A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

openknot wrote: post #61

moralestapia wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the better they seem, the worse they are Is this common knowledge? I've seen it empirically but I don't know how much is that a widespread feeling. (Not being snark or sarcastic).

I suspect the recent Elizabeth Holmes conviction of investor fraud at Theranos might contribute to the idea of flashy names propping up an unsustainable idea (e.g. with so many high-ranking names in the US military establishment previously supporting the company). I'm not aware of other recent high-profile examples, though I would be interested in learning about them.

Post by AlwaysRock » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

Mandelmus wrote: post #6

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck[1] Often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time." I don't think we really want immortality or unnatural longevity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

Post by odyssey7 » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

VirusNewbie wrote: post #29

People have been trying to “cure cancer” for a while, and though there is some success, we have many more cure for mice, no? However, I have not heard of even a 10 year old lab mouse that has the health of a young mouse. Isn’t that a bad sign we can’t even slow aging (beyond fractional amounts) in a mouse?

Post by onemoresoop » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

mtsr wrote: post #63

Jack000 wrote: post #59

Trying to fix aging for existing humans is like trying to patch a binary that's already running, it would be way easier to build new humans with better source code imo.

But that does nothing to save the rich bastards funding it from dying. Death sucks, but I’m not sure indefinite life extension is a great idea for humanity at large.

Post by wefarrell » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

paulluuk wrote: post #50

Mandelmus wrote: post #6

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck[1] Often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time." I don't think we really want immortality or unnatural longevity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

I'd definitely want immortality in the sense of stopping physical (and mental) deterioration. You can always just commit suicide if you're done. I discuss this with friends and family occasionally, and they all seem to have these ideas that we're "only supposed to live 100 years or so". But that seems like a logical fallacy (appeal to nature) to me, it's not an actual argument. And sure, there are plenty of dystopian…