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

Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

ldeming.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#71

Post by orangecat »

manmal wrote: post #39

Even if we „solved“ death and disease, accidents and wars would end our live eventually. Lifespan would increase for sure (I think there was a model that predicted sthg like 500 years?), but immortality just won’t work.

Correct. Eliminating aging doesn't mean immortality, it just means you don't have to watch your body and often your mind deteriorate over the course of several decades. It would still be extraordinarily valuable even if humans had unremovable biological time bombs that caused us to drop dead at 100 years regardless of our health.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#72

Post by adamisom »

ericmcer wrote: post #70
resoluteteeth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. > I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgei…

People don't want to get old, sick and die, but they also recognize that removing death across our entire species would have scary implications.

Yes. I expect some variation of “society needs death” to be 100x more common than more careful considerations of whether aging research has questionable models

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#73

Post by adamisom »

culi wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are. It's so far beyond our current understanding of aging that there is no way that you are going to turn this into applied science today. These are at best open research problems and they will likely be so for many years to come. Assuming we don't collectively kill ourselves first.

Perhaps its not necessarily a bad thing that there's a delay in this type of research. Given the extreme inequality in the world today, it might end up really hard to overcome the way that that inequality manifests itself with regards to access to these types of medicine/research. Even your own comment hinted that perhaps we have some more pressing issues to figure out first

I’ve always suspected this sentiment to exist somewhere— essentially “death is the great equalizer (and thus good)”—but don’t think I’ve seen it until now.

It’s always been obvious to me that the problem with singular focus on inequality is precisely this — the easiest way for everyone to be equal is to be dead. This is appalling and a strong argument against a singular focus on inequality.

I would say the same thing about wealth. The easiest way for everyone to be equal is for everyone to be poor. So, make sure your preferred economic policies don’t follow this adverse incentive and just “cut the tall grasses”, so to speak, and just make everyone poor and/or limit upward mobility.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#74

Post by gcanyon »

hericium wrote: post #23
DantesKite wrote: post #2

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

I like how aging is explained in "Lifespan: Why we age and why we don't have to"[1]: cells are analog holders of information and just like analog tapes, each copy holds data of slightly lesser quality. After a number of copies, cells become less performant in their job and eventually some lose enough information that new copies cannot function properly enough to survive and/or not mutate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org…

Cells may be analog, but DNA is digital -- with error correction even (or error deletion at least). I don't know the details of the epigenome, so maybe that isn't digital?

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#75

Post by progman32 »

allisdust wrote: post #66
DantesKite wrote: post #2

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

Lets say as a thought exercise that: it is proved beyond doubt that there is nothing after death. And all life human beings included are just self perpetuating complex biological loops no different than a toy with electricity. Lets also assume immortality is found by some kind of fixing of this biological machine and so defeating death. Is such an existence worth living? You would be no different than a straw on wind…

I already live my life under this understanding. Regardless, I wish to continue experiencing the world for as long as is possible.

Could it be that an idea of self-worth tied to a metaphysical immortal soul stems from an attempt towards acceptance of death? What happens if that death is removed from the equation?

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#76

Post by WhompingWindows »

DantesKite wrote: post #2

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

There's a lot happening here, what a wide ranging post! Thanks for stimulating the mind.

I'd separate aging research from attempting to solve Alzheimers, PD, cancer, and other maladies. Cancer is ever-present, sorry to say but most people who read this have some small amount of latent cancer growing slowly. Maybe we will harness the immune system and new powerful drugs and techniques to remove cancer more and more effectively, until it becomes like infectious disease: a threat to all, but usually treat-able.

For aging research, however, we're in a different realm. Assuming someone didn't die from any common malady or old-age related ones, let's say they live to 105. What's likely to kill them then? Well, it could still be cancer, but it could also be solve-able issues like falling and breaking a hip (we could invent machines to prevent or lessen damage from falls). It could be cardiac events, strokes, things where the cardiovascular system has been through so many "duty cycles" that the parts reach their expiration date.

And this expiration date is where I think we'll struggle most. We need to make our hardware last much, much longer if we're to achieve immortality as biological-only entities. The valves of our heart, the vessels of our brain and heart, the operation of the lungs, the sensory organs, the kidneys and bowels: these parts need a lot of extra "lubrication" and "TLC" over our lifetimes if we're to get past the "Age Limit" which is probably around 120 years old.

I'd hesitate to put too much stock into aging research at present. It's in its infancy, and until it ages to maturity, it's going to be an over-hyped area for rich people to dabble in, but I doubt 99% of people living now will ever reach escape-velocity and reach immortality.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#77

Post by ericmcer »

gw67 wrote: post #33

All the public companies backed are now down badly. - METACRINE -92% (1 year) - Unity biotechnology -86% (1 year) - DECIBEL THERAPEUTICS -80% (1 year) - PRECISION BIOSCIENCES -62% (1 year) https://www.longevity.vc/

The investing strategy for longevity companies is probably 49/50 have -90% returns but the you can't miss the one that actually achieves something.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#78

Post by gcanyon »

allisdust wrote: post #66
DantesKite wrote: post #2

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

Lets say as a thought exercise that: it is proved beyond doubt that there is nothing after death. And all life human beings included are just self perpetuating complex biological loops no different than a toy with electricity. Lets also assume immortality is found by some kind of fixing of this biological machine and so defeating death. Is such an existence worth living? You would be no different than a straw on wind…

You should read Exhalation by Ted Chiang mild spoiler, but it is almost exactly what you're talking about, and a beautiful piece of writing.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#80

Post by ericmcer »

dombesz wrote: post #29

Whenever we talk about longevity we cannot not mention David Sinclair, who is a leading researcher in longevity. His recent podcast is the most popular on the topic of longevity. https://podcasts.apple.com/ro/podcast/lifespan-with-dr-david...

I am glad this dude is like 20 years older than me, it gives me a safe buffer to decide if I should hop on his train or not. If he still seems healthy in his 70s it will be very interesting.
Post reply on HN