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

Against "Against Life Extension"

alexkesin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#21

Post by slibhb »

GMoromisato wrote: post #15
slibhb wrote: post #7

I'm in favor of research into life extension. But I don't think this response really deals with the fundamental objection of: "Change is necessary Death creates change Therefore, death is necessary" Perhaps humans are not very capable of change once we reach adulthood and so significantly (or indefinitely) extending human lifespan would result in civilizational stasis. I don't see a simple way to overcome this argume…

There is a logical flaw in that syllogism: Just because death creates change doesn't mean that death is the only thing that creates change. And if you can substitute some other process to create change, then death is not necessary. It's like this syllogism: 1. We must do something about unemployment. 2. Slavery is something. 3. Therefore, we must do slavery. Once the syllogism falls apart, it's obvious that there are…

But maybe death is necessary for change. It's cerainly necessary for evolution.

It's not so much that I buy this argument...it's that I don't see a simple way to rebut it. To me, it's an empirical question that we can't answer a priori, i.e. "what would human civilization look like if everyone lived forever?"

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#22

Post by marcodiego »

absurdo wrote: post #6

I read the original article. I feel like the author of this retort got nerd sniped. “Cracks knuckles”? I can find better things to grind an axe about. The original article is an opinionated rant. It’s not a scientific or a philosophical treatise, so bringing up things like how diabetes is being cured is far, far outside of the subject matter. So for me this retort is invalid from the get go. The crux of the original…

> I’d argue the world/humankind is already an immense disaster

Not exactly disagreeing because I really don't know any better. But whenever I hear comments like these, I wonder if isolated peoples or medieval/industrial revolution population have/had a better life then we do. We have conveniences that far surpasses anything a king could have just a few decades ago. Our life expectancy and IDH is (almost) monotonically increasing.

I really expect that efficiency growth will make the world converge to a life style where most people don't have to work to survive, but just to acquire luxury goods. I actually think that maybe we could already be at that point if it wasn't for the "sadists that run the world", but I don't think they can prevent it from happening because that will make them make more money too.

So, I really don't know if people criticizing our current state as "an immense disaster" are overly pessimistic or if the people (like myself) thinking that the world is in a never before achieved good state are realistic or uninformed.

I fear deterioration beyond repair, like irrecoverable climate change, because an event like that would really separate the very rich from rest of the population in a way that only one of these two partitions could survive. But I don't think we'll reach that point my lifetime.

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#23

Post by keiferski »

marcodiego wrote: post #22
absurdo wrote: post #6

I read the original article. I feel like the author of this retort got nerd sniped. “Cracks knuckles”? I can find better things to grind an axe about. The original article is an opinionated rant. It’s not a scientific or a philosophical treatise, so bringing up things like how diabetes is being cured is far, far outside of the subject matter. So for me this retort is invalid from the get go. The crux of the original…

> I’d argue the world/humankind is already an immense disaster Not exactly disagreeing because I really don't know any better. But whenever I hear comments like these, I wonder if isolated peoples or medieval/industrial revolution population have/had a better life then we do. We have conveniences that far surpasses anything a king could have just a few decades ago. Our life expectancy and IDH is (almost) monotonicall…

My go-to oversimplified answer to this is: people in the past had a poorer material life, but a richer spiritual/purpose-driven one.

I think it’s probably accurate to say that just because we have immense wealth, medicine, etc. that doesn’t necessarily imply we are psychologically healthier or happier. We live in an age of material abundance with a shortage of meaning.

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#24

Post by orangecat »

topaz0 wrote: post #5

I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally. The biggest hurdle for the latter is not new research. It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious t…

it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally

This is a caricature invented by people who reflexively assume that the "ultra rich" are cartoon villains. When Michael J Fox starts a foundation for Parkinson's research, do you think his goal is to get a cure for himself and ignore everyone else suffering from it?

It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious to the welfare of the most wealthy

Health care is very expensive, especially for old people. This is true across countries with very different funding mechanisms. Being able to slow or prevent aging would make it much more affordable.

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#25

Post by orangecat »

topaz0 wrote: post #17
Aurornis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This is a rare case where “trickle down” actually would work: If the ultra rich want to pay their way to discovering longevity improvements, it won’t be long before companies everywhere are competing to bring those same discoveries to the masses at ever-lower prices. If ultra rich want to fund longevity research with their money then bring it on. Their personal spending on research doesn’t subtract from o…

Have you looked at the current healthcare market, where even the cheapest and most proven drugs are exorbitantly expensive? This is a laughable pipe dream in this society (read, the society that protects the profits of the ultrarich over the health of average citizens).

Ok, let's assume we are and always will be in a capitalist hellscape where the only thing that matters is what rich people want. Even in that case, if effective longevity treatments are discovered, they'll still be made widely available because it would be hugely profitable. Obviously the sellers of the treatments would make a fortune, also insurance companies would benefit from reduced medical expenses and corporations would benefit from employees getting chronic diseases less often.

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#26

Post by topaz0 »

echelon wrote: post #18
topaz0 wrote: post #5

I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally. The biggest hurdle for the latter is not new research. It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious t…

Look at how much of the developing world has been pulled out of poverty in the last 30 years. Look at the infant mortality rates. We're looking at the wrong data points. > It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, When the leading cause of mortality is heart disease, the solution is not more affordable healthcare. It's healthy eating and living. When the next leading cause is cancer, the solution is more research…

I think you'd be surprised by how many of those deaths would have been preventable by earlier healthcare access. Just medicaid expansion reduced all-cause mortality rates by about 3% on average, compared to non-expansion states. That's all-cause mortality of the whole population, not just among the people on medicaid.

Of course you're right that it would be much more effective to eliminate poverty than to just provide healthcare. For example that would do a lot for the "healthy eating and living" that you mention. But providing healthcare would certainly help.

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#27

Post by Aurornis »

marcodiego wrote: post #22
absurdo wrote: post #6

I read the original article. I feel like the author of this retort got nerd sniped. “Cracks knuckles”? I can find better things to grind an axe about. The original article is an opinionated rant. It’s not a scientific or a philosophical treatise, so bringing up things like how diabetes is being cured is far, far outside of the subject matter. So for me this retort is invalid from the get go. The crux of the original…

> I’d argue the world/humankind is already an immense disaster Not exactly disagreeing because I really don't know any better. But whenever I hear comments like these, I wonder if isolated peoples or medieval/industrial revolution population have/had a better life then we do. We have conveniences that far surpasses anything a king could have just a few decades ago. Our life expectancy and IDH is (almost) monotonicall…

> But whenever I hear comments like these, I wonder if isolated peoples or medieval/industrial revolution population have/had a better life then we do.

Medieval life was hard. Hard to an extreme that we can’t really relate to, which has opened the door to a lot of fantasizing about the past being better than the present. We like to imagine the past as a version of the present minus the complexities of modern life that we dislike, but past life was full of difficulties that are entirely foreign to us.

It’s hard to even imagine a life where you were one bad farming season away from a year of starvation, one accidental fall away from a lifetime of total disability, or one little scratch away from an infection that ends your life after a period of untreatable agony.

I also think the average modern person doesn’t really understand the level of work and toil that went into basic survival in those times. Today we see people cite trades jobs as back-breaking labor, but a modern trades job is like a vacation relative to something like subsistence farming

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#28

Post by Aurornis »

topaz0 wrote: post #17
Aurornis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This is a rare case where “trickle down” actually would work: If the ultra rich want to pay their way to discovering longevity improvements, it won’t be long before companies everywhere are competing to bring those same discoveries to the masses at ever-lower prices. If ultra rich want to fund longevity research with their money then bring it on. Their personal spending on research doesn’t subtract from o…

Have you looked at the current healthcare market, where even the cheapest and most proven drugs are exorbitantly expensive? This is a laughable pipe dream in this society (read, the society that protects the profits of the ultrarich over the health of average citizens).

> where even the cheapest and most proven drugs are exorbitantly expensive?

New, on-patent drugs are expensive.

Most proven, older drugs are actually pretty cheap.

The most commonly prescribed drugs in America like atorvastatin, lisinopril, and levothyroxine are all less than $10 without insurance at your local Walmart or Walgreens.

A lot of people are shocked to learn that most SSRIs and common (unscheduled) psych meds can be had for as little as $4/month cash pay at Walmart. Even insulin (excluding newest patented analogs) is $25/vial cash pay at Walmart. They’re starting to introduce cheap analogs, too, as patents run out.

And that’s my point: All of these medications were once extremely expensive, and now they’re cheap. Being expensive at launch doesn’t mean expensive forever.

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#29

Post by marcodiego »

keiferski wrote: post #23
marcodiego wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d argue the world/humankind is already an immense disaster Not exactly disagreeing because I really don't know any better. But whenever I hear comments like these, I wonder if isolated peoples or medieval/industrial revolution population have/had a better life then we do. We have conveniences that far surpasses anything a king could have just a few decades ago. Our life expectancy and IDH is (almost) monotonicall…

My go-to oversimplified answer to this is: people in the past had a poorer material life, but a richer spiritual/purpose-driven one. I think it’s probably accurate to say that just because we have immense wealth, medicine, etc. that doesn’t necessarily imply we are psychologically healthier or happier. We live in an age of material abundance with a shortage of meaning.

> we have immense wealth, medicine, etc. that doesn’t necessarily imply we are psychologically healthier or happier.

That may make sense if you compare us to a few generations ago because maybe we're almost in a "diminishing returns" phase and our lives aren't significantly better than our closest ancestors. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if we were happier during periods of famine, plague and inquisition. It is still possible to have a "go-to oversimplified answer to this" even for this "go-to oversimplified answer to this".

Re: Against "Against Life Extension"

#30

Post by topaz0 »

orangecat wrote: post #24
topaz0 wrote: post #5

I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally. The biggest hurdle for the latter is not new research. It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious t…

it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally This is a caricature invented by people who reflexively assume that the "ultra rich" are cartoon villains. When Michael J Fox starts a foundation for Parkinson's research, do you think his goal is to get a cure for himself and ignore everyon…

Not assume, rather observe. I think mostly they are just nihilists that don't care what happens to anybody but themselves. Michael J Fox is not in this category, and neither is Parkinson's research "longevity" research. Like I said, I am in favor of medical research, and having a cure for Parkinson's would be a net good for society. The point is that people will still decline and die from Parkinson's because they can't access the cure, just as they still die from many diseases that are preventable today from lack of healthcare access. That's not Michael J Fox's fault, but the point is that treating research as the secret to longevity is misunderstanding the problem.
Post reply on HN