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

111–120 of 146 posts

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

#111

Post by TheRealNGenius »

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.

Consider if world leaders didn't die. That would potentially mean an indefinite rule in the cases where there is no peaceful transfer of power. That means no change. This means being governed by an increasingly old person, whose ideas and beliefs haven't changed since the stone ages.

"[Death] is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."

Edit: By downvoting without commenting why you disagree, you're only further reinforcing my point. Think about it.

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

#112

Post by TheRealNGenius »

Majestic121 wrote: post #17
bsedlm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you'd say I'm rationalizing it, but I do not believe that death is a problem to be solved As I take it, that line of thought (that death is just a problem to be solved and that immortality is something to strive for) leads to solving death just before going on to "solve" childhood. Why do we have to be born ignorant of the world and must "waste" some 20 years learning about it (possibly more) before we can go on to b…

That's a lot of words, but I still don't see a justification why death (I.e. the end of life) is not a problem for people that do not want to stop living (most people).

I think that Hollywood and other media have already indirectly addressed this. It's simply a matter of how far you are willing to go to achieve effective immortality. Vampire stories essentially gloss over this - you live forever at the cost of coming out into the sun, garlic, crosses, etc. That is to say, the way to become immortal is simply by becoming a vampire. There are exceptions of course, but these transformations are generally regarded as unfavorable, because you cease being human in lieu of becoming a monster.

For me, once humanity achieves immortality, that is the inflection point. You are no longer human. You could argue whether one is human may come before or after that point. But for me, this is where I personally draw the line.

Life saving implants, artificial limbs, illness curing/muscle enhancing/brain stimulating steroids, cybernetic/internet connected brain implants, AI merging singularity brain upload, you name it. It's not necessarily bad or good either way. But at some point, you cease to be human (by my definition anyway). And it just so happens that if you're effectively immortal, I consider that obviously inhuman.

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

#113

Post by alwillis »

chobeat wrote: post #63
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.…

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…

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.

It doesn't have to be that way, even in our current system.

Metformin was discovered in 1922 and is very low-cost to make. It's available over the counter in many countries but in the US and the EU, you currently need a prescription.

It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines [1].

It's used primarily for treating type 2 diabetes. What got noticed is diabetes patients on metformin (on average) outlived otherwise healthy people who didn't have diabetes.

Turns out it activates some of the longevity pathways being discussed on this thread. People on Metformin are also less likely to die from the diseases of old age: cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease.

Now many doctors are prescribing off-label for patients who want it.

There's a major clinical trial going on to see if aging can be treated with metformin [2].

Metformin costs pennies per day to take, so you don't need to be affluent or privileged to afford it.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Me...

[2]: "The TAME (Targeting Aging with Metformin) Trial": https://www.afar.org/tame-trial

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

#114

Post by TheRealNGenius »

rozab wrote: post #53
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.…

Nick Bostrom, 2005, 'The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant', Journal of Medical Ethics , Vol. 31, No. 5 https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

That's the same philosopher who thinks we live in a simulation. They're about as credible as their profession is respected. I'm fairly certain I'd disagree with him in the piece of writing he next pens as well.

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

#115

Post by jamiek88 »

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)

Old age is horrific torture and I hate it.

How I used to be strong and fast and smart and now I’m a withered husk of a man.

Death is to be conquered like all other obstacles fuck this surrender.

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

#116

Post by moonchrome »

galangalalgol wrote: post #32
moonchrome wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of nonsense reasoning had people predicting civilization end within 15 or 30 - back in the 70s... Resources aren't a fixed notion, crude oil was worthless and toxic before we learned how to refine it and suddenly it's a critical resource. Natural ecosystems are considered vital today, but if we were to come up with artificial biospheres we would be looking back at the days people got infected by malaria and…

I agree to an extent, but the matter involved on this planet is finite, the added entropy it can handle is finite. Our power consumption is growing exponentially and that has to stop at some point or we will just cook. We will find new resources like clean fusion energy, but that won't let us sink more heat. We worried about food back in the 70s but then we got better at agriculture, except it isn't sustainable what…

> We worried about food back in the 70s but then we got better at agriculture, except it isn't sustainable what we do to boost the yields, the soil is getting used up. We can do better, but there are simply limits, and with no deaths we will find them much sooner.

See but when you're saying this and mention expanding off earth in the next sentence - why do we need soil to produce food ? Or plants even ? Even now there's efforts to process algae into protein etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all that we have specific nutrient production farms via some simple GMO organism in some large scale industrial setting - vertical stacking, ocean surface farms, etc. Compared to space colonisation this seems far less far fetched.

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

#117

Post by moonchrome »

Terry_Roll wrote: post #47
moonchrome wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of nonsense reasoning had people predicting civilization end within 15 or 30 - back in the 70s... Resources aren't a fixed notion, crude oil was worthless and toxic before we learned how to refine it and suddenly it's a critical resource. Natural ecosystems are considered vital today, but if we were to come up with artificial biospheres we would be looking back at the days people got infected by malaria and…

You are referring to the 1970 MIT LtG model which was updated in 2019 and still predicts a global collapse? https://medium.com/predict/2040-the-world-will-collapse-this... Or the depleted global fish stocks? https://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pd... Or the fact that if everyone went vegetarian we could free up 80% of the farmland in the world? Whilst resource are not fixed, like lab grown meats,…

>What price do you put on having rolling pastures all around your home and no manmade noise around you?

And yet that's much cheaper and attainable than a small "livestock pen" in a large city :) If you don't mind living without infrastructure - building a cabin in the middle of nowhere isn't that expensive and doesn't seem like there will be a rush to this any time soon. Population seems to be heavily concentrated and the rural areas are being depopulated if anything.

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

#118

Post by JPLeRouzic »

rsync wrote: post #98
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.…

"But I’ve never found anybody who thinks cancer is a good thing. Nobody sane at least." Interesting that you bring up cancer ... Cancer occurs when individual cells decide to act in their own self interest and no longer act for the collection of cells that is your body. They ignore cell signaling mechanisms and resist the culling actions of apoptosis, etc. I agree that cancer is not a good thing. I wonder if individu…

> Cancer occurs when individual cells decide to act in their own self interest and no longer act for the collection of cells that is your body. They ignore cell signaling mechanisms

Please could you point to a good reference as tumor microenvironment seems to play an important role?

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

Thanks!

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

#119

Post by gw67 »

ericmcer wrote: post #77
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.

If you have 50 stocks equally weighted: - 49 stock -90% - 1 stock 10x

Final portofolio is (0.1 * 49 + 10 * 1)/50 = 0.29 or -71%

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

#120

Post by krageon »

TheRealNGenius wrote: post #111
ericmcer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider if world leaders didn't die. That would potentially mean an indefinite rule in the cases where there is no peaceful transfer of power. That means no change. This means being governed by an increasingly old person, whose ideas and beliefs haven't changed since the stone ages. "[Death] is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new." Edit: By downvoting without commenting why you disagre…

> That means no change.

This presupposes people cannot change, which you haven't supported sufficiently with your argument.

Post reply on HN