemplation of the immediacy of death. And with the immediate obstacle removed the subject is able to slip back into fantasies of eternity, of one kind or another, whether implicit or explicit.

Considering how most Western societies (and many others) view suicide, it seems unlikely to me that it would be considered socially acceptable for someone to choose to live half as long as they had the technical option to. Taking the average age of death as 72, would the mental health of someone who chose to die at 36 from a preventable illness not be taken into question? As with sterilization, and other medical procedures such as birth control more broadly and assisted suicide for those suffering extreme medical conditions, bodily autonomy that runs against greater social expectation is resisted.

Or, if the technology had to be administered early, would those who withhold such treatment from their children be considered guilty of child abuse? Again, in current terms, if a child suffered from a medical condition that would kill them at 36, but which was treatable, would it seem likely that the parents, in our present society, would be charged with child abuse?

It's simply a matter of sliding the mark. Cultural attitudes could (and probably would) remain the same. Our fundamental fantasies already provide the basis for and are predicated on eternities. So the reality of longevity merely slots into extant dispositions. So it may not be as revolutionary as suspected.

There would, of course, be those who rejected the technology, but most would do so, I would say, because they believe themselves to possess an alternate way into eternity, perhaps religious, or to be abducted by aliens, but the goal would be the same, whether the efficacy is up to snuff or not.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#147

Post by cwkoss »

cwkoss wrote: post #142
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you have a great way to cure aging but are worried that the FDA does not recognize aging as a condition, that's how you get the treatment to market If you have a cure for aging, I'm decently sure you can earn your ROI without respect to the FDA.

Yeah if you cure aging, fuck the FDA, sell it to billionaires for $1B/year until they are broke, then buy congress so you control the FDA

On second thought, you could certainly buy our mostly-geriatric congress with the cure directly, and probably sidestep a bunch of messy FEC regulations

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#148

Post by maroonblazer »

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'm skeptical of miracle cures. The increases we've seen in life expectancy over the last 100+ years has more to do with eliminating low-hanging fruit - e.g. smoking, vaccines, eliminating infection, diagnostic technologies and treatments, etc. I think we'll continue to make incremental gains via this approach such that avg life expectancy inches up by single digits for the foreseeable future.

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#149

Post by MarkMc »

Thereputic Plasma Exchange (ie. exchanging blood plasma with saline and albumin) seems a very promising treatment for aging. [1] [2]

"These findings are exciting not only because they represent a scientific advance in understanding aging, but also because they herald the first real anti-aging product that could come to market. Therapeutic plasma exchange is FDA-approved (not for aging, but for a bunch of other conditions). I imagine there remain prohibitions on advertising that it can add years to your life, but it is safe, and a doctor can prescribe it off label. It’s also cheap. An automated plasmapheresis machine—which lets you do treatment after treatment—can be bought online for under $3,000. That is less than the cost of a single transfusion of young blood sold by the startup Ambrosia. How long until someone opens a clinic offering plasma dilution? I bet someone tries it in 2021. If it works, people will get over the weirdness, and it could be commonplace by 2030." [3]

[1] https://www.aging-us.com/article/103418/text#fulltext

[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-020-00297-8

[3] https://elidourado.com/blog/notes-on-technology-2020s/

Re: The economic value of targeting aging

#150

Post by _carbyau_ »

godelski wrote: post #145
_carbyau_ wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest concern I have is that with current societal expectations an infinite life span would mean working for thousands of years for someone else with little to no retirement phase of life. Effectively, infinite slavery. No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive. Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever. Also even if it…

> No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive. I agree. But unfortunately my understanding of history suggests that cultural and political change is reactionary, not forward thinking. I'd love it if it was forward thinking but I'm not hopeful that this time it'll be different. But if I'm right (and I think most people will agree) then there's no real point to this aspect of the argument because it'…

Your controversial opinion is not bad as a vision. But I don't think it would work out that way unless aforementioned significant societal changes occur.

As a newcomer, you won't be able to buy a home. Similar to now, there will be many other more wealthy people who want to buy that home "as an investment" so they can keep growing their wealth in relation to their peers.

I already fear we are heading towards economic feudalism. Throw in living forever and I fear something more akin to SLA Industries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLA_Industries

As you say though, with people pushing for things, hopefully significant societal change would avoid such a disastrous future.

edit - more concise.

Post reply on HN