Live data from Hacker News

Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

ldeming.com

11–20 of 146 posts

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#11
post #8
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fasting does have something to do with longevity (in mice and other animals). Maybe not in humans but it's certainly a valid line of research

What I'm saying is that it doesn't reverse aging, it merely slows it down , and not by much.

I don't think anybody's claimed that it reverses ageing, and if they have I think they would have clarified that they did mean 'slows' the ageing process. And there's no doubt that caloric restriction and IF both slow ageing relative to a normal caloric intake. I don't have the paper on me atm, but IIRC it was 30% longer lifespan in mice. Now whether you want to say ageing is slowed or that lifespan is increased, and I'm not denying that there's a legitimate difference, but either way caloric restriction is completely legitimate for both, and to the extent you said it's useless, I don't think that's fair at all.

For anybody interested, the mTor pathway is really interesting in this regard, and in general the effects of AMPK on cellular metabolism. TLDR is that in the modern world most people never activate these pathways (since we're always in a fed state). Ostensibly there will be some breakthroughs when we finally learn why these starvation pathways are so beneficial. Inflammation seems a decent guess - eating increases it, and fasting decreases it, as a general rule.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#12

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

A really great comment that brightened my day and made me think. Thank you.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#13
post #6

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

> intractably hard problem Is it intractably hard? We already know how to 'rejuvenate' cells for a decade. The field did not receive a lot of attention however, partly because of misguided ethics concerns. COVID changed that attitude

Source? I don't understand what you're referring to.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#14
post #13
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> intractably hard problem Is it intractably hard? We already know how to 'rejuvenate' cells for a decade. The field did not receive a lot of attention however, partly because of misguided ethics concerns. COVID changed that attitude

Source? I don't understand what you're referring to.

https://www.varsity.co.uk/science/23088

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#15
post #9

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

you'd say I'm rationalizing it, but I do not believe that death is a problem to be solved As I take it, that line of thought (that death is just a problem to be solved and that immortality is something to strive for) leads to solving death just before going on to "solve" childhood. Why do we have to be born ignorant of the world and must "waste" some 20 years learning about it (possibly more) before we can go on to b…

Can the death penalty constitute a punishment in your view?

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#17
post #9

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

you'd say I'm rationalizing it, but I do not believe that death is a problem to be solved As I take it, that line of thought (that death is just a problem to be solved and that immortality is something to strive for) leads to solving death just before going on to "solve" childhood. Why do we have to be born ignorant of the world and must "waste" some 20 years learning about it (possibly more) before we can go on to b…

That's a lot of words, but I still don't see a justification why death (I.e. the end of life) is not a problem for people that do not want to stop living (most people).

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#18

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

It cant be solved yet as there isnt enough resources to go round for everyone. https://www.overshootday.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do... https://www.overshootday.org/content/uploads/2022/01/How_man...

Resource use is a separate axis to longevity. The right industry (we already have the tech) and a hundred billion can live sustainably on what is currently desert. Remove all the tech and the sustainable population of the entire planet is mere tens of millions.

World population is also a separate axis.

If lifespan is unchanged, population goes up or down depending on rate of new children. Rich and resource-hungry westerners have the lowest reproductive rate. If we get a perfect fountain of youth, we can’t forecast how society will or won’t change. More kids, or fewer?

Likewise resources per person, will we stay in the rat race forever, or shift to working as little as possible as soon as the mortgage on the third mansion has been paid off?

Also, “no ageing” doesn’t mean “immortality”, because current rates imply there’s a 50% chance of dying from accidents or malice in roughly any thousand year period. Though again, no way to predict how that might change with eternal youth.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#19

use verteporfin in combination with wounding. it works, even for hair loss. thank me later.

From your previous comment: " Feeling very depressed as a 23 year old with agressive hair loss. Tried (and still trying) everything there is, but nothing worked yet (1.5 years into min/dut)."

I think I'm going to pass on medical advice from you.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#20

Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc. I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist.…

> But I don’t know if it’ll be a year or 100 years from now.

You might want to add another zero there.

Post reply on HN