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

Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

questions.sciencedebate.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#11

Post by kwk »

wkearney99 wrote: post #9

7 billion people on the planet already, and you want us to fund keeping them alive longer? What a fantasically stupid idea. You're given a decent amount of time on this Earth, already make it count and move on. Not to mention the idiocy of calling it a 'war on' anything. That pretty much guarantees it'll fail, like all of the other 'war on' something efforts.

"You're given a decent amount of time on this Earth, already make it count and move on."

I hear this all the time, but I still can't wrap my head around it. If you value life, why wouldn't you want to sustain it? If you're content to die, why don't you get it over with?

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#13

Post by pippy »

A war on aging would be 1000 times more constructive than our current 'wars'. The war on terror cost us fundamental rights and the war on drugs didn't change the percentage of people who abuse them.

It would have many positive outcomes; technology, healthcare, jobs and understanding of the human body. Even if it doesn't reach its goal of extending lives.

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#14

Post by hkmurakami »

I'll take 60 years of a sharp mind and body over 40 years of productivity and 50 years of senility any day.

What exactly is "aging" in the context of the OP? Would this "War on Aging" actually solve the right problem? Would it even be the right problem to solve for everyone... or even just a majority of the population?

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#15

Post by graeme »

kwk wrote: post #11
wkearney99 wrote: post #9

7 billion people on the planet already, and you want us to fund keeping them alive longer? What a fantasically stupid idea. You're given a decent amount of time on this Earth, already make it count and move on. Not to mention the idiocy of calling it a 'war on' anything. That pretty much guarantees it'll fail, like all of the other 'war on' something efforts.

"You're given a decent amount of time on this Earth, already make it count and move on." I hear this all the time, but I still can't wrap my head around it. If you value life, why wouldn't you want to sustain it? If you're content to die, why don't you get it over with?

I don't know how I feel about immortality or hyper-long lives (not sure which one you meant). It's a complex question.

So I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusion. But your argument isn't very good. I've made one that is exactly parallel.

"If you value pizza, why wouldn't you eat it forever? If you're content to one day stop eating pizza, why not stop eating it right now?"

Replace "pizza" or "life" with "X" and you have a parallel argument.

The (potential) answer is that some things change qualitatively over time, or with quantity. Life may be one of them, or it might not.

I don't think we're capable of imagining the answer. Everything we know about society is based on humans coming and going in cycles. To change this would change everything. It feels like it would be a good change, but the upsides are easier to imagine than the downsides.

"No one wants to die, ergo humanity would be better off without death." is not sound logic. We might be better off without death, but it's truly hard to say.

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#16

Post by fumar »

Even if the United States funded anti-aging. Would the results of its research trickle down to the masses. Or would it stay with the upper tier of society?

It could create a greater class divide.

I am in no position to speculate who actually makes money of our wars. I would love to know. Transparency should be a greater topic of debate.

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#17

Post by orangecat »

angdis wrote: post #12

Instead of starting a half-baked "war on aging" we should perhaps consider trying to improve quality of life for people of all ages. Quality not quantity, people!

If you can't use the bathroom without assistance or recognize your family, that puts a sharp upper bound on your quality of life.

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#18

Post by orangecat »

wkearney99 wrote: post #9

7 billion people on the planet already, and you want us to fund keeping them alive longer? What a fantasically stupid idea. You're given a decent amount of time on this Earth, already make it count and move on. Not to mention the idiocy of calling it a 'war on' anything. That pretty much guarantees it'll fail, like all of the other 'war on' something efforts.

And do you apply this logic to medical treatment in general?

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#19

Post by zanny »

fumar wrote: post #16

Even if the United States funded anti-aging. Would the results of its research trickle down to the masses. Or would it stay with the upper tier of society? It could create a greater class divide. I am in no position to speculate who actually makes money of our wars. I would love to know. Transparency should be a greater topic of debate.

For the wars question, the most obvious beneficiaries is military arms manufacture all the weapons and vehicles used, the suppliers of perishables to troops (not just food, other supplies). Those two constitute a very huge chunk of the US militaries budget and if that budget disappeared they would as well - private defence contractors have a much smaller market demand for aircraft carriers.

Re: Should the United States fund a "War on Aging"?

#20

Post by orangecat »

jackhoy wrote: post #5
afarrell wrote: post #4

I'm pretty sure that would just worsen our budget problem unless we focus on lengthening the period of time when people can work so that we can raise the retirement age. If we have people retire at 65 and live until 120, they will only have spent 40-45 of those years working. That is unsustainable.

Yes I can't see how that would be sustainable in the current economic state. Perhaps the retirement age would have to increase in line with the years added to the average lifespan. Obviously the economic/social impact would be enormous and would require many difficult decisions but difficult != impossible. These are challenges that would surely be worth overcoming?

The whole reason that we have Social Security and Medicare is that as people get old, they lose the physical and often mental capabilities needed for work. Fix that and there's no need for permanent retirement, and medical expenses fall drastically.
Post reply on HN