11 ms·

I'm not a billionaire and I'm not old, but I am so excited about anti-aging. I know Hacker News is super negative, but who doesn't want to live longer?! Of all

by a13n 10y ago

I'm not a billionaire and I'm not old, but I am so excited about anti-aging. I know Hacker News is super negative, but who doesn't want to live longer?! Of all the pain points humans experience, you'd think death lies pretty high on the list. Why are people fighting this?

nostromo 10y ago
It comes from reverence for naturalism. It's similar in that sense to other movements, like anti-GMO, anti-vax, etc. Tell people you want to cure cancer and you're a hero. Tell people you want to cure age-related decline and eventually death and you're a weirdo extremist.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  The word "naturalism" means something else.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
So long as increased longevity also comes with better geriatric health overall, I'm very much on board. A life worth living is not just avoiding death, it's also being able to physically and mentally function properly as well.
fabrice_d 10y ago
Death is not the problem, the agony is.
- a13n 10y ago
  Thanks for the response, agreed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pointytrees 10y ago
I sometimes talk about wanting to live forever and get weird stares. Are you joking me?? I want to hike every trail in the world. I want to climb every mountain. I want to play every video game. I want to beat the hardest raids in every expansion of WoW. I want to learn multiple langauges. I want to spend several years living in every biome. I want to learn all of the programming languages. I want to go back to school for more degrees. I want to build several businesses. I want to write computer games from scratch. I want to travel to the stars. I want to live on the moon. I want to live on Mars. I want to get a doctorate degree. Or two or three? Gah, not enough time.
- BjoernKW 10y ago
  Not enough time? Perhaps, but forever is a long time. Quite possibly it's exactly our limited time that has us achieve great things. If you have all the time in the world why bother starting that business or learning that new skill today? Might as well start tomorrow ... I also find it at least a bit disturbing that WoW is so high on that list. Then again, if you have all the time in the world ...
  - nickpinkston 10y ago
    I'm unsure if anyone who thinks "there's just not enough time" is the kind of person who would sit around because of their immortality.
    - BjoernKW 10y ago
      There's the rub. The feeling of "There's just not enough time." precisely stems from the fact that our time is limited. If that's no longer given that feeling might disappear from humanity entirely, which in turn could lead to stagnation and ultimately - and ironically - to mankind dying out.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      I disagree. I believe that a big reason kids are so good at learning and trying things is that they haven't yet internalized the concept of "not enough time" - there's always shitloads of time; if not today, then tomorrow. If not this summer, then next summer. When you don't have to worry about running out of time, you don't mind blowing it on learning stuff.
dcposch 10y ago
Not just death, but the gradual loss of physical and mental capabilities you used to have. That feels scarier to me. Imagine you could chose to die on your 75th birthday, but in return keep your full 20-something health until then. I'd do it right away.
- a13n 10y ago
  Sure but if you've maintained your 20-something health until 75, why choose to die? That's just suicide...
  - dennisgorelik 10y ago
    The choice is to live healthy life until 75 and pay the price of death at 75. If it is possible to live healthy life past 75 - that would be even better. Unfortunately none of that is possible to accomplish in the timeframe that would benefit us personally.
- scandox 10y ago
  Why are we so afraid of change of different experiences? Aging is not hell. It may teach us humility. It may give us the opportunity to question our priorities. Ultimately all the human race will die. Over a short or a long span only learning will matter.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Have you seen people needlessly suffer in old age? Stooped backs, sore joints, limited abilities, dementia. On the contrary, talking to my 82-year old professor who is sharper than most college kids but has constant health problems and I wish we could beat aging. You're right, we shouldn't be afraid of different experiences, but that doesn't also mean that fighting aging is bad. We could apply your arguments to all medical care, but we don't because there's no point in needlessly suffering.
  - kilroy123 10y ago
    I agree, but I think everyone wants to have that much later in life. For example after your 100. Instead of 60 or whenever.
nostrademons 10y ago
I dunno. Constraints give us meaning. They're what force us to make choices, and it's choices and opportunity costs that let us define who we are at people. If we lived forever, we wouldn't have to make any hard choices - we'd just do it all. And paradoxically, being able to do it all means that none of it means anything. It's like playing a game with all the cheats on. Sure, they let you "win" super easily, but because it was super easy, it stops being fun.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Anti-aging doesn't prevent death. You could still just as easily get hit by a car when you are 90 and look 20. Or 1000 and look 20, assuming that's even possible. What's really interesting is if people could actually prolong their lifespan indefinitely but we have the same limited bodies. Then you'll see people trying really hard to say alive to comical effect. I think Aronofsky's The Fountain is a really great outlook on death. It is a disease and like any disease we may as well try hard to defeat it. Doesn't mean it isn't very natural.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    That seems even more meaningless though, to make the moment of your death random rather than mostly-predictable. I mean, it'd suck to live my life like I had a million years and then get hit by a bus tomorrow.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      A teenager got hit and killed by a car today. Probably seemed pretty random to them. What's the difference? Hell, if age couldn't kill you, then you could chose your death, which is less random than a heart attack or stroke.
  - inimino 10y ago
    I'm not sure that was the outlook that film advocated.
- forthefuture 10y ago
gwern 10y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/6vq/on_the_unpopularity_of_cryonics_life_sucks_but_at/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6vq/on_the_unpopularity_of_cryonics_...
bolocker 10y ago
"Only mortals have told me that it would suck to live forever." - /r/Showerthoughts Aubrey De Grey calls it the "pro aging trance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#Pro-aging_trance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#Pro-aging_tranc...
- bitJericho 10y ago
  It's right up there with "money doesn't buy happiness"
Taek 10y ago
I'm not sure how controversial the opinion is, but it's pretty clear to me that immortality is harmful to a species in the vast majority of cases. Evolution is a constant processes of competition. When members of a species start living longer, the upgrading of their gene pool slows down. The older members maintain their old ideas and ways of life, and they soak up resources that crowd out the younger members. The environment is constantly changing. Thanks to all the other organisms that are evolving, it's not enough to become the apex predator and then stagnate. Organisms are always finding a new way to take advantage of their environment, which includes the other organisms. For this reason, I do not think that any single individual will ever be immortal, and probably not even a collective. That would require gaining control of the universe's resources in a way that guarantees they never lose it. Decentralization is inherent to the functioning of the universe. The speed of light ensures that multiple decisions be made in parallel. Those that make the most self interested decisions will be competitive, and while that often means participating as a group, no biological group that I know of is entirely devoid of selfish behavior among its members. Immortality is largely incompatible with evolution and competition.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Immortality is largely incompatible with evolution and competition. That's an incredibly good argument in favor of immortality. "Evolution" and "competition" are not gods. They do not have any moral authority over us. Our entire civilization has been built on the principle of not subjecting ourselves to Darwinian survival-selection. That aside, you should probably go count ducks in a swamp or do some other ecological fieldwork before talking about the evolutionary fitness of organisms or ecosystems. You sound atrocious at biology.
  - Taek 10y ago
    > Our entire civilization has been built on the principle of not subjecting ourselves to Darwinian survival-selection. I don't believe it's something you can escape. It largely boils down to the idea of infinite wants vs. finite resources. Bostrom and co. like to talk about how there's enough energy in the universe to power 10^XX human lifetimes, but I strongly don't believe that a human is going to be the ultimate lifeform. Already we can see that the average first-world human today uses substantially more energy than the average human 1000 years ago. Unless we hit a ceiling on complexity (not currently in sight), there will always be people who want access to more energy. Since energy is finite, there will be competition between them for that energy. And that will more or less result in Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest, at least as far as some individuals/groups/organisms/species will be better at getting access to individuals as others. I guess the other alternative is that we hit an entirely egalitarian society, but I think that's exceedingly unlikely, as it would require everybody to agree 100% to limit their energy consumption to exactly what they've been allocated, and not to try to acquire more. > That aside, you should probably go count ducks in a swamp or do some other ecological fieldwork before talking about the evolutionary fitness of organisms or ecosystems. You sound atrocious at biology. I appreciate the criticism, and apologize for the sloppy metaphors. Evolution thus far though has very clearly favored death as the primary means of design. Few species have remained unchanged over the past XX million years, and even fewer are theoretically capable of immortality (barring some sort of medical intervention). Most organisms have aging hardcoded into their genome.
deegles 10y ago
I'm excited for ant-aging, not so much for an endless deluge of VC backed treatments/supplements that aren't grounded in science and/or ineffective. Besides, lifestyle needs to be addressed first. Reduce/eliminate risky behaviors, eat correctly (whatever that may be), and exercise regularly. Then perhaps look into supplements and treatments.
- notgood 10y ago
  Some vegans die at their 60s of "natural causes", Winston Churchill died at 90 after having smoked all his life and being very fat. Yeah, statistically there is relevance to eat correctly, but its not as dramatic as some like to believe.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    General Montgomery: I neither drink nor smoke and I am 100 percent fit. Churchill: I drink and smoke and I am 200 percent fit.
Disruptive_Dave 10y ago
I absolutely, 100% do not want to extend my life. And for the record, I am quite pleased with my life. I do not fear death, I do not worry about it, it does not concern me. Therefore I do not feel the need to combat it in any way. The good truly does not exist without the bad, life without death, and so on. Walking the path of "controlling" your life and/or death like this seems needy, egotistical, and pretty sad, imo.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  So you plan to end it all tonight? No? I think, like everyone else, you expect a reasonable lifespan and would fight to achieve that. From there, its just a matter of how much is enough.
  - Disruptive_Dave 10y ago
    I actually don't expect anything. I get what I get, that's all. Expectation is a problem, generally speaking. Actively killing myself is quite different from un-attaching myself to the concept of an expected X number of years on this earth.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Well, to belabor the point, not walking out into traffic without looking is evidence of self-preserving instincts. Again from there its a matter of degree. Admittedly I am also of the school of 'be safe as long as it doesn't take too much mental stress'. I'll live as long as I live, given flu shots and careful driving. But I'm not going to obsess about it either.
- farresito 10y ago
  You are already extending your life by going to the doctor. What's the difference between that and an anti-aging therapy? How is that even controlling your death? You are going to die one day. It's a fact. How do you want to die? Would you rather die in the worst conditions possible, like it happens to most people nowadays? If you are happy about dying like that, you might as well stop going to the doctor. Fact is, even if you don't realize, we have been 'manipulating' death for a long time. I think what's egotistical is your comment, honestly. You are basically opposing to a therapy which would remove plenty of suffering from the world, starting with reducing the chances of cancer, removing Alzheimer, etc., yet you don't want to remove it because evolution decided that living indefinitely was not advantageous for human survivability, and so we should not touch that. Heck, what's the point of technology if not to improve our daily lives? Should we oppose to all technology?
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Of all the pain points humans experience, you'd think death lies pretty high on the list. Why are people fighting this? Because nobody ever seems to go around funding peer-reviewed medical science done in well-controlled labs with large sample sizes to study how to fight aging. This is not a problem that a startup company can solve. This is a problem for steady, difficult progress over decades. But people go for the sexy headline rather than the eventual working solution.
- jnicholasp 10y ago
  How much steady, difficult progress is currently being made? This seems like a thing that is being under-funded and under-researched, and more money, and particularly attention, being given to it is a good thing even if you don't think the particular method is likely to be effective.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >This seems like a thing that is being under-funded and under-researched, [citation needed]
pkd 10y ago
I'd love to live longer if I could stay young throughout. Death is not a pain point for me, but old age is. After watching my grandparents slowly lose control over their bodies, I don't wish to go through that same phase.
rsync 10y ago
"Of all the pain points humans experience, you'd think death lies pretty high on the list. Why are people fighting this?" Imagine a cell in your body that thinks this way. What would you call that cell ? It starts with a "c" ...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Thankfully cells aren't sentient. Also, the cell you mean is not the one that refuses to die, but one that wants to aggressively reproduce.
sgift 10y ago
Probably, because they somehow revere age-related death as something more than it is (see all the comments about making space for new generations and so on). Age-related death is simply another sickness or the accumulation of sicknesses that finally overwhelms your body and strikes you down. And like every other sickness, I hope we get rid of it as fast as possible. Unfortunately, it will probably take longer than my lifetime until that happens.
jimjimjim 10y ago
i think the general idea is: i want to live forever i don't really want everyone else doing the same
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Some aspects of living longer I'd love to have - more experiences, more knowledge and so forth. If we achieve this, but don't reduce input, longer life will just mean we live to see the crash. So in order to have long life how can we stop the growth, and ideally reduce, the human population without totalitarian approaches? Before solving aging we need to solve achieving a genuinely sustainable number for the planet and its biosphere.

by a13n 10y ago

nostromo 10y ago

It comes from reverence for naturalism. It's similar in that sense to other movements, like anti-GMO, anti-vax, etc. Tell people you want to cure cancer and you're a hero. Tell people you want to cure age-related decline and eventually death and you're a weirdo extremist.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
The word "naturalism" means something else.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

So long as increased longevity also comes with better geriatric health overall, I'm very much on board. A life worth living is not just avoiding death, it's also being able to physically and mentally function properly as well.

fabrice_d 10y ago

Death is not the problem, the agony is.

a13n 10y ago
Thanks for the response, agreed.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pointytrees 10y ago

I sometimes talk about wanting to live forever and get weird stares. Are you joking me?? I want to hike every trail in the world. I want to climb every mountain. I want to play every video game. I want to beat the hardest raids in every expansion of WoW. I want to learn multiple langauges. I want to spend several years living in every biome. I want to learn all of the programming languages. I want to go back to school for more degrees. I want to build several businesses. I want to write computer games from scratch. I want to travel to the stars. I want to live on the moon. I want to live on Mars. I want to get a doctorate degree. Or two or three? Gah, not enough time.

BjoernKW 10y ago
Not enough time? Perhaps, but forever is a long time. Quite possibly it's exactly our limited time that has us achieve great things. If you have all the time in the world why bother starting that business or learning that new skill today? Might as well start tomorrow ... I also find it at least a bit disturbing that WoW is so high on that list. Then again, if you have all the time in the world ...
- nickpinkston 10y ago
  I'm unsure if anyone who thinks "there's just not enough time" is the kind of person who would sit around because of their immortality.
  - BjoernKW 10y ago
    There's the rub. The feeling of "There's just not enough time." precisely stems from the fact that our time is limited. If that's no longer given that feeling might disappear from humanity entirely, which in turn could lead to stagnation and ultimately - and ironically - to mankind dying out.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I disagree. I believe that a big reason kids are so good at learning and trying things is that they haven't yet internalized the concept of "not enough time" - there's always shitloads of time; if not today, then tomorrow. If not this summer, then next summer. When you don't have to worry about running out of time, you don't mind blowing it on learning stuff.

dcposch 10y ago

Not just death, but the gradual loss of physical and mental capabilities you used to have. That feels scarier to me. Imagine you could chose to die on your 75th birthday, but in return keep your full 20-something health until then. I'd do it right away.

a13n 10y ago
Sure but if you've maintained your 20-something health until 75, why choose to die? That's just suicide...
- dennisgorelik 10y ago
  The choice is to live healthy life until 75 and pay the price of death at 75. If it is possible to live healthy life past 75 - that would be even better. Unfortunately none of that is possible to accomplish in the timeframe that would benefit us personally.
scandox 10y ago
Why are we so afraid of change of different experiences? Aging is not hell. It may teach us humility. It may give us the opportunity to question our priorities. Ultimately all the human race will die. Over a short or a long span only learning will matter.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Have you seen people needlessly suffer in old age? Stooped backs, sore joints, limited abilities, dementia. On the contrary, talking to my 82-year old professor who is sharper than most college kids but has constant health problems and I wish we could beat aging. You're right, we shouldn't be afraid of different experiences, but that doesn't also mean that fighting aging is bad. We could apply your arguments to all medical care, but we don't because there's no point in needlessly suffering.
- kilroy123 10y ago
  I agree, but I think everyone wants to have that much later in life. For example after your 100. Instead of 60 or whenever.

nostrademons 10y ago

I dunno. Constraints give us meaning. They're what force us to make choices, and it's choices and opportunity costs that let us define who we are at people. If we lived forever, we wouldn't have to make any hard choices - we'd just do it all. And paradoxically, being able to do it all means that none of it means anything. It's like playing a game with all the cheats on. Sure, they let you "win" super easily, but because it was super easy, it stops being fun.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Anti-aging doesn't prevent death. You could still just as easily get hit by a car when you are 90 and look 20. Or 1000 and look 20, assuming that's even possible. What's really interesting is if people could actually prolong their lifespan indefinitely but we have the same limited bodies. Then you'll see people trying really hard to say alive to comical effect. I think Aronofsky's The Fountain is a really great outlook on death. It is a disease and like any disease we may as well try hard to defeat it. Doesn't mean it isn't very natural.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  That seems even more meaningless though, to make the moment of your death random rather than mostly-predictable. I mean, it'd suck to live my life like I had a million years and then get hit by a bus tomorrow.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    A teenager got hit and killed by a car today. Probably seemed pretty random to them. What's the difference? Hell, if age couldn't kill you, then you could chose your death, which is less random than a heart attack or stroke.
- inimino 10y ago
  I'm not sure that was the outlook that film advocated.
forthefuture 10y ago

gwern 10y ago

http://lesswrong.com/lw/6vq/on_the_unpopularity_of_cryonics_life_sucks_but_at/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6vq/on_the_unpopularity_of_cryonics_...

bolocker 10y ago

"Only mortals have told me that it would suck to live forever." - /r/Showerthoughts Aubrey De Grey calls it the "pro aging trance" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#Pro-aging_trance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#Pro-aging_tranc...

bitJericho 10y ago
It's right up there with "money doesn't buy happiness"

Taek 10y ago

I'm not sure how controversial the opinion is, but it's pretty clear to me that immortality is harmful to a species in the vast majority of cases. Evolution is a constant processes of competition. When members of a species start living longer, the upgrading of their gene pool slows down. The older members maintain their old ideas and ways of life, and they soak up resources that crowd out the younger members. The environment is constantly changing. Thanks to all the other organisms that are evolving, it's not enough to become the apex predator and then stagnate. Organisms are always finding a new way to take advantage of their environment, which includes the other organisms. For this reason, I do not think that any single individual will ever be immortal, and probably not even a collective. That would require gaining control of the universe's resources in a way that guarantees they never lose it. Decentralization is inherent to the functioning of the universe. The speed of light ensures that multiple decisions be made in parallel. Those that make the most self interested decisions will be competitive, and while that often means participating as a group, no biological group that I know of is entirely devoid of selfish behavior among its members. Immortality is largely incompatible with evolution and competition.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Immortality is largely incompatible with evolution and competition. That's an incredibly good argument in favor of immortality. "Evolution" and "competition" are not gods. They do not have any moral authority over us. Our entire civilization has been built on the principle of not subjecting ourselves to Darwinian survival-selection. That aside, you should probably go count ducks in a swamp or do some other ecological fieldwork before talking about the evolutionary fitness of organisms or ecosystems. You sound atrocious at biology.
- Taek 10y ago
  > Our entire civilization has been built on the principle of not subjecting ourselves to Darwinian survival-selection. I don't believe it's something you can escape. It largely boils down to the idea of infinite wants vs. finite resources. Bostrom and co. like to talk about how there's enough energy in the universe to power 10^XX human lifetimes, but I strongly don't believe that a human is going to be the ultimate lifeform. Already we can see that the average first-world human today uses substantially more energy than the average human 1000 years ago. Unless we hit a ceiling on complexity (not currently in sight), there will always be people who want access to more energy. Since energy is finite, there will be competition between them for that energy. And that will more or less result in Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest, at least as far as some individuals/groups/organisms/species will be better at getting access to individuals as others. I guess the other alternative is that we hit an entirely egalitarian society, but I think that's exceedingly unlikely, as it would require everybody to agree 100% to limit their energy consumption to exactly what they've been allocated, and not to try to acquire more. > That aside, you should probably go count ducks in a swamp or do some other ecological fieldwork before talking about the evolutionary fitness of organisms or ecosystems. You sound atrocious at biology. I appreciate the criticism, and apologize for the sloppy metaphors. Evolution thus far though has very clearly favored death as the primary means of design. Few species have remained unchanged over the past XX million years, and even fewer are theoretically capable of immortality (barring some sort of medical intervention). Most organisms have aging hardcoded into their genome.

deegles 10y ago

I'm excited for ant-aging, not so much for an endless deluge of VC backed treatments/supplements that aren't grounded in science and/or ineffective. Besides, lifestyle needs to be addressed first. Reduce/eliminate risky behaviors, eat correctly (whatever that may be), and exercise regularly. Then perhaps look into supplements and treatments.

notgood 10y ago
Some vegans die at their 60s of "natural causes", Winston Churchill died at 90 after having smoked all his life and being very fat. Yeah, statistically there is relevance to eat correctly, but its not as dramatic as some like to believe.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  General Montgomery: I neither drink nor smoke and I am 100 percent fit. Churchill: I drink and smoke and I am 200 percent fit.

Disruptive_Dave 10y ago

I absolutely, 100% do not want to extend my life. And for the record, I am quite pleased with my life. I do not fear death, I do not worry about it, it does not concern me. Therefore I do not feel the need to combat it in any way. The good truly does not exist without the bad, life without death, and so on. Walking the path of "controlling" your life and/or death like this seems needy, egotistical, and pretty sad, imo.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
So you plan to end it all tonight? No? I think, like everyone else, you expect a reasonable lifespan and would fight to achieve that. From there, its just a matter of how much is enough.
- Disruptive_Dave 10y ago
  I actually don't expect anything. I get what I get, that's all. Expectation is a problem, generally speaking. Actively killing myself is quite different from un-attaching myself to the concept of an expected X number of years on this earth.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Well, to belabor the point, not walking out into traffic without looking is evidence of self-preserving instincts. Again from there its a matter of degree. Admittedly I am also of the school of 'be safe as long as it doesn't take too much mental stress'. I'll live as long as I live, given flu shots and careful driving. But I'm not going to obsess about it either.
farresito 10y ago
You are already extending your life by going to the doctor. What's the difference between that and an anti-aging therapy? How is that even controlling your death? You are going to die one day. It's a fact. How do you want to die? Would you rather die in the worst conditions possible, like it happens to most people nowadays? If you are happy about dying like that, you might as well stop going to the doctor. Fact is, even if you don't realize, we have been 'manipulating' death for a long time. I think what's egotistical is your comment, honestly. You are basically opposing to a therapy which would remove plenty of suffering from the world, starting with reducing the chances of cancer, removing Alzheimer, etc., yet you don't want to remove it because evolution decided that living indefinitely was not advantageous for human survivability, and so we should not touch that. Heck, what's the point of technology if not to improve our daily lives? Should we oppose to all technology?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>Of all the pain points humans experience, you'd think death lies pretty high on the list. Why are people fighting this? Because nobody ever seems to go around funding peer-reviewed medical science done in well-controlled labs with large sample sizes to study how to fight aging. This is not a problem that a startup company can solve. This is a problem for steady, difficult progress over decades. But people go for the sexy headline rather than the eventual working solution.

jnicholasp 10y ago
How much steady, difficult progress is currently being made? This seems like a thing that is being under-funded and under-researched, and more money, and particularly attention, being given to it is a good thing even if you don't think the particular method is likely to be effective.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >This seems like a thing that is being under-funded and under-researched, [citation needed]

pkd 10y ago

I'd love to live longer if I could stay young throughout. Death is not a pain point for me, but old age is. After watching my grandparents slowly lose control over their bodies, I don't wish to go through that same phase.

rsync 10y ago

"Of all the pain points humans experience, you'd think death lies pretty high on the list. Why are people fighting this?" Imagine a cell in your body that thinks this way. What would you call that cell ? It starts with a "c" ...

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Thankfully cells aren't sentient. Also, the cell you mean is not the one that refuses to die, but one that wants to aggressively reproduce.

sgift 10y ago

Probably, because they somehow revere age-related death as something more than it is (see all the comments about making space for new generations and so on). Age-related death is simply another sickness or the accumulation of sicknesses that finally overwhelms your body and strikes you down. And like every other sickness, I hope we get rid of it as fast as possible. Unfortunately, it will probably take longer than my lifetime until that happens.

jimjimjim 10y ago

i think the general idea is: i want to live forever i don't really want everyone else doing the same

anexprogrammer 10y ago

Some aspects of living longer I'd love to have - more experiences, more knowledge and so forth. If we achieve this, but don't reduce input, longer life will just mean we live to see the crash. So in order to have long life how can we stop the growth, and ideally reduce, the human population without totalitarian approaches? Before solving aging we need to solve achieving a genuinely sustainable number for the planet and its biosphere.