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

NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

blog.newlimit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#131

Post by xvector »

i000 wrote: post #130
xvector wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. In either case, whether technological growth happens or not is irrelevant. It's not worth billions of lives. Nothing is. > Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will…

> But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated. > Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario. I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense,…

> I cannot imagine being part of it.

It would likely be temporary until we find a way to create more space and/or move to a synthetic medium.

In either case, it would be a choice. If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children, thus not "depriving them of the meaningful aspects of their lives," but rather, introducing something more meaningful: the ability to enjoy life without the Damocles Sword of death.

Bodily autonomy/choice ought to be a part of any society, and that includes dying when you choose to die. Who is anyone to tell an individual when they should die? The best we can do is give them the choice, as it's a deeply personal decision.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#132

Post by xvector »

dav_Oz wrote: post #80

If I look around me - and I'm more at the bottom, at grassheight relative to billionaires and UHNWI in general on skyscrapers - I see a host of other immediate "longevity issues". For one there is a substantial amount of people just trying get by and being like 50/50 on the choice of rather being dead already or trying to get through somehow 'till the next day, ad infinitum: from depressives who are stuck in a loop o…

While people working on longevity might sound like "coke heads" to you, generations from now your descendants will scarcely be able to imagine a world where death was not a willful choice, and they will look back on today as "that horrific time when people just dropped dead."

They will find it barbaric and terrifying that people could not live life out to contentment, but rather, were forced to die, and people merely accepted it rather than doing anything to fight it.

Finally, addressing the wealth gap is not mutually exclusive from solving much more important problems like death.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#134

Post by xvector »

libertine wrote: post #50
xvector wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to have centennial billionaires All technologies are expensive at first. To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd. The riots would collapse society. Technology becomes affordable over time. > Part of the game is the renewal process of it. There is no renewal process. There is only a permanent end. A void that you will never escape from. -- Whether you agree with that or not, what's cl…

>The riots would collapse society. Except you're starting to see the first cracks of that, but we're just too busy to see it: when you have people willing to die for a chance of a better life, then you're not that far from it. >To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd. How can you say that when longevity isn't available to all in the current days? >There is no renewal process. There is…

> How can you say that when longevity isn't available to all in the current days?

Because technology inevitably becomes cheaper. Your smartphone did not exist 20 years ago, and 15 years ago only the rich could afford it. Today the whole world has one. Such is the way of technology.

> Of course there's a renewal process, old habits, vices, skewed and biased perspectives of the world are all flushed and reset with death.

Let's say people lived forever. Would killing them at 80 years be justifiable because "we need to flush out their ways of life?"

Humanity can progress without death. It might be slower, even glacial, but that is completely irrelevant because you will experience more net progress in the end.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#135

Post by yazaddaruvala »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #121
datameta wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new generations would be (and are!) quicker to adapt to and create new norms. It used to be that just a few generations ago the middle and elder generations were the carriers of experience and wisdom vital to thriving in the world. This is still true to a certain extent but new societal norms created in large part thanks to the steady (or exponential) march of technological progress are more easily adapted to by…

The idea is that we learn what to do and what not to do from our elders. The older people are, generally they get more stuck in their ways. Most effective way to pivot generational thinking is with turnover (until we can modulate our brain function better, then all bets are off)

I’d very much enjoy being young forever in a world built on collaboration than eventually die in a world where “the last people to die gets their way”.

Actually thinking about this more. Collaboration might currently be crippled because of age and death. When you know have a few more years to live, you just want to enjoy what you’ve had. When you have another 1000+ you can take a few to invest into “getting caught up to the times”.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#137

Post by i000 »

xvector wrote: post #131
i000 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated. > Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario. I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense,…

> I cannot imagine being part of it. It would likely be temporary until we find a way to create more space and/or move to a synthetic medium. In either case, it would be a choice. If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children, thus not "depriving them of the meaningful aspects of their lives," but…

> If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children

No, I am not saying this. Even if only a very small fraction of people decides to live forever (rather than having kids), after sufficient generations all genealogical lines will hit an immortal. Think of it as a human gene-drive. Even a small minority will change the world for everyone.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#138

Post by xvector »

i000 wrote: post #137
xvector wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot imagine being part of it. It would likely be temporary until we find a way to create more space and/or move to a synthetic medium. In either case, it would be a choice. If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children, thus not "depriving them of the meaningful aspects of their lives," but…

> If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children No, I am not saying this. Even if only a very small fraction of people decides to live forever (rather than having kids), after sufficient generations all genealogical lines will hit an immortal. Think of it as a human gene-drive. Even a small minorit…

Sure, and that would be their choice. Who are we to infringe on the bodily choices of others?

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#139

Post by simonebrunozzi »

tomp wrote: post #101
dav_Oz wrote: post #80

If I look around me - and I'm more at the bottom, at grassheight relative to billionaires and UHNWI in general on skyscrapers - I see a host of other immediate "longevity issues". For one there is a substantial amount of people just trying get by and being like 50/50 on the choice of rather being dead already or trying to get through somehow 'till the next day, ad infinitum: from depressives who are stuck in a loop o…

Addressing the "wealth gap" sounds good but is ultimately misguided. If you look 100 years back, Rockefeller was the richest man in history (and might still be...), yet 1 of his 5 children died in infancy of a bacterial disease. These days, such diseases are extremely rare for about 1bn people in the western world, all of whom are effectively wealthier than Rockefeller was. Yes, you can "save" people from poverty by…

> If you look 100 years back, Rockefeller was the richest man in history

Perhaps Mansa Musa [0] has that title?

[0]: https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/human-interest/richest-m...

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#140

Post by tomp »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #139
tomp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing the "wealth gap" sounds good but is ultimately misguided. If you look 100 years back, Rockefeller was the richest man in history (and might still be...), yet 1 of his 5 children died in infancy of a bacterial disease. These days, such diseases are extremely rare for about 1bn people in the western world, all of whom are effectively wealthier than Rockefeller was. Yes, you can "save" people from poverty by…

> If you look 100 years back, Rockefeller was the richest man in history Perhaps Mansa Musa [0] has that title? [0]: https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/human-interest/richest-m...

John D Rockefeller is generally considered the richest person in history who earned his wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_...

Of course, there are many others richer, who stole it (kings, tyrants).

Post reply on HN