5 ms·
I’m highly skeptical. It’s 2017, and we still debate if carbs are bad for us, we can’t effectively suppress a cough without highly addictive opiates, we don't h
by cko 9y ago
I’m highly skeptical. It’s 2017, and we still debate if carbs are bad for us, we can’t effectively suppress a cough without highly addictive opiates, we don't have the cure for the common cold, and any drug treatment for any disease state involves a ligand binding to a specific site triggering a counterbalancing cascade of effects. Costly biotech drugs produced by recombinant DNA to treat autoimmune diseases? Increased risk of infection. Inhibit cholesterol synthesis with statins? Increased risk of diabetes, and recently, reports of cognitive decline. The then-heralded proton pump inhibitors used to treat acid reflux? Increased risk of osteoporosis, C diff infection, etc.
There’s a lot of hype surrounding medicinal advances but every new treatment that hits the market makes me think “more of the same.”
I’m just a pharmacist, not a microbiologist, but I doubt lengthening some telomeres and repairing mitochondria are going to be side-effect free.
I don’t know much about gene therapy.
My impression is that our current understanding of human biology is still much in its infancy.
Edit: Spelling
- naasking 9y ago> I’m highly skeptical. It’s 2017, and we still debate if carbs are bad for us, we can’t effectively suppress a cough without highly addictive opiates, we domt have the cure for the common cold, and any drug treatment for any disease state involves a ligand binding to a specific site triggering a counterbalancing cascade of effects. What seems intuitively simple isn't necessarily simple. As unintuitive as it seems, it could very well be that curing the common cold will be harder than curing aging. That said, Kurzweil isn't saying that we will have invented the immortality treatment by 2029, merely that we will have some life extension treatments available. These treatments will simply get you to the next treatment, and that to the next one, and so on ad infinitum. It's not so implausible when framed like that. We've already had quite a few promising results in aging research in the past 10 years, and the interest in this field is growing, and so the pace of advancement will also increase.
- melling 9y agoHe’s predicting that by 2029, we’ll start to add years to our lives. We will be at the beginning of extending life. I think the idea is that if we can delay death long enough, the “exponential“ technology curve will eventually allow us to make ourselves “younger”. In the short-term, people will reach 75, for example, and we can address some of the rapid that occurs in your 80’s. You’ll be a healthier 85 year old, ready to get your next tuneup a decade later with more advanced technology.
- cko 9y agoI mean, I certainly hope so. If they could also restore my skin turgor. And gait function.
- mnemicmeme 9y ago> we still debate if carbs are bad for us Aren't (most) carbs bad for us (chains of sugar)? A low carb diet isn't pushed. It's quite the opposite. Keto/Mediterranean are seen as too extreme.
- mnemicmeme 9y agoCan someone explain why I was given a negative point for stating this?
- tarboreus 9y agoBecause the point was to say we're debating it, not to start a debate. And your starting a debate in order to show that we're not debating it is, debatably, silly.