201–210 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tolkein's Elves :)? More seriously, it's a common theory that age-related diseases are an evolved adaptation because over time a species must form an equilibrium with its resource base.
Yes, but pretty much every other equilibrium based limit is something humans decided we didn't want anymore either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Competitive advantage says that in the vast majority of cases you should do more or less what you're doing now, perhaps adjust your behaviour to optimise for compensation, and spend/donate money to have more biologists work on this. This is very general advice for anyone with a cause that they would like to get done without regard to who does it.
It's only true when money is the bottleneck.
In this particular case, it's very unlikely a typical dev would contribute more by taking a few years off to learn biology and maths and statistics, instead of just making money and paying someone who has already spent that time.
Any thoughts on how these efforts could conflict with our climate goals? Should we have an age ceiling? (that sounds awful, but so does the idea of everyone living to 150)
There have been several companies formed in the past few years whose premise is researching in industry anti-aging or basic science more generally (Calico, Altos Labs, Arcadia, etc.)... Does anyone understand the underlying economics or motivations? They can't be gambles when they raise $B's, and I'm too cynical to believe these are altruistic endeavors. Certainly there is research that cannot be reasonably expected…
Researching immortality or unnatural longevity isn't worth the investment for a society because a society of immortals becomes either stagnant or unsustainable. But making individual billionaires immortal is something billionaires might find worth investing in.
As for stagnation, there is an unspoken presumption built into your thought, namely that older rejuvenated people will gain younger bodies back, but that they will stay mentally old. I don't think this will be necessarily true. It rejuvenation works, it will have to work on the brain too, and rejuvenated people will revert to younger patterns of thinking as well. Only with more memories and experiences, which could actually improve their results. For example, they will be unlikely to join some populist cause if they burnt themselves twice already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but pretty much every other equilibrium based limit is something humans decided we didn't want anymore either.
We are better than other species at filling new niches. But being champion is no excuse for getting cocky.
I don't even think it is necessarily bad in toto. The other pole could look like stagnation fueled by indecisiveness and fear of possible consequences. I definitely know some individuals who spend their lives like that, and they don't seem to be happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's the problem of the elderly continuing to accumulate wealth and power without ceding any to the younger generations. It's already happening. Look no further than the geriatric US lawmakers and how out of touch they are with the future.
Create a startup and disrupt them with a new technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that does nothing to save the rich bastards funding it from dying. Death sucks, but I’m not sure indefinite life extension is a great idea for humanity at large.
It will definitely cripple progress. Even with our current lifespans we see past generations blocking progression with their death grips on powerful positions
There have been several companies formed in the past few years whose premise is researching in industry anti-aging or basic science more generally (Calico, Altos Labs, Arcadia, etc.)... Does anyone understand the underlying economics or motivations? They can't be gambles when they raise $B's, and I'm too cynical to believe these are altruistic endeavors. Certainly there is research that cannot be reasonably expected…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how can I, as a software developer, meaningfully contribute to this area? I would very much prefer to live forever.
Competitive advantage says that in the vast majority of cases you should do more or less what you're doing now, perhaps adjust your behaviour to optimise for compensation, and spend/donate money to have more biologists work on this. This is very general advice for anyone with a cause that they would like to get done without regard to who does it.
I want to do something meaningful myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, we'd have to change how many things work in the world, this specific example seems like a rather simple one to change.
How do you propose we do it?