Anti-ageing 'supermodel granny' drug extends life in mice by 25%

Post by nonameloser » Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 8:12 PM UTC

aiilns wrote: post #30

marcusverus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the drug adds another 20 years of quality life, the impact on social program financing would be very good. As is, the average person spends, roughly ~56% of human life being net-productive (20 learning, 45 working, 15 retired). Add 20 healthy years, and most folks will keep working, which would raise the share of productive years to ~65%. If the treatment is expensive, then only net-productive individuals wo…

> If the treatment is expensive, then only net-productive individuals would be able to afford it, meaning we would gain the benefit of contributors contributing for longer, without net-recipients receiving for longer. Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"? This is wrong on so many levels. And even today rich people live on average longer. Can't see the benefit myself.

Post by BobaFloutist » Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 10:08 PM UTC

nonameloser wrote: post #31

aiilns wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the treatment is expensive, then only net-productive individuals would be able to afford it, meaning we would gain the benefit of contributors contributing for longer, without net-recipients receiving for longer. Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"? This is wrong on so many levels. And even today rich people live on average longer. Can't see the benefit myself.

having money is a sign of being productive, on the whole

Post by kelseyfrog » Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 10:37 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22

kelseyfrog wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This runs counter to most physiology textbook introductions which tend toward making statements like, "The body's main goal is maintaining homeostasis," and from there framing the rest of the bodily processes as various feedback mechanisms which normally align to achieve homeostasis. Sometimes these processes are at odds with each other, and only their combined effect is homeostatic, but pedagogically the nuance of t…

> This runs counter to most physiology textbook Which part?

Post by b3ing » Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 11:27 PM UTC

throwaway837te wrote: post #21

grishka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if it were 100% programmed death, the problem would be easy: change the code. The problem is finding the code in the first place. To my programmer mind, biology feels like it must be comprised of layers of emergent behavior. We're not very good at understanding these right now. It might well be that the code you're talking about is not in the DNA, but rather it emerges somewhere where we aren't looking. > A lot…

Maybe developers should spend more time in bio tech, rather than ad tech. Imagine if we spent 30% of our effort to improve humanity.

Post by shrimp_emoji » Fri, Jul 19, 2024, 1:18 AM UTC

resonator wrote: post #38

I'm very uneasy about us collectively seeking longer lifespans. Earth is already supporting more people than is sustainable. Living longer robs someone else of an opportunity to live, or a shorter life. Over many generations we may be able to lower our birthrate to compensate, but I worry about happens in the meantime.