Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.varsity.co.uk/science/23088
What are the misguided ethics concerns?
"Life is supposed to be finite". I would term it as death cultism, but I'm sure other people have friendlier ways to explain the stance.
Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
121–130 of 146 posts
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#122Whenever 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…
> GSK said it was terminating SRT501 due to [...] the compound itself wasn't patentable.
This is the important detail in that story.
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they are. It's so far beyond our current understanding of aging that there is no way that you are going to turn this into applied science today. These are at best open research problems and they will likely be so for many years to come. Assuming we don't collectively kill ourselves first.
Perhaps its not necessarily a bad thing that there's a delay in this type of research. Given the extreme inequality in the world today, it might end up really hard to overcome the way that that inequality manifests itself with regards to access to these types of medicine/research. Even your own comment hinted that perhaps we have some more pressing issues to figure out first
I'd take a world in which immortality is possible over one where it is not, even if I have to work very hard and do questionable things to get it.
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#124Earlier 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.
> us not being ready for [thing] because of how much it could concentrate power.
Power is already concentrated, such an advancement would not change the indelible fact that we've reinvented kings and dynasties and we can't seem to get rid of them. Given that life has gotten better for everyone anyway when we discover great things, such concerns must be seen as immaterial. Improving the life of all people is more important.
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#125Whenever 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...
I love listening to him but the problem is I know calorie restriction and time restricted eating is smart but I love good food more.
People don't just want to live longer. They want to basically do absolutely nothing different than what they do now and also live longer. I wish we at least would frame the problem correctly.
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/
In Time
In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. Here, Will Salas finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage - a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system.
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#127As someone who follows life extension research closely: all the lifestyle stuff like "eating less" is useless. You can't rejuvenate an organism by changing the external inputs to its natural processes. It's half-measures at best.
Really? It makes total sense that aging is related to cell replication mechanisms breaking down and reducing caloric input slows replication down.
We have known this for so long now.
The problem is that is not the answer people want.
People want the holy grail, literally. Eat pizza, drink beer while sitting playing video games and take a magic pill that makes you young again.
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't want to get old, sick and die, but they also recognize that removing death across our entire species would have scary implications.
Consider if world leaders didn't die. That would potentially mean an indefinite rule in the cases where there is no peaceful transfer of power. That means no change. This means being governed by an increasingly old person, whose ideas and beliefs haven't changed since the stone ages. "[Death] is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new." Edit: By downvoting without commenting why you disagre…
So everyone gets the death penalty instead.
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nick Bostrom, 2005, 'The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant', Journal of Medical Ethics , Vol. 31, No. 5 https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html
That's the same philosopher who thinks we live in a simulation. They're about as credible as their profession is respected. I'm fairly certain I'd disagree with him in the piece of writing he next pens as well.
No, he believes that one of these three things is true:
1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or
3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one."
Do you disagree?
Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research
#130Whenever 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...
I love listening to him but the problem is I know calorie restriction and time restricted eating is smart but I love good food more. People don't just want to live longer. They want to basically do absolutely nothing different than what they do now and also live longer. I wish we at least would frame the problem correctly.
I think most people are in this camp.
The ultimate "best" outcome would be some sort of intervention that mimics the results of calorie restriction or fasting, but without the sacrifice.
But to get there, we need to study the mechanisms through actual calorie restriction and fasting, both to 1. prove that it works in humans, and 2. figure out why.