Untitled topic
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: undefined
#12https://www.sciencealert.com/ultimate-limit-of-the-human-lif... Op, consider using fewer absolutes. Many people have worked on aging science to identify how to prolong human lifetimes.
[dead]
> Why don't we?
Because we have no clue of how to, yet.
But I agree that we could throw more people and resources at the problem, if aging didn't seem just natural and the idea of a defeating it didn't seem a bit crazy. But it's also true that the knowledge, tools and methods that might make it possible are only very recent acquisitions.
Re: undefined
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
> Why don't we? Because we have no clue of how to, yet. But I agree that we could throw more people and resources at the problem, if aging didn't seem just natural and the idea of a defeating it didn't seem a bit crazy. But it's also true that the knowledge, tools and methods that might make it possible are only very recent acquisitions.
> if aging didn't seem just natural and the idea of a defeating it didn't seem a bit crazy
I can't imagine having this mentality
Of course aging is something we will solve - probably within the next 1000 years.
We will look back on these times like before humans wore clothes and had language.
Re: undefined
#14Dude, even setting aside the question of whether eliminating aging is a good idea (for the economy, for the species, etc), what makes you think nobody’s working on it? And lol, easily solvable? Scientists have been trying to figure it out for well over a century (and non-scientists probably since the origin of the man race). They’ve made marginal progress so far. Go do a web search or two.
[dead]
[dead]
Re: undefined
#15[deleted]
Re: undefined
#16https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Johnson
> Johnson has stated the aims of the company are to reduce the biological age of his organs to that of an 18-year-old
I once read that we could in theory produce things like synthetic organs, but something like a synthetic liver would be the size of a 50,000 sqft factory requiring a full staff of chemists, would need a refinery complete with boilers, smokestacks, chemical waste facilities, and so-on for each individual person.
Think of kidney like a dialysis machine, or a heart like an advanced blood pump, lungs like aerators, muscles, bones - we can reverse-engineer most of it.
But there are still many mysteries in blood production, cellular function, digestion, hormones, genetics, and consciousness, to name a few areas.
It's humbling, we are at the very earliest stages of the biological sciences. But it's something nanotech and funding could chip away significantly at IMO in our lifetime, potentially solving many of the organ-related issues like diabetes, cirrhosis, cancer, and other things.
Re: undefined
#17Is death in old age a 'problem' to solve?
Suffering, absolutely. But I think there is more nuance to death.
Re: undefined
#18Re: undefined
#19Is death in old age a 'problem' to solve? Suffering, absolutely. But I think there is more nuance to death.
[dead]
Re: undefined
#20Dude, even setting aside the question of whether eliminating aging is a good idea (for the economy, for the species, etc), what makes you think nobody’s working on it? And lol, easily solvable? Scientists have been trying to figure it out for well over a century (and non-scientists probably since the origin of the man race). They’ve made marginal progress so far. Go do a web search or two.
[dead]
I’m not following it closely, because I don’t believe that within my lifetime we’ll achieve anything that’s effective and safe; or if we do, it’ll be too late for me and more than I could possibly afford anyway.
But knowing there’s plenty of research going on (mostly in mice and in cell cultures) takes little more than reading the headlines in the HN “New” feed for a few weeks.