4 ms·

The Men Who Want to Live Forever

19 points by pbhowmic 9y ago

tremendulo 9y ago
I'm not a body, I'm a mind running on a body! Food for thought is that life extension treatments once developed will ultimately be cheaper and safer than hospital care. So they'll be compulsory, in effect. Or rather everyone will continually face the question: more extension, or voluntary euthanasia? No more waiting around to die. Purpose, metaphysics, mental health all brought into sharp focus.
- matte_black 9y ago
  You actually aren’t a mind. You are what is observing the mind.
  - dqpb 9y ago
    I feel like a mind can observe itself as long as there is some feedback control...
  - tremendulo 9y ago
    Not relevant to life extension, but I think what you're saying amounts to the fact that the mind is more complex than most minds assume. (Perhaps including than you assume. For doesn't it require a mind to observe things, even itself?)
- palimpsests 9y ago
  You are not your thoughts
Para2016 9y ago
No cool tech or interesting new research in this #metoo snoozefest.
phjesusthatguy3 9y ago
Zero mentions of Ray Kurzweil in this story.
seawlf 9y ago
It's frustrating that the author takes what is a reasonable field for humans to research and conflates it with some kind of sexist drive for domination. Personally I feel like this sort of hogwash (the author even stops short of saying "as a mother") undermines the credibility of the NYT.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  I agree. I support women and equality as a left-leaning progressive, but as a techy and someone who wants to see light-speed travel and our first encounter with alien life-- the only way for that to happen is life extension, heck even as an avatar in a computer would be better than nothing. This article drew me in because I'm obsessed with anti-aging tech, but to take something that isn't all evil, and twist it is horrible. I think the biggest issue is income inequality personally, --when the rich DO figure out immortality, it may only be accessible to the billionaire class at which point -- they're essentially giving everyone else a death sentence.
  - yazaddaruvala 9y ago
    This won’t happen. 1. Pharmaceutical companies want people to take it. 2. Insurance companies would want humans to take it. 3. Once a drug is invented, if it is kept hidden or secret, the people who administer the drug would want it for their families. There would be whistle blowers, there would be leaks. As soon as it is leaked labs in China or India or anywhere would reproduce it and longevity tourism would ensue.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Ok but what if it's just really expensive? You know, like healthcare, or trips to the moon. People with a lot of money get access to things before people without a lot of money.
      - yazaddaruvala 9y ago
        Like micro processors, the marginal cost of manufacturing a drug is minimal. The R&D is the expensive bit. Even gene therapy, is primarily bounded by R&D and then delivery may or may not be expensive, I don’t know.
macawfish 9y ago
I believe that death is a part of life. edit: guess I touched a nerve, but please have some respect. I wasn't being facetious, just so you know. I lost a newborn brother at age 5 and my father at age 11, so I've experienced death. I've grieved deeply. Yes there's tragedy in death. I can't and won't invalidate that. But there is so much more to death than tragedy. And more often than not, the tragedy is rooted in unfulfilled lives, not in death itself. I don't see how longer lifespans are going to magically cure the bigger problem of unfulfilling life habits being normalized, even enforced. There are too many people on this planet who haven't made peace with death, and who externalize their fear onto others. I believe this is the author's point. You downvote me without asking any questions? Call the author a luddite? I imagine you are someone who hasn't made peace with death and the forces of evolution. I urge you to face it from a fresh angle, to have courage and take a good look, it's not a monster unless you make it be. And honestly, people who treated my father's death like a monster kinda traumatized me. They encouraged me to idolize my father in a way that distracted me from his wonderful, raw humanity, both in living and dying. P.S. If anyone open minded wants an interesting perspective on death, check out the book "Living Your Dying" by Stanley Keleman.
- brucephillips 9y ago
  This adds nothing to the discussion.
- pdx 9y ago
  Crying over the loss of 4 of your 8 children used to be a part of life a century ago. We changed that, and can change what it means to age as well, if luddites like the author of this article can be overcome.
- brucephillips 9y ago
  This argument could just as well be made against life saving medicines like antibiotics. Death is a part of life. Let's not fight it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
firasd 9y ago
This piece is like a sentiment more than a real inquiry. The argument is based on avoiding any particulars. The fact is that life extension is not just a way for Peter Thiel to walk the earth forever; it is a set of medical interventions. If you're not against penicillin or bypass surgeries, what particular life extension techniques are you against?
hnaccy 9y ago
As a species we're not ready for immortality or significant life extension. Focusing on this problem before solving the many inequities of our societies is selfish. Hypothetically if a powerful person were to use such a treatment they should be assassinated lest they become an undying tyrant.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  That's bullshit. Human beings are not ready for ANYTHING, has never been, will never be. Humans are inherently flawed animals and there will never reach a point where we can confidently say we've figured out enough that we are ready for anything.
  - hnaccy 9y ago
    Improved dental care or malaria treatment would have few if any downsides. Immortality limited to the powerful few could have huge downsides, at least now we can count on them dying eventually. Maintenance of consolidated power through the generations is not an easy problem to solve and we shouldn't be making it any easier until our society is more equitable.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      A lot of useful technologies started out as something only for the rich and powerful, and as more people started using them it created economies of scale, and eventually brought down the cost, making it affordable to the masses. I'm not even making this up. This is a widely accepted phenomenon and there are even many books on this. Uber was a limo service for rich people in the beginning, but now it's grown into a whole industry which is beneficial to people who previously couldn't easily move around, such as the disabled and the elders. If everyone acted like smug pseudo intellects and tried to ostracize Uber saying "it's for some rich bros", the world wouldn't be where it is. It is arrogant to believe that one can predict what will exactly happen because of just one piece of technology. Most of the human history is full of things that nobody saw coming.
mindcrime 9y ago
Man, this "article" is the worst sort of garbage. It's nothing but a thin veneer over yet another "men are evil" diatribe. This tripe doesn't even rise to the level of being good yellow journalism.
- matte_black 9y ago
  It’s New York Times what do you expect? Fortunately reading articles isn’t necessary for a good discussion on Hackernews.
dqpb 9y ago
Some billionaires, already invincible in every other way, have decided that they also deserve not to die. I think a simple poll would find that practically no one feels they deserve to die.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  There's a difference between thinking you deserve not to die and merely not thinking you deserve to die.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  My worry is if it is discovered it might be kept secret and only available to the uber-rich.
- ternaryoperator 9y ago
  I know old people who are ready to die and in that sense feel that they've earned it, insofar as they've put in a good life, have struggled through old age, and would like to get to the end of it all. Not suicidal, but ready to move on to whatever is next. I agree this is not what the author intends by the term, but your comment "no one feels they deserve to die" is too absolutist, at least in my experience.
UseStrict 9y ago
What utter garbage, twisting the desire for longer lives into some sort of sexist oppression? Sure these billionaires can afford to fund this research, but if longer and healthier lives was possible, would you really want to die?

19 points by pbhowmic 9y ago

I'm not a body, I'm a mind running on a body! Food for thought is that life extension treatments once developed will ultimately be cheaper and safer than hospital care. So they'll be compulsory, in effect. Or rather everyone will continually face the question: more extension, or voluntary euthanasia? No more waiting around to die. Purpose, metaphysics, mental health all brought into sharp focus.

matte_black 9y ago
You actually aren’t a mind. You are what is observing the mind.
- dqpb 9y ago
  I feel like a mind can observe itself as long as there is some feedback control...
- tremendulo 9y ago
  Not relevant to life extension, but I think what you're saying amounts to the fact that the mind is more complex than most minds assume. (Perhaps including than you assume. For doesn't it require a mind to observe things, even itself?)
palimpsests 9y ago
You are not your thoughts

Para2016 9y ago

No cool tech or interesting new research in this #metoo snoozefest.

phjesusthatguy3 9y ago

Zero mentions of Ray Kurzweil in this story.

seawlf 9y ago

It's frustrating that the author takes what is a reasonable field for humans to research and conflates it with some kind of sexist drive for domination. Personally I feel like this sort of hogwash (the author even stops short of saying "as a mother") undermines the credibility of the NYT.

gremlinsinc 9y ago
I agree. I support women and equality as a left-leaning progressive, but as a techy and someone who wants to see light-speed travel and our first encounter with alien life-- the only way for that to happen is life extension, heck even as an avatar in a computer would be better than nothing. This article drew me in because I'm obsessed with anti-aging tech, but to take something that isn't all evil, and twist it is horrible. I think the biggest issue is income inequality personally, --when the rich DO figure out immortality, it may only be accessible to the billionaire class at which point -- they're essentially giving everyone else a death sentence.
- yazaddaruvala 9y ago
  This won’t happen. 1. Pharmaceutical companies want people to take it. 2. Insurance companies would want humans to take it. 3. Once a drug is invented, if it is kept hidden or secret, the people who administer the drug would want it for their families. There would be whistle blowers, there would be leaks. As soon as it is leaked labs in China or India or anywhere would reproduce it and longevity tourism would ensue.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Ok but what if it's just really expensive? You know, like healthcare, or trips to the moon. People with a lot of money get access to things before people without a lot of money.
    - yazaddaruvala 9y ago
      Like micro processors, the marginal cost of manufacturing a drug is minimal. The R&D is the expensive bit. Even gene therapy, is primarily bounded by R&D and then delivery may or may not be expensive, I don’t know.

macawfish 9y ago

I believe that death is a part of life. edit: guess I touched a nerve, but please have some respect. I wasn't being facetious, just so you know. I lost a newborn brother at age 5 and my father at age 11, so I've experienced death. I've grieved deeply. Yes there's tragedy in death. I can't and won't invalidate that. But there is so much more to death than tragedy. And more often than not, the tragedy is rooted in unfulfilled lives, not in death itself. I don't see how longer lifespans are going to magically cure the bigger problem of unfulfilling life habits being normalized, even enforced. There are too many people on this planet who haven't made peace with death, and who externalize their fear onto others. I believe this is the author's point. You downvote me without asking any questions? Call the author a luddite? I imagine you are someone who hasn't made peace with death and the forces of evolution. I urge you to face it from a fresh angle, to have courage and take a good look, it's not a monster unless you make it be. And honestly, people who treated my father's death like a monster kinda traumatized me. They encouraged me to idolize my father in a way that distracted me from his wonderful, raw humanity, both in living and dying. P.S. If anyone open minded wants an interesting perspective on death, check out the book "Living Your Dying" by Stanley Keleman.

brucephillips 9y ago
This adds nothing to the discussion.
pdx 9y ago
Crying over the loss of 4 of your 8 children used to be a part of life a century ago. We changed that, and can change what it means to age as well, if luddites like the author of this article can be overcome.
brucephillips 9y ago
This argument could just as well be made against life saving medicines like antibiotics. Death is a part of life. Let's not fight it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

firasd 9y ago

This piece is like a sentiment more than a real inquiry. The argument is based on avoiding any particulars. The fact is that life extension is not just a way for Peter Thiel to walk the earth forever; it is a set of medical interventions. If you're not against penicillin or bypass surgeries, what particular life extension techniques are you against?

hnaccy 9y ago

As a species we're not ready for immortality or significant life extension. Focusing on this problem before solving the many inequities of our societies is selfish. Hypothetically if a powerful person were to use such a treatment they should be assassinated lest they become an undying tyrant.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
That's bullshit. Human beings are not ready for ANYTHING, has never been, will never be. Humans are inherently flawed animals and there will never reach a point where we can confidently say we've figured out enough that we are ready for anything.
- hnaccy 9y ago
  Improved dental care or malaria treatment would have few if any downsides. Immortality limited to the powerful few could have huge downsides, at least now we can count on them dying eventually. Maintenance of consolidated power through the generations is not an easy problem to solve and we shouldn't be making it any easier until our society is more equitable.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    A lot of useful technologies started out as something only for the rich and powerful, and as more people started using them it created economies of scale, and eventually brought down the cost, making it affordable to the masses. I'm not even making this up. This is a widely accepted phenomenon and there are even many books on this. Uber was a limo service for rich people in the beginning, but now it's grown into a whole industry which is beneficial to people who previously couldn't easily move around, such as the disabled and the elders. If everyone acted like smug pseudo intellects and tried to ostracize Uber saying "it's for some rich bros", the world wouldn't be where it is. It is arrogant to believe that one can predict what will exactly happen because of just one piece of technology. Most of the human history is full of things that nobody saw coming.

mindcrime 9y ago

Man, this "article" is the worst sort of garbage. It's nothing but a thin veneer over yet another "men are evil" diatribe. This tripe doesn't even rise to the level of being good yellow journalism.

matte_black 9y ago
It’s New York Times what do you expect? Fortunately reading articles isn’t necessary for a good discussion on Hackernews.

dqpb 9y ago

Some billionaires, already invincible in every other way, have decided that they also deserve not to die. I think a simple poll would find that practically no one feels they deserve to die.

dragonwriter 9y ago
There's a difference between thinking you deserve not to die and merely not thinking you deserve to die.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
My worry is if it is discovered it might be kept secret and only available to the uber-rich.
ternaryoperator 9y ago
I know old people who are ready to die and in that sense feel that they've earned it, insofar as they've put in a good life, have struggled through old age, and would like to get to the end of it all. Not suicidal, but ready to move on to whatever is next. I agree this is not what the author intends by the term, but your comment "no one feels they deserve to die" is too absolutist, at least in my experience.

UseStrict 9y ago

What utter garbage, twisting the desire for longer lives into some sort of sexist oppression? Sure these billionaires can afford to fund this research, but if longer and healthier lives was possible, would you really want to die?