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

Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

polytechnique-insights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#21

Post by jquery »

kajaktum wrote: post #11
jackblemming wrote: post #3

Interestingly the people who say others should die to “fix” overpopulation change their minds when they’re up. We can solve overpopulation in other ways than letting people die.

It's obviously bad to want other people to die but there is a case to be made that no life (that can suffer) should be created. It also depend on what we mean by immortal, are they technically just alive? Or actively flourishing?

It’s not necessary to do that, but we would have to move away from the current free for all. Probably a strict waiting list to have children, or something simpler like a one child policy.

Sustainability would become vastly more important than our current short term horizons.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#23

Post by syncerr »

While I don’t find the arguments in the article compelling (ie population increases are good as they lead to growth), enabling humans to live forever has a more dire consequence: an acceleration of the inequality gap.

Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Without it, power will accumulate to those who already have it, forever.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#25

Post by teaearlgraycold »

syncerr wrote: post #23

While I don’t find the arguments in the article compelling (ie population increases are good as they lead to growth), enabling humans to live forever has a more dire consequence: an acceleration of the inequality gap. Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Without it, power will accumulate to those who already have it, forever.

> Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power.

Have you heard of inheritance?

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#26

Post by bpodgursky »

civilized wrote: post #13
BurningFrog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bioethicist, your job description is to find a problematic angle on anything. No one is paying you to say everything is fine!

Hm, is that an ethical way to approach ethics? I think it's problematic, honestly.

The field of bioethics would never pass an IRB.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#27

Post by hello1234567 »

01100011 wrote: post #19

We can't currently cure aging and there is little convincing evidence that suggests we will be able to anytime soon. This is despite the claims of many attempts at peddling false hopes by folks like David Sinclair and Aubrey de Grey. We can mitigate some downsides of aging at best. Aging is baked into our genes as natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach.

yes. current medical science is having issues treating simple thing with humans (paralysis or any thing related to it ). solving aging, may be in next 500 years.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#29

Post by whichfawkes »

jackblemming wrote: post #3

Interestingly the people who say others should die to “fix” overpopulation change their minds when they’re up. We can solve overpopulation in other ways than letting people die.

Just because I might turn chicken in my old age doesn't mean that my death wouldn't be a benefit for most people.

There's one other way to "solve" overpopulation, and it's galactic conquest. Everything else we might do eventually devolves into nothing but shades of austerity and deprivation as we divide our planet up between more people.

That's not to say that technical progress won't mitigate that problem. And yet, as it mitigates it, we tend to just make more people...so it's not like we're manufacturing much more runway for ourselves as a species.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#30

Post by XorNot »

h0l0cube wrote: post #4
XorNot wrote: post #2

Yes. No question. "Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we let them be, it's not innate. Maybe we might do something about the problem when there's a risk it'll last forever rather then pretending it's not a systemic failure. If it's possible to do, it's going to be done: the question is actually "should we let poor p…

Are you advocating accelerationism for The Purge?

I'm saying that if clinical immortality is possible and you're asking "ethical questions" about doing it, what you're actually providing cover for is "we shouldn't give it to the poor" - which is as morally bankrupt a position as it ever was.
Post reply on HN