6 ms·

What if aging weren’t inevitable, but a curable disease?

34 points by t23 7y ago

mdorazio 7y ago
From a cynical point of view, the biggest problem with life extension is that you usually end up extending the worst years of life rather than the best. The article somewhat covers this, but if anti aging treatments only manage to keep people alive who are barely functional, you've actually made things worse for society as a whole instead of better. We need ways to extend productive years of life and potentially keep people in the workforce (or at least the socially contributing force) longer. I'm hopeful for some of the treatments mentioned, but I think a lot of them are going to fall into the "we managed to keep people in a hospital bed for an extra year" category. On a side note - has anyone heard anything from Calico recently? I seem to remember a lot of hopeful statements when they started up years ago with the intent of doing a lot of the research mentioned in this article, and then they went silent.
- dannykwells 7y ago
  Re: Calico. Lots of turnover, lots of focus on basic science. Still recruiting wonderfully talented scientists. Still very secretive about progress. Note sure if that is useful or not!
jakeogh 7y ago
Accidental death is ~50/100k/lifetime. So 0.9995^n = 1/2 is our accidental halflife. Works out to about 100,000 years on average. Someone please check;)
- perilunar 7y ago
  Of course it's not just accidents we'd need to worry about if we didn't age — there's also murder, warfare, suicide, infectious diseases, etc. I think Aubrey de Grey said the average lifespan would be ~500-1000 years absent age-related diseases.
  - solveit 7y ago
    I think people's risk tolerances would dramatically change with unbounded lifespans, and we would take any threat to life much more seriously than we do now.
    - perilunar 7y ago
      For a while yes. Though I can imagine very old but fit people taking up extreme sports when they get bored with life and dying in entirely avoidable accidents.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  The probability to get murdered in a lifetime is already higher than that (a little bit higher in Europe, a lot higher in US).
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
That would mean we've invented a huge population problem, and hundred+ year working lives. Do people really want to live forever? My impression amongst my now mainly middle aged friends is that no, that's for a hope for the naivety of youth. Or the hyper-wealthy who can fund a hedonistic century or three. In my fifties I am quite chilled and happy that I come with an as yet unknown expiry date. Am I intrigued what life will be like in the 23rd century? Definitely, presuming we get past our little climate emergency, which I doubt. Do I want 300 years of mainly boredom and frustration working my way to get there? Most certainly not. :)
- melling 7y ago
  It’s optional.
  - sriram_malhar 7y ago
    Those who don't want it for themselves still can't opt out of the problems created by unchecked population growth. Everyone is screwed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Aperocky 7y ago
  I think getting [human consciousness] software to run in other hardware will come before biological immortality, and once that happens there's no point in keeping a biological form. The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium.
  - semantic_ai 7y ago
    Loading to the new medium would work like a multi master db cluster; attach, copy, verify, shutdown old master.
  - chousuke 7y ago
    > The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium. It's not a problem. Live migration of running software is a thing. Whether it's actually possible for humans remains to be seen. The principle is the same, though. In my view, it makes sense to see myself as a software process running on biological hardware, so if there were a way to simulate a live migration from one hardware to a compatible one, there would be no point which I could consider a discontinuity, since merely suspending a process does not lose information. However, I do think that I'd prefer a method which gradually integrates my brain with a non-biological implant that eventually takes over. It seems more plausible.
ilaksh 7y ago
I think it's not quite right to put it in the same category as normal disease or initially have the goal of "curing" it, but I do believe that understanding and attempting to mitigate or at least partially reverse some of the underlying mechanisms of aging is the primary path forward for medicine. I think the SENS approach is most realistic https://sens.org https://sens.org
solveit 7y ago
I find it amazing that people unironically advocate the deaths of literally everyone because they can't be arsed to deal with overpopulation. If immortality were the default, it would rightly be seen as batshit insane to force everyone to die to solve overpopulation.
- plasticchris 7y ago
  I wonder if social progress or change at all would halt without death as an agent of change and creation? It seems like a great sci fi premise.
imtringued 7y ago
It would be more than enough to cure hair loss, it's almost the same thing.
plasticchris 7y ago
Then there would be time enough for love.

34 points by t23 7y ago

From a cynical point of view, the biggest problem with life extension is that you usually end up extending the worst years of life rather than the best. The article somewhat covers this, but if anti aging treatments only manage to keep people alive who are barely functional, you've actually made things worse for society as a whole instead of better. We need ways to extend productive years of life and potentially keep people in the workforce (or at least the socially contributing force) longer. I'm hopeful for some of the treatments mentioned, but I think a lot of them are going to fall into the "we managed to keep people in a hospital bed for an extra year" category. On a side note - has anyone heard anything from Calico recently? I seem to remember a lot of hopeful statements when they started up years ago with the intent of doing a lot of the research mentioned in this article, and then they went silent.

dannykwells 7y ago
Re: Calico. Lots of turnover, lots of focus on basic science. Still recruiting wonderfully talented scientists. Still very secretive about progress. Note sure if that is useful or not!

jakeogh 7y ago

Accidental death is ~50/100k/lifetime. So 0.9995^n = 1/2 is our accidental halflife. Works out to about 100,000 years on average. Someone please check;)

perilunar 7y ago
Of course it's not just accidents we'd need to worry about if we didn't age — there's also murder, warfare, suicide, infectious diseases, etc. I think Aubrey de Grey said the average lifespan would be ~500-1000 years absent age-related diseases.
- solveit 7y ago
  I think people's risk tolerances would dramatically change with unbounded lifespans, and we would take any threat to life much more seriously than we do now.
  - perilunar 7y ago
    For a while yes. Though I can imagine very old but fit people taking up extreme sports when they get bored with life and dying in entirely avoidable accidents.
Aperocky 7y ago
The probability to get murdered in a lifetime is already higher than that (a little bit higher in Europe, a lot higher in US).

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

That would mean we've invented a huge population problem, and hundred+ year working lives. Do people really want to live forever? My impression amongst my now mainly middle aged friends is that no, that's for a hope for the naivety of youth. Or the hyper-wealthy who can fund a hedonistic century or three. In my fifties I am quite chilled and happy that I come with an as yet unknown expiry date. Am I intrigued what life will be like in the 23rd century? Definitely, presuming we get past our little climate emergency, which I doubt. Do I want 300 years of mainly boredom and frustration working my way to get there? Most certainly not. :)

melling 7y ago
It’s optional.
- sriram_malhar 7y ago
  Those who don't want it for themselves still can't opt out of the problems created by unchecked population growth. Everyone is screwed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Aperocky 7y ago
I think getting [human consciousness] software to run in other hardware will come before biological immortality, and once that happens there's no point in keeping a biological form. The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium.
- semantic_ai 7y ago
  Loading to the new medium would work like a multi master db cluster; attach, copy, verify, shutdown old master.
- chousuke 7y ago
  > The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium. It's not a problem. Live migration of running software is a thing. Whether it's actually possible for humans remains to be seen. The principle is the same, though. In my view, it makes sense to see myself as a software process running on biological hardware, so if there were a way to simulate a live migration from one hardware to a compatible one, there would be no point which I could consider a discontinuity, since merely suspending a process does not lose information. However, I do think that I'd prefer a method which gradually integrates my brain with a non-biological implant that eventually takes over. It seems more plausible.

ilaksh 7y ago

I think it's not quite right to put it in the same category as normal disease or initially have the goal of "curing" it, but I do believe that understanding and attempting to mitigate or at least partially reverse some of the underlying mechanisms of aging is the primary path forward for medicine. I think the SENS approach is most realistic https://sens.org https://sens.org

solveit 7y ago

I find it amazing that people unironically advocate the deaths of literally everyone because they can't be arsed to deal with overpopulation. If immortality were the default, it would rightly be seen as batshit insane to force everyone to die to solve overpopulation.

plasticchris 7y ago
I wonder if social progress or change at all would halt without death as an agent of change and creation? It seems like a great sci fi premise.

imtringued 7y ago

It would be more than enough to cure hair loss, it's almost the same thing.

plasticchris 7y ago

Then there would be time enough for love.