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

Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#51

Post by graphe »

kalium-xyz wrote: post #3
harles wrote: post #2

Can someone explain why this is interesting? It looks like a directionally interesting anti-aging study, but without any major breakthroughs. I'm curious what folks upvoting see in the study that I'm missing.

Its further evidence for a hypothesis on the mechanism of aging. Personally I just wanna know how aging works

Don't your telomeres get shorter, your DNA gets damaged and it doesn't replicate correctly anymore? Some animals can be immortal like lobsters but face limits like their physical size can kill them when they molt enough.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#52

Post by ben_w »

okr wrote: post #30
shiroiuma wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. This is a total waste of time, and this effort should be spent on something more productive and useful for humanity, such as improving advertising technologies and preventing people from blocking or ignoring advertisements.

As i assume, you are being sarcastic, i would point to the effect, that certain endeavors, that bring money today (and to the content creators) finance the other endeavors, that dont bring in money just yet or maybe never. Thank you.

When I was a kid, people were already saying “100 channels and nothing worth watching” about satellite and cable.

Do we need all the professional content creators of the modern age, or is that a hobby created by advertisers as an excuse for more adverts?

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#53

Post by graphe »

seydor wrote: post #40
yanis_t wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we also get rid of some of the young people if they are grumpy? Are you sure 80 years is enough, maybe it's 30?

no but , just as we are removing teenagers from the voting population, we should also be removing an equal number of voters from the other side of the age spectrum

Why?

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#54

Post by bryanrasmussen »

radu_floricica wrote: post #16
heisenbit wrote: post #7

[flagged]

I'll never understand this particular mindset. I mean, I can get _some_ of the fallacies involved. Pure envy. Scope insensitivity. But it just doesn't explain it for me. People buying high end audio gear have disposable income and spend obscene amounts of money on their hobby, and yet they get at most mild ridicule. Old people wanting _not to die_ get hate. How do people even get here?

the worry is of course that in 300 years Mark Zuckerberg will be having his big pan-American birthday part and all the plebes get treated to a 30 minute newsblast about it while eating their gruel.

It's one thing to have music of lower quality, it's another to be old and dying and watching someone who was born a century before you gifted with youth and vitality. It's not hard to envision that situation if the rich have access to anti-aging.

As such it is a scenario basically based off what science fiction says will happen when anti-aging is available. And people feeling that yes, that is what will happen - which spurs their envy.

The envy of this potential future is an expression of the envy of current disparities in income and power heightened by a fear that the future will make those disparities more unbearable and less fixable than they currently are.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#55

Post by seydor »

swores wrote: post #46
seydor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no but , just as we are removing teenagers from the voting population, we should also be removing an equal number of voters from the other side of the age spectrum

Equal in quantity? So if the number of Seems quite awkward operationally even if everyone agrees with the principle behind it. And even if you agree that it's problematic when older voters sway decisions that will affect future generations more than them, does matching the number of non-voters at each end of the spectrum solve that? And does the solution bring more benefits than the negatives of losing the experience…

is not doing it more fair?

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#56

Post by seydor »

graphe wrote: post #53
seydor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no but , just as we are removing teenagers from the voting population, we should also be removing an equal number of voters from the other side of the age spectrum

Why?

Why not? Why don't we give children the right to vote? (even if delegated to their parents - might help with failing demographics too). What is the rationale behind the current rules anyway

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#57

Post by dentalperson »

morbicer wrote: post #4

[flagged]

I genuinely want to understand this mindset. Are you only against things that help extend lifespan a very large amount, or is it more nuanced?

80 years was only achieved recently because of various quality of life and medical advances. Do you feel that those are 'ok' for other reasons, or for example, that things that cure cancer, HIV, or better sanitation that increase lifespan should also be repealed if it was up to you? Or do you feel we just happen to have the perfect amount of life-extending conditions at this exact moment?

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#58

Post by magnusmundus »

jbstack wrote: post #17
radu_floricica wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand this particular mindset. I mean, I can get _some_ of the fallacies involved. Pure envy. Scope insensitivity. But it just doesn't explain it for me. People buying high end audio gear have disposable income and spend obscene amounts of money on their hobby, and yet they get at most mild ridicule. Old people wanting _not to die_ get hate. How do people even get here?

It's also shortsighted. You might never develop a taste for high end audio gear. But you certainly will age and die. Unlike many things it's a problem that affects every single one of us.

I think the reaction is at least partially based on the loss of precisely that certainty: there is a sense of comfort in that no matter how unacceptable someone’s actions or ideas are to us, they will die, regardless of who they are — eventually. The thought of that eventuality becoming unusually distant in the future threatens that comfort. Doubly so when only the powerful will live longer, which will come first, everyone seems to agree.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#59

Post by graphe »

seydor wrote: post #56
graphe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Why not? Why don't we give children the right to vote? (even if delegated to their parents - might help with failing demographics too). What is the rationale behind the current rules anyway

Until you give a good reason why, your idea is as thoughtful as the effort you put into it.

Re: Mid-old cells are a potential target for anti-aging interventions in the elderly

#60

Post by ctenb »

morbicer wrote: post #4

[flagged]

In the ideal world, anti-aging therapy that works well actually reduces this problem. Healthy older people can work, reducing the economic stress on the younger part of the population. The costs of the therapy may actually incentivize them to do so.
Post reply on HN