Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

Post by molpeio » Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

bsedlm wrote: post #82

WhitneyLand wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, how about if all efforts are aimed only at eliminating sickness and suffering? If somehow that were possible for all ages would you be for that? Then, since death is not a problem we could just “schedule” it for some reasonable date in the future to retain all the philosophical benefits it brings? You first?

thing is, I've begun to consider old age as a graceful easing out of life, as if without old age ceasing to be alive can only be violent affair (violent like an explosion or a high-speed crash)

Post by chobeat » Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 7:32 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #69

chobeat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a deep mischaracterization of positions against aging research. People are against because in the way it's conducted and given the existing social order, it will reinforce inequalities and make the world a worst place. If you are more privileged you will live longer and have more chances to concentrate money and power for yourself or your family and away from less privileged people. This is even more the case…

Wealthier societies and individuals always get the first shot at new technologies, so this is a general argument against any improvement until we've established global communism. Cancer treatments and Covid vaccines have not made the world worse despite being unevenly distributed. It's a particularly bad argument here because mitigating the harmful effects of aging would result in massive reductions in medical expens…

Post by etherealpine » Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

gcanyon wrote: post #74

hericium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by culi » Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

adamisom wrote: post #73

culi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by ypeterholmes » Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

netfortius wrote: post #56

I hate it when this type of info does not have a date attached to the main article, right in the beginning. I could assume some years, by looking at the references and some mentioned inside (2016?!? A little after?!?), but in today's accelerated scientific progress, especially in the light of recent developments of successful applications, post-COVID appearance, it is hard to determine how authoritative this info is.