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

Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#91

Post by slibhb »

radu_floricica wrote: post #16
heisenbit wrote: post #7

[flagged]

I'll never understand this particular mindset. I mean, I can get _some_ of the fallacies involved. Pure envy. Scope insensitivity. But it just doesn't explain it for me. People buying high end audio gear have disposable income and spend obscene amounts of money on their hobby, and yet they get at most mild ridicule. Old people wanting _not to die_ get hate. How do people even get here?

Comments like the one you responded to are very common. Here and on other forums, often upvoted to the top.

People look at the rich and feel envy. In an attempt to displace that feeling, they tell themselves "I'm a good person, I don't prioritize money, I care about things that matter like community and art and the poor" and also "meanwhile those rich people are shallow and pathetic, all they care about is money".

This strategy allows the thinker to hate the rich ostensibly for morally acceptable reasons. It also makes them feel better about their own lack of wealth. People who think this way are often middle class or above; the poor are able to envy the rich without all this psychodrama.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#92

Post by insanitybit »

johnnyworker wrote: post #26

Sure, "the" elderly. Everyone who is suffering from aging will be helped. No special treatment for powerful people, it'll be all about "the elderly".

The reality is that, for the majority of compounds we've found that provide "anti-aging" benefits, they are affordable by the middle class. Some are more expensive than others, but they're all well within an affordable range.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#93

Post by insanitybit »

RobotToaster wrote: post #72
johnnyworker wrote: post #26

Sure, "the" elderly. Everyone who is suffering from aging will be helped. No special treatment for powerful people, it'll be all about "the elderly".

It is a concern, look at the current monoclonal antibody alzheimer's treatment that's insanely expensive. Generally though it's in the interest of the rich to extend the useful lifespan of their workers, training workers from babies is expensive, so it could be cheaper to keep the current ones going for 200 years.

You're picking one single treatment and saying "look, this is proof of the problem", ignoring that the treatment is extremely new - like, ~2 years of availability (and it was rushed out!). There may be inherent costs to the treatment that are specific and unrelated to whatever is found in other treatments.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#94

Post by dsign »

radu_floricica wrote: post #16
heisenbit wrote: post #7

[flagged]

I'll never understand this particular mindset. I mean, I can get _some_ of the fallacies involved. Pure envy. Scope insensitivity. But it just doesn't explain it for me. People buying high end audio gear have disposable income and spend obscene amounts of money on their hobby, and yet they get at most mild ridicule. Old people wanting _not to die_ get hate. How do people even get here?

I wouldn't say it's so much envy or scope insensitivity. This is more of a gut reaction people have than anything purely rational.

I've been studying this topic ("hatred of life extension") for a few years now. I would say it is caused by thousands of years of cultural evolution during which the only guardrail we had to keep our sanity was acceptance and faith. There are interesting positive feedback loops for this set of beliefs, coming all the way from Genesis 3:24 and The Epic of Gilgamesh (which one was first?), plus more modern incarnations like all our vampire movies. This case of cultural resonance has nothing to degrade it because nobody has lived long enough to prove that life extension is a good or a bad thing, but acceptance of mortality is a cheap and effective remedy to existential dread.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#95

Post by Teever »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #54
radu_floricica wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand this particular mindset. I mean, I can get _some_ of the fallacies involved. Pure envy. Scope insensitivity. But it just doesn't explain it for me. People buying high end audio gear have disposable income and spend obscene amounts of money on their hobby, and yet they get at most mild ridicule. Old people wanting _not to die_ get hate. How do people even get here?

the worry is of course that in 300 years Mark Zuckerberg will be having his big pan-American birthday part and all the plebes get treated to a 30 minute newsblast about it while eating their gruel. It's one thing to have music of lower quality, it's another to be old and dying and watching someone who was born a century before you gifted with youth and vitality. It's not hard to envision that situation if the rich ha…

In the scenario you describe what's stopping one of the plebes from killing Zuckerberg?

If Zuckerberg has essentially doomed everyone else to death while he and his kin get to live on perpetually he's basically painted a giant target on his back that every one with 6 months to live on a totally curable terminal brain cancer diagnosis is going to want to hit.

I'm not too worried about this kind of scenario because I know that it's in their greater self interest to let us all have this technology.

Also, if the technology isn't too difficult to implement what will stop people from doing so? If you tell me at age 50 that there's a cure for aging you can bet I'll spend my remaining 30 years to find that cure, if not for me, than for rmy children and grand children.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#96

Post by Teever »

altairTF wrote: post #90
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the worry is of course that in 300 years Mark Zuckerberg will be having his big pan-American birthday part and all the plebes get treated to a 30 minute newsblast about it while eating their gruel. It's one thing to have music of lower quality, it's another to be old and dying and watching someone who was born a century before you gifted with youth and vitality. It's not hard to envision that situation if the rich ha…

> it's another to be old and dying and watching someone who was born a century before you gifted with youth and vitality. So, no one can have nicers things than me?

That depends entirely on whether or not they're intentionally witholding it from me.

If someone had a cure for your child's cancer in your hands and they gloated at you while saying "you no get" I'm pretty sure you're going to take whatever steps necessary to "get"

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#97

Post by nerdbert »

johnnyworker wrote: post #28
morbicer wrote: post #4

[flagged]

People don't like hearing it, but if you can't make peace with your mortality in 80 years, you won't manage it in 800 either. And you (whoever is reading is) isn't actually that special that you should go on forever, instead of new life coming into the world. It would be a bigger loss for you to stay, than for you to pass on, because of the implied opportunity costs of other people being born. We all think we're hot…

This argument also extends the other direction, why not call it a day after 40 years then? You're only going to get more crochety and require more costly health interventions. And older people tend to take up more precious m2 of living space.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#98

Post by matheusmoreira »

ben_w wrote: post #52
okr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As i assume, you are being sarcastic, i would point to the effect, that certain endeavors, that bring money today (and to the content creators) finance the other endeavors, that dont bring in money just yet or maybe never. Thank you.

When I was a kid, people were already saying “100 channels and nothing worth watching” about satellite and cable. Do we need all the professional content creators of the modern age, or is that a hobby created by advertisers as an excuse for more adverts?

> is that a hobby created by advertisers as an excuse for more adverts

Yes. It's just "content" to fill a box with the ads around it. "Content" can be anything. Generic.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#99

Post by echelon »

graphe wrote: post #51
kalium-xyz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its further evidence for a hypothesis on the mechanism of aging. Personally I just wanna know how aging works

Don't your telomeres get shorter, your DNA gets damaged and it doesn't replicate correctly anymore? Some animals can be immortal like lobsters but face limits like their physical size can kill them when they molt enough.

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

This isn't comprehensive, though. I don't see intracellular or extracellular waste accumulation, for instance.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#100

Post by tuatoru »

caesil wrote: post #36
Tr03P wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why throw out the baby with the bath water, just because the rich will live longer, no one should. This is the feeling I get everytime I see a comment that it will be only for the rich and powerful. I don't think that will be the case, as there will be a gold rush once the possibility is proven and visible, everyone will try to get it, even the naysayers. It will be more like the crash of prices from the Spanish mine…

Think of all the mundane technology we use every single day that was, when it was first introduced, priced for the rich and powerful. And then imagine if we'd used that as a reason not to produce it.

Yeah. I wish I had saved the quote, but someone said something along the lines of "the rich get new technologies when they are expensive and sucky; the rest of us get them when the kinks have been ironed out."

If you're worried about the rich getting things unfairly, focus on tax policy and closing all the thousands of loopholes. That's a lifetime's work.

Post reply on HN