5 ms·

I am very used by now to seeing people who think as ambitious technologists in all other parts of their life fall over and fail to think clearly and ambitiously

I am very used by now to seeing people who think as ambitious technologists in all other parts of their life fall over and fail to think clearly and ambitiously when it comes to aging. The pall of long-standing societal attitudes towards aging is hard to overcome. But really - a whole screed on what to do about aging and you don't mention biotechnology once? That is a hot startup market, in which amazing things are taking place, and there are at least three competing visions of how to significantly extend human life currently battling it out in the scientific press and pop-science translation of that. As your future arrives, there are two things you can do: either (a) accept suffering and death and do only the things you list in your article, or (b) materially help the nascent industry of rejuvenation biotechnology. We are entering an age in which you can turn money into years of life. If you aren't noticing that, and you don't understand how to do that, then you have not been doing your research. If you can buy time with money, then the worth of money becomes very different, and you should be giving a lot more of it to the right sorts of science: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/10/the-rational-use-for-excess-money-is-longevity-science.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/10/the-rational-use-... And all technologists should have a better grasp of what aging is, and how it can be ameliorated within the next 20 years with the right research path: http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes It isn't as complex as you might think - it only takes a couple of years of reading around to come to a good understanding as to why most of what you read is unscientific nonsense, and why despite that fact there are still functionally useful paths ahead: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/09/the-scientific-debate-that-will-determine-how-long-we-all-live.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/09/the-scientific-de... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/12/magical-thinking-abounds-in-the-antiaging-marketplace.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/12/magical-thinking-... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/money-making-websites-and-the-cause-of-longevity-science.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/money-making-webs... ---- And finally: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/is-prevention-of-aging-within-our-grasp.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/is-prevention-of-... "Yes, prevention of aging is within our grasp - in the sense that a package of foreseeable medical technologies could enable repair of the low-level biochemical damage that causes aging, and those technologies might take only twenty years or so to develop. Unfortunately, that timeline is dependent on a large amount of funding and a dedicated research community, neither of which presently exists for many of the essential parts of this research program. While the regenerative medicine and cancer research communities are populous, well funded, and achieving progress, very few researchers are presently working on other goals necessary to halt the aging process - such as repair of mitochondrial DNA. "So when I say "within our grasp," I mean "if we all get up and do our part to make it happen." It takes a wave of public interest and advocacy to steer the scientific community and large funding institutions - and they presently need steering towards repair-based strategies to deal with aging, otherwise the first working rejuvenation therapies will arrive too late for those in middle age today."

sayemm 16y ago
Interesting links... maybe the OP didn't mention biotech at all because it's not within his domain of expertise? And nowhere in there does he claim to be an ambitious technologist. I think this post does a great job at highlighting those stats of the top 10 killers and showing how little things and some common sense everyday can go a long way at improving your odds at preventing them. I'm a huge Buffett fan, and I really dig the analogy of looking after your own health and lifestyle the same way you would with your finances. Interest accruing on your bank account doesn't seem like much in the near-term, but compound it over several years and it yields a huge reward, hand-in-hand with having the common sense to steer clear from risky disasters. The same is true of developing good long-term habits like exercising, watching your nutrition, having a positive mentality, etc. Sure, it doesn't sound all cool and sexy, and it doesn't gratify you in the short-term, but they're time-tested principles and they put time (or the effect of compounded growth) on your side - just like Buffett's investing habits.
feral 16y ago
>The Rational Use For Excess Money is Longevity Science Depending on how you calculate it, something like one quarter of the world's population live on less than 2$ a day. Many of them die due to a lack of absolute basics, like food, or basic, cheap, medicines. Surely, the place to put 'excess money' is towards improving the lifespans of the people dying in their 30s, rather than of the people dying in their 70s? Poverty problems are really hard to solve, and longevity research is good stuff; but you can't make global arguments about where we should put our resources, to improve overall human well-being, and ignore the vast numbers of people barely surviving.
- AngryParsley 16y ago
  Aging kills significantly more people than poverty. Of the 150,000+ people who die every day, 100,000 of those are due to aging or age-related illnesses.
- pjscott 16y ago
  The rational use of excess money depends on what you care about. If you place more value on living an extra few decades than on the welfare of people you don't know, then from that set of priorities, spending your extra cash on longevity research is perfectly reasonable. You can argue that people shouldn't feel that way -- that we should be more consistent in caring about the people we know and the people we don't -- but you'll be fighting our instincts every step of the way, which is kind of difficult in practice. (Note that I'm not taking a position here one way or another. If I were, I might point out that new technology generates jobs that can alleviate poverty more effectively than most forms of aid. Then I might argue with myself, saying that there are some forms of aid which are actually very, very cost-effective, and link to GiveWell. Then I might point out that we can do more than one thing, and that it's probably most effective to try to get people to more effectively contribute to things they do care about, rather than trying to change what they value. If you want to directly help people living in poverty, consider going to http://givewell.org/ http://givewell.org/ and looking at what they recommend. If you want to live longer, the SENS Foundation is doing some good work there and could definitely use donations. Damn, I thought I wasn't going to take a position, and now I just took three of them.)

sayemm 16y ago

Interesting links... maybe the OP didn't mention biotech at all because it's not within his domain of expertise? And nowhere in there does he claim to be an ambitious technologist. I think this post does a great job at highlighting those stats of the top 10 killers and showing how little things and some common sense everyday can go a long way at improving your odds at preventing them. I'm a huge Buffett fan, and I really dig the analogy of looking after your own health and lifestyle the same way you would with your finances. Interest accruing on your bank account doesn't seem like much in the near-term, but compound it over several years and it yields a huge reward, hand-in-hand with having the common sense to steer clear from risky disasters. The same is true of developing good long-term habits like exercising, watching your nutrition, having a positive mentality, etc. Sure, it doesn't sound all cool and sexy, and it doesn't gratify you in the short-term, but they're time-tested principles and they put time (or the effect of compounded growth) on your side - just like Buffett's investing habits.

feral 16y ago

>The Rational Use For Excess Money is Longevity Science Depending on how you calculate it, something like one quarter of the world's population live on less than 2$ a day. Many of them die due to a lack of absolute basics, like food, or basic, cheap, medicines. Surely, the place to put 'excess money' is towards improving the lifespans of the people dying in their 30s, rather than of the people dying in their 70s? Poverty problems are really hard to solve, and longevity research is good stuff; but you can't make global arguments about where we should put our resources, to improve overall human well-being, and ignore the vast numbers of people barely surviving.

AngryParsley 16y ago
Aging kills significantly more people than poverty. Of the 150,000+ people who die every day, 100,000 of those are due to aging or age-related illnesses.
pjscott 16y ago
The rational use of excess money depends on what you care about. If you place more value on living an extra few decades than on the welfare of people you don't know, then from that set of priorities, spending your extra cash on longevity research is perfectly reasonable. You can argue that people shouldn't feel that way -- that we should be more consistent in caring about the people we know and the people we don't -- but you'll be fighting our instincts every step of the way, which is kind of difficult in practice. (Note that I'm not taking a position here one way or another. If I were, I might point out that new technology generates jobs that can alleviate poverty more effectively than most forms of aid. Then I might argue with myself, saying that there are some forms of aid which are actually very, very cost-effective, and link to GiveWell. Then I might point out that we can do more than one thing, and that it's probably most effective to try to get people to more effectively contribute to things they do care about, rather than trying to change what they value. If you want to directly help people living in poverty, consider going to http://givewell.org/ http://givewell.org/ and looking at what they recommend. If you want to live longer, the SENS Foundation is doing some good work there and could definitely use donations. Damn, I thought I wasn't going to take a position, and now I just took three of them.)