51–60 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you want to die? Of course we will want to. I am sure there will be lots of side effects, but almost anything beats dying.
Do you want to live forever? In a world where everyone lives forever? I'm pretty sure most people will have had enough after the first million or so years. Someone must have written sci-fi of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not aging implies that you won't age beyond a certain point, or do you mean something different? Also, the question you ask is relevant even today with regular aging, and it's already hotly debated looking at euthanasia. I'm guessing euthanasia will have to be legalized if we ever do find a "cure" for aging.
I remember reading that even if we found a cure to ageing, our life expectancy would "only" be around 10 000 years because of various accidents (car crashes being probably the most major contributor).
It is important to note that the fact "Starvation is also a way to live longer." is probably wrong as some scientist have noticed. The problem is that animals in laboratories are "coach potatoes". They don't do the exercise they naturally do in their habitat searching for food. They live overcrowded in small cages and overstressed. Most lab animals are already ill from their artificial habitat, they have diabetes and…
This is true, but either fortunately or unfortunately humans seem to be resembling lab animals more than wild animals.
Oh how nice a couple of references to some peer reviewed articles would have been. Quotes like "This is my own perspective, shared by a handful of world-class aging scientists, but it is not yet mainstream." make all my scientific alarms go off. It is an interesting way of looking at it though.
Oh how nice a couple of references to some peer reviewed articles would have been. Quotes like "This is my own perspective, shared by a handful of world-class aging scientists, but it is not yet mainstream." make all my scientific alarms go off. It is an interesting way of looking at it though.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mitteldorf%20JJ%5BAu...
Biochemistry (Mosc) is a hotbed of programmed aging theory, and much of the theorizing in this area is generated by the Russian gerontology community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree with you more. We have a fundamental culture of constant growth. It is by definition unsustainable. My hope is that if we did manage to ward off death for a bit longer, we might transcend some of our flawed notions. Who knows? Maybe young humans are fools, and that's the problem.
>It is by definition unsustainable. Why ? What stops mankind to go in space in go grow further in other planets and systems in the future ? There's AMPLE space for growth everywhere, if anything.
Hubble length is less than 10^24 km. Earth radius is more than 10^3 km. Therefore there's at most room for 10^21 growth in one dimension, 10^63 growth in three dimensions. 10^63 growth is less than 210 doublings. Doubling is less than 70 years of 1% growth per year. 210 * 70 is less than 20,000. Therefore, we can't grow more than 20,000 years, 1% growth per year.
Oh how nice a couple of references to some peer reviewed articles would have been. Quotes like "This is my own perspective, shared by a handful of world-class aging scientists, but it is not yet mainstream." make all my scientific alarms go off. It is an interesting way of looking at it though.
Is it required on HN that every article be terse list of peer-reviewed facts?
Oh how nice a couple of references to some peer reviewed articles would have been. Quotes like "This is my own perspective, shared by a handful of world-class aging scientists, but it is not yet mainstream." make all my scientific alarms go off. It is an interesting way of looking at it though.
> all my scientific alarms go off Is it required on HN that every article be terse list of peer-reviewed facts?
There's a ton of pseudo science and outright bs in the anti-aging scene so some references would definitely help in this case.
Articles that don't make grandiose claims don't need to put their evidence up front. For 'most scientists' in the title read 'most scientists that hold a view contrary to that of the author'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading that even if we found a cure to ageing, our life expectancy would "only" be around 10 000 years because of various accidents (car crashes being probably the most major contributor).
If we cure aging, we will become much more cautious.