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

Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

ldeming.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

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

#101

Post by stjohnswarts »

manmal wrote: post #39

Even if we „solved“ death and disease, accidents and wars would end our live eventually. Lifespan would increase for sure (I think there was a model that predicted sthg like 500 years?), but immortality just won’t work.

I think the only way we get “true” immortality is memory transfer to silicon (or whatever is in-vogue at the time) barring all the gibberish about “souls” and “what does consciousness mean”. People like me who are materialistic and think we are chemistry and sensations manifest as consciousness. Assuming tech ever actually reaches that point, and probably not in our lifetimes. It's one reason I read all the Warhammer 40k novels about the Necrons. I know it's pulp fiction but is fun to ponder while daydreaming.

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

#102

Post by therealcamino »

bsedlm wrote: post #82
WhitneyLand wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, how about if all efforts are aimed only at eliminating sickness and suffering? If somehow that were possible for all ages would you be for that? Then, since death is not a problem we could just “schedule” it for some reasonable date in the future to retain all the philosophical benefits it brings? You first?

thing is, I've begun to consider old age as a graceful easing out of life, as if without old age ceasing to be alive can only be violent affair (violent like an explosion or a high-speed crash)

Old age can be many things, and is often far from graceful. I wouldn't romanticize it.

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

#103

Post by adamisom »

culi wrote: post #97
adamisom wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always suspected this sentiment to exist somewhere— essentially “death is the great equalizer (and thus good)”—but don’t think I’ve seen it until now. It’s always been obvious to me that the problem with singular focus on inequality is precisely this — the easiest way for everyone to be equal is to be dead. This is appalling and a strong argument against a singular focus on inequality. I would say the same thing…

I never made such a statement. I never said death makes people equal I don't see how my argument is any different from the arguments about us not being ready for general AI because of how much it could concentrate power.

Sorry for misstating you. It does seem bad if only some have the tech. Maybe in the worst case, rich nations lock others out? That just seems implausible to me, I think any such medicine tech would be shared without delay. With general AI, I think that’s a tech that would not be fully shared and would stay concentrated.

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

#104

Post by HellsMaddy »

dombesz wrote: post #29

Whenever we talk about longevity we cannot not mention David Sinclair, who is a leading researcher in longevity. His recent podcast is the most popular on the topic of longevity. https://podcasts.apple.com/ro/podcast/lifespan-with-dr-david...

It’s worth noting that there has been a lot of controversy around Sinclair and his work.

> Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was a biotechnology company based in Cambridge, MA that developed therapies for type 2 diabetes, cancer, and other diseases. Conceived in 2004 by Harvard University biologist David Sinclair and serial entrepreneur Andrew Perlman, and founded that year by Sinclair and Perlman, along with Christoph Westphal, Richard Aldrich, Richard Pops, and Paul Schimmel, the company was focused on developing Sinclair's research into activators of sirtuins, work that began in the laboratory of Leonard P. Guarente where Sinclair worked as a post-doc before starting his own lab.

> Sirtris went public in 2007 and was subsequently purchased and made a subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline in 2008 for $720 million. GSK paid $22.50/share, when Sirtris's stock was trading at $12/share, down 45% from its highest price of the previous year.

> Studies published in 2009 and early 2010 by scientists from Amgen and Pfizer cast doubt on whether SIRT1 was directly activated by resveratrol and showed that the apparent activity was actually due to a fluorescent reagent used in the experiments.

> GSK/Sirtris terminated development of SRT501 in late 2010. GSK said it was terminating SRT501 due to side effects of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea it caused, and because the compound's activity wasn't specific to SIRT1, at some doses it actually inhibited SIRT1, and the compound itself wasn't patentable.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirtris_Pharmaceuticals

> In February 2022, Sinclair raised widespread controversy in the longevity research community by rejecting to communicate in an academic debate in which his resveratrol research was criticized after months of mounting evidence against reseveratrol as a longevity intervention.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Sinclair

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

#105

Post by teslaberri »

longevity research is 30 years of total garbage.

healthspan research is clear. 1) inflammation is a natural process that results in wear on your body 2) lower inflammation 3) doing so is different for everyone. behavior is at the core of this process. including eating, sleeping, living a life of non-excessive stress, avoiding and treating major disease, maintaining healthy mouth, and moderate exercise.

so in a word---a lot , but not all , of chinese and eastern medical philosophy has been epidimilogically confirmed.

all the new crap about 'caffiene' 'metformin' and other bullshit being good for you is just that, garbage.

what isn't , is that sometimes some people do have deficiencies of insulin sentitvity, or vitamin D, or other things---like they used to have scurvy ( vitmain C defficiency) -----so these things have been figured out and in no way relate to logevity only healthspan.

the annoying stupid thing about longevity idiots is that if a set of practices and health observation and treatments coudl guarantee living a life of perfect healthy until 100 years old----(assuming any rich person coudl afford this) ---this would yield a total revolution in human affairs for the rest of civilizations existence.

longevity is the dream of fools guaranteed healthspan is the dream of realists.

no one on hackernews is over 60 yet, and this is why all you idiots think with your brains, instead of your hearts. you dont' talk to 80 and 90 year olds, and if you do you dont' empathize with the path towards aging sickness and death. but you will if you don't die healthy and young, because that is what happens to you . guaranteed.

and you will only realize how stupid the idea of living forever is, when you eventually get sick and just want to live healthy one more year. you will realize that feels like forever when it's you. but it's only one more year.

virtually no one lives past 110. focussing on pushing that limit is stupid and longevity research has yielded very little interesting results applicable to other areas.

suspended animation and metabolism research , are , however , intereseting and they are fundamental biological areas of exploration and not 'goal oriented' towards the philsopher's bone. cause that's what it is. a skull bone.

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

#106

Post by D-Coder »

dinkleberg wrote: post #90
DantesKite wrote: post #2

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.…

What I don't understand is how anyone can believe that there is any future where we can defeat death. If we could increase human longevity to the point of living for a thousand, a million, a billion years, death is still sitting there at the end of the road, waiting for you. Whether you live for a year or a million, our fates are sealed. There are different theories about the end of the universe such as a heat death…

No one is talking about immortality.

The point is life elongation (in good health).

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

#107

Post by 0_gravitas »

resoluteteeth wrote: post #50
DantesKite wrote: post #2

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.…

> 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 zeitgei…

I've seen many many people (even on this site!) romanticize death.

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

#108

Post by dinkleberg »

D-Coder wrote: post #106
dinkleberg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is how anyone can believe that there is any future where we can defeat death. If we could increase human longevity to the point of living for a thousand, a million, a billion years, death is still sitting there at the end of the road, waiting for you. Whether you live for a year or a million, our fates are sealed. There are different theories about the end of the universe such as a heat death…

No one is talking about immortality. The point is life elongation (in good health).

Plenty of people seem to be talking about immortality and wanting to never die. On this thread and whenever a similar thread comes up.

Slowing or stopping the aging process is the goal.

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

#109

Post by grishka »

exhilaration wrote: post #85
grishka wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't slowing down aging the goal of "longevity"? The word implies extending life, not necessarily renewing it.

Slowing it down feels like a half-measure. Especially knowing that it's a malleable process that can be reversed.

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

#110

Post by alwillis »

HellsMaddy wrote: post #104
dombesz wrote: post #29

Whenever we talk about longevity we cannot not mention David Sinclair, who is a leading researcher in longevity. His recent podcast is the most popular on the topic of longevity. https://podcasts.apple.com/ro/podcast/lifespan-with-dr-david...

It’s worth noting that there has been a lot of controversy around Sinclair and his work. > Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was a biotechnology company based in Cambridge, MA that developed therapies for type 2 diabetes, cancer, and other diseases. Conceived in 2004 by Harvard University biologist David Sinclair and serial entrepreneur Andrew Perlman, and founded that year by Sinclair and Perlman, along with Christoph W…

It's like only focusing on the Steve Jobs failed products and not his successful ones. David Sinclair isn't at the Jobsian level yet but from everything I've read, listened to and viewed, he certainly has the potential to be there.
Post reply on HN