10 ms·

Extreme life extension looms large in my mind and I don’t have much trouble imagining that many people hope for this as well. My gut tells me that it’s possible

Extreme life extension looms large in my mind and I don’t have much trouble imagining that many people hope for this as well. My gut tells me that it’s possible but my mind says we aren’t the ones to get it. I feel like the barrier here is more of a political one than being a matter of research or feasibility. I never quite understood why we are not throwing money at this issue. I mean I get that we collectively have doubt it could happen but the alternative is the big sleep anyway so why the hell not try? Every day we feel tantalizingly closer to solving each of these problems but each decade seems to pass by quicker than the last. Perhaps we are a terminal species. Maybe the real big problem lies in social science or psychology. Better stewardship or collective modeling. Maybe we should start force-feeding lsd into people who actively vote against and stand opposed to scientific progress. There’s got to be more in life than just withdrawing a paycheque or not and dying eventually. Sinking into the past and eventually erased from living memory. I once saw a picture of a guy in the 1920s who bred horses in the Greek mountains. This vague memory is all that’s left of my great grandfather. I don’t even know his name.

luckylion 6y ago
> There’s got to be more in life than just withdrawing a paycheque or not and dying eventually. Prolonging life, working for eternity while continuously having children, the planet rotting away because we refuse to die? That may be more (at least in terms of years), but is it much better?
- kinghtown 6y ago
  Experience brings wisdom. I get it, this notion of death as a release but release from what? I think we can fix many of those what’s with time and enjoy living longer and healthier. Would you really say no to 200 years because of labour? I’m not convinced people wouldn’t change with time. Watching reality tv well into their 400s. Really though, I don’t believe we’d ever get extreme life extension without getting many other ducks in a row such as sustainable living in massive numbers.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    > Experience brings wisdom. That is not a given. It is easy to imagine medicine being able to prolong life in terms of, well, preventing death, but the person would still suffer from some of the downsides of senescence like excessive credulity (i.e. the elderly being easily taken in by con-artists), slower cognitive function, etc.
nradov 6y ago
As a practical matter the most reliable way to extend lifespan today is by delaying the onset of chronic diseases. People who live a long time tend to be the ones who start suffering from chronic disease later in life. Genetic and environmental factors play a role, but most chronic diseases can be delayed through lifestyle changes. https://peterattiamd.com/start-here/ https://peterattiamd.com/start-here/ From a microbiology perspective it's really tough to prevent cellular senescence without also increasing the risk of malignancy. Those two factors are in direct conflict.
- kinghtown 6y ago
  “ it's really tough to prevent cellular senescence without also increasing the risk of malignancy. ” For sure it is. But even the very language you use gives me hope. Our understanding of disease and aging is very much advanced compared to 100 years ago. We are making progress, that’s for sure. Our understanding of exactly why extreme life extension is difficult is becoming more sophisticated.
  - codetrotter 6y ago
    I think the topic of prolonged life is really difficult. On one side I am curious like, what does the future look like. On the other side I am like, why even stick around? What would the future bring for a 190 years old version of myself? Will anyone care about what I have to say? And will it even be relevant what I have to say? Think of it the other way around like, would a bunch of people from the 1800s really be of much use to society today? Or are we better off that we get to stake out the near future for ourselves and likewise that our descendants are better off getting to stake out their future? I don’t have an answer. At the same time it’s like what about the other way around? Clearly 30 years of life for example is way too short. So just because 70 or 80 years or something is the norm now in developed countries that don’t mean that this is the ideal either. Like I say, I find it really difficult to try and decide upon.
    - kinghtown 6y ago
      “ would a bunch of people from the 1800s really be of much use to society today” Maybe not everyone but go back another hundred years. Would Newton be of negative value today? I seriously doubt it. I adore James Joyce, who was around in the 1800s. But let’s not consider people like that for a second but consider the random guy on the bus last year. A no name non-contributing zero. I want him to travel the stars. I don’t need a random guy on the bus to produce or display worth in order to not only live but live well- live better than any kings have ever had. I would like that for you. You don’t need to show your papers to stick around another year as far as I’m concerned. I would love for you to experience unending pure hedonistic pleasure for centuries free of charge. You don’t need to say anything if you don’t want to or can’t. I don’t think anyone should have to work for it if they don’t want to.
andi999 6y ago
I think we do not throw money at the problem because of the same reason we do not throw money at anti-gravity: we probably do not have a promising idea how to attack the problem. And you need a promising idea, since you cannot throw random substances at random people and see if aging slows down, i believe since aging takes long you can test too few substances.
- kinghtown 6y ago
  There would be obvious commercial interest in antigravity but to the average person it would be a hard sell as a prime focus for the human race. If I were to triage a list of research problems with huge social impact then antigravity would be b tier at best. Obviously super cool with huge ramifications on our understanding of reality but I’d argue that we could and often do live very well without it.
- the__alchemist 6y ago
  What if instead of anti-gravity, we examine medical treatment for diseases correlated with ageing? We place huge amount of money into research and treatments for cancer and cardiovascular diseases - these feel like band aids, since the root cause is usually senescence. Are curing (To whatever degree you like) these more attainable goals than slowing/stopping aging? Probably. Maybe. I don't know, but I'm not convinced this isn't a case of treating the symptoms, when we could attack the disease.
gowld 6y ago
Until people stop living poorly and dying young, making the oldest people live longer just isn't very important, and the extreme difficulty makes it a bad investment. It may be that advances and improvements that help yound lives also help old lives. If so, great. But there's no need to focus on the extreme corner case.
pphysch 6y ago
Extreme, blind individualism is, in my opinion, the clearest root cause for many of our current problems. It's what drives our obsession with personal propriety, economic growth, and immaterial fantasies of immortality (scientific and religious). It also falls apart on the slightest inspection! As you say, we all die and are quickly forgotten (ironically, we are forgotten first by those of our progeny who share our self-obsession). Unfortunately, it's also the core of Western culture. I think the idea of psychodelic-assisted reeducation is a promising and humane strategy if we want to avoid total social collapse in the West over the next 3 decades. But it's also extremely, extremely radical and deeply offensive to vague interpretation of "liberty". After all, why should someone tell me what to think or do, as I willingly earn $13/hr to barely make ends meet while consuming corporate media products in my rare leisure hours...
- kinghtown 6y ago
  “ It also falls apart on the slightest inspection!” Does it though? You are failing to provide an adequate argument for death. I see it as more than just a physical revulsion of dying or a fear of letting go. A western perversion or as a crisis of individualism. Those are present, to be sure, (I don’t agree with the western part but let’s go with that too) but is dreaming for immortality immature? Immortality is the very essence of maturity, it’s purest expression. But, is immaturity also so bad, like let’s be adult here and like fall into an abyss without struggling? To be certain, I am not blind to the charms of being courageous in the face of death. But this isn’t what I’m driving at. It’s not just fear of death, it’s also a collective refusal to live exponentially better than we do today. So many of our problems as a species stem from a joint agreement that life is inherently bad when life really is, maybe this is just me talking here, everything we could ever have in this place. And could we also dare to improve? Quickly forgotten is a bit of a stretch when I often think of my grandparents. But your thinking on this notion of poor memory as a, what now? Good reason to die? Much of what you say seems to depend on this idea that we should die because we are selfish anyways so good riddance. If blind selfishness is a prime cause of our ills than wouldn’t our slow rate of progress be a result of that? It’s not like blind selfishness is directly causing immortality. You mention western culture which begs the question: are you culturally opposed to extreme life extension? “Psychedelic re-education” I’m not a actually serious. The bottom of the rabbit hole is just more rabbit hole. LSD can inspire but it’s not an end goal.
blawson 6y ago
Maybe you've read the book Lifespan, but the research talked about in it feels far more optimistic than what you've outlined. [1] Certainly there is already a decent amount of money being spent on it, and more and more each year with promising results. [2] Reading this book, aging feels like an area where we might see huge advances in the next 15-20 years. There are already really strong results for extending vital life by significant margins in other species, including rhesus monkeys. There are already drugs people take that seem to have some of this effect, though I think currently they come with some dangerous side-effects that might not be worth it if you didn't have the underlying disease the drug was intended for. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/1501191977 https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/150... [2] https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(17)30171-3 https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-779...
- keenmaster 6y ago
  Great book. David Sinclair makes a good case for why aging is the primary disease, and increased risk for cancer, heart disease, neurological decline, etc...are symptoms of the same disease. Even a universal cure for cancer would not increase lifespan drastically, because you'd just die from another collection of age-related ailments a few years later. We should try to find a direct cure for aging. Aging research in the past 5-10 years has been promising.
Dumblydorr 6y ago
We barely throw money at existential threats like nuclear de-escalation, pandemics, and climate catastrophe. If we can't even try to ensure the lives of those here now are regular length, what makes you think anyone in government is going to search for a fountain of youth? Science needs it's own legs to stand on here before government swoops in. Right now, its mostly hype and smoke and mirrors, there's nothing I've seen that warrants government funding.
mc32 6y ago
I get it but I don’t understand it. Can you imagine: on the one hand post industrial countries are inhabited by a bunch or multi centenarians, on the other hand poor countries are overpopulated by youngsters. In the post industrial countries their minuscule pool of young people have no chance to dislodge entrenched old people who have the power. There is less rejuvenation and less change in these multi centenarian societies and they become calcified, ossified. Old buggers hanging on for what? Will their minds be plastic? Sure, I don’t always agree with my young self or today’s young on all things, but I believe they should have the opportunity to shape their society in their time without obstructionist old timers.
- kinghtown 6y ago
  Good news is that those youngsters will have plenty of time to plot and wait with their extreme lifespans. People change. Life is change. Why would a longer life span be even more extremely boring and unchanging. I’m not convinced. It’s a big galaxy. Bad news: we probably won’t be getting extreme lifespan anyways. It’s very political.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Youngsters are not typically known for patience with adults (witness progs vs liberals). I think it would be very socially destabilizing.
- teorema 6y ago
  It's kind of a false dilemma? Old persons who don't change versus young ones who do? Could be ageist, not to mention neglecting the real issue of experience. I agree with the "room for new people" conundrum but you could approach that as a population control issue from a couple of different directions. Or you could approach lifespan extension simultaneously with research on its consequences, like how to structure society (economics, politics, etc) so as to optimize well-being.
  - mc32 6y ago
    With longer time spans compared to regular folks who don’t have the multicentennarian means, these people would accumulate more wealth and more power and would distort power imbalance even further (think the disparaging “boomer” remark but make it “multi cent”.
adamsea 6y ago
IMHO I'd rather see more social/economic justice, so that all of the increases in healthcare and expected lifespan are more evenly distributed. Otherwise with whatever extreme life extension stuff might happen, it'll just be unjustly distributed based on wealth and race is it is too often today. Also, man, let's not fear death too much : ). I'm not looking forward to it, but, my gut sense this whole extreme life extension thing is 50% pharoahnic - afraid of death and wanting to hold on to the toys you have, as opposed to living a full life.
Upvoter33 6y ago
Better be very careful before we make lives a lot longer. Death is one of life's greatest properties...
titzer 6y ago
> Maybe we should start force-feeding lsd into people who actively vote against and stand opposed to scientific progress. Maybe we should stop assuming that every selfish impulse, gluttonous instinct, and absurd demand on the universe is somehow "scientific" and "good". Who wants to live longer if you can't appreciate the one, short, life you do have? Why waste it trying to get more? Life extension has at its core an unquestionable assumption that parades itself as morality--the sanctity and worth of human life!--but it is really the basest narcissism and selfishness that is utterly alien to the functioning of every single component of this vast ecosystem. Things die. > Sinking into the past and eventually erased from living memory. I once saw a picture of a guy in the 1920s who bred horses in the Greek mountains. Yeah, well, the atoms that make up the molecules in the proteins in the cells in your body were manufactured in the massive explosions of supernovae billions of years ago that no one remembers. You think your great grandfather is lost to the sands of time for all eternity, when in reality he is only lost to you. It's just a further expression of unquestioned selfishness, wanting more life for yourself by coopting his into your experience. Let your great grandfather and his entire life be as it was. There is nothing required more of him now.
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  > Who wants to live longer if you can't appreciate the one, short, life you do have? Why waste it trying to get more? Why is the arbitrary length of human life sacred? Less is seemingly bad (because murder is illegal), but more would also be bad... so we got exactly the correct amount now, regardless of the fact that it is a different number for different people. Sounds like Stockholm syndrome. If you like your life, you still have to prioritize. You would like to do X and Y, time is short, you choose X. With more time, you could experience Y, too. Why not? If you don't want to live, I respect your decision, just please don't force it on other people. My preferred option would be an unlimited life, with perfect health, and the ability to choose quick painless death if you decide so.
  - kinghtown 6y ago
    “If you don't want to live, I respect your decision, just please don't force it on other people.“ Isn’t that the funny part? It’s fascinating to me that the people arguing against life extension here have two main points: 1. People don’t deserve it because they are inherently bad, they are poorly optimized, are selfish agents, would exhaust their value, are incapable of managing the impact of life extension, and so on. 2. Life is meaningless without death. <—- I am willing to entertain this second idea but the first has a disciplinary puritanical feeling to it which I really don’t relate to at all. This profound pessimism is alien to me. I can’t help but feel that there are ultimately some religious undertones at play here.
Tarq0n 6y ago
Life extension would mean a massive change in population growth dynamics. That's pretty scary from a politician's perspective.

luckylion 6y ago

> There’s got to be more in life than just withdrawing a paycheque or not and dying eventually. Prolonging life, working for eternity while continuously having children, the planet rotting away because we refuse to die? That may be more (at least in terms of years), but is it much better?

kinghtown 6y ago
Experience brings wisdom. I get it, this notion of death as a release but release from what? I think we can fix many of those what’s with time and enjoy living longer and healthier. Would you really say no to 200 years because of labour? I’m not convinced people wouldn’t change with time. Watching reality tv well into their 400s. Really though, I don’t believe we’d ever get extreme life extension without getting many other ducks in a row such as sustainable living in massive numbers.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > Experience brings wisdom. That is not a given. It is easy to imagine medicine being able to prolong life in terms of, well, preventing death, but the person would still suffer from some of the downsides of senescence like excessive credulity (i.e. the elderly being easily taken in by con-artists), slower cognitive function, etc.

nradov 6y ago

As a practical matter the most reliable way to extend lifespan today is by delaying the onset of chronic diseases. People who live a long time tend to be the ones who start suffering from chronic disease later in life. Genetic and environmental factors play a role, but most chronic diseases can be delayed through lifestyle changes. https://peterattiamd.com/start-here/ https://peterattiamd.com/start-here/ From a microbiology perspective it's really tough to prevent cellular senescence without also increasing the risk of malignancy. Those two factors are in direct conflict.

kinghtown 6y ago
“ it's really tough to prevent cellular senescence without also increasing the risk of malignancy. ” For sure it is. But even the very language you use gives me hope. Our understanding of disease and aging is very much advanced compared to 100 years ago. We are making progress, that’s for sure. Our understanding of exactly why extreme life extension is difficult is becoming more sophisticated.
- codetrotter 6y ago
  I think the topic of prolonged life is really difficult. On one side I am curious like, what does the future look like. On the other side I am like, why even stick around? What would the future bring for a 190 years old version of myself? Will anyone care about what I have to say? And will it even be relevant what I have to say? Think of it the other way around like, would a bunch of people from the 1800s really be of much use to society today? Or are we better off that we get to stake out the near future for ourselves and likewise that our descendants are better off getting to stake out their future? I don’t have an answer. At the same time it’s like what about the other way around? Clearly 30 years of life for example is way too short. So just because 70 or 80 years or something is the norm now in developed countries that don’t mean that this is the ideal either. Like I say, I find it really difficult to try and decide upon.
  - kinghtown 6y ago
    “ would a bunch of people from the 1800s really be of much use to society today” Maybe not everyone but go back another hundred years. Would Newton be of negative value today? I seriously doubt it. I adore James Joyce, who was around in the 1800s. But let’s not consider people like that for a second but consider the random guy on the bus last year. A no name non-contributing zero. I want him to travel the stars. I don’t need a random guy on the bus to produce or display worth in order to not only live but live well- live better than any kings have ever had. I would like that for you. You don’t need to show your papers to stick around another year as far as I’m concerned. I would love for you to experience unending pure hedonistic pleasure for centuries free of charge. You don’t need to say anything if you don’t want to or can’t. I don’t think anyone should have to work for it if they don’t want to.

andi999 6y ago

I think we do not throw money at the problem because of the same reason we do not throw money at anti-gravity: we probably do not have a promising idea how to attack the problem. And you need a promising idea, since you cannot throw random substances at random people and see if aging slows down, i believe since aging takes long you can test too few substances.

kinghtown 6y ago
There would be obvious commercial interest in antigravity but to the average person it would be a hard sell as a prime focus for the human race. If I were to triage a list of research problems with huge social impact then antigravity would be b tier at best. Obviously super cool with huge ramifications on our understanding of reality but I’d argue that we could and often do live very well without it.
the__alchemist 6y ago
What if instead of anti-gravity, we examine medical treatment for diseases correlated with ageing? We place huge amount of money into research and treatments for cancer and cardiovascular diseases - these feel like band aids, since the root cause is usually senescence. Are curing (To whatever degree you like) these more attainable goals than slowing/stopping aging? Probably. Maybe. I don't know, but I'm not convinced this isn't a case of treating the symptoms, when we could attack the disease.

gowld 6y ago

Until people stop living poorly and dying young, making the oldest people live longer just isn't very important, and the extreme difficulty makes it a bad investment. It may be that advances and improvements that help yound lives also help old lives. If so, great. But there's no need to focus on the extreme corner case.

pphysch 6y ago

Extreme, blind individualism is, in my opinion, the clearest root cause for many of our current problems. It's what drives our obsession with personal propriety, economic growth, and immaterial fantasies of immortality (scientific and religious). It also falls apart on the slightest inspection! As you say, we all die and are quickly forgotten (ironically, we are forgotten first by those of our progeny who share our self-obsession). Unfortunately, it's also the core of Western culture. I think the idea of psychodelic-assisted reeducation is a promising and humane strategy if we want to avoid total social collapse in the West over the next 3 decades. But it's also extremely, extremely radical and deeply offensive to vague interpretation of "liberty". After all, why should someone tell me what to think or do, as I willingly earn $13/hr to barely make ends meet while consuming corporate media products in my rare leisure hours...

kinghtown 6y ago
“ It also falls apart on the slightest inspection!” Does it though? You are failing to provide an adequate argument for death. I see it as more than just a physical revulsion of dying or a fear of letting go. A western perversion or as a crisis of individualism. Those are present, to be sure, (I don’t agree with the western part but let’s go with that too) but is dreaming for immortality immature? Immortality is the very essence of maturity, it’s purest expression. But, is immaturity also so bad, like let’s be adult here and like fall into an abyss without struggling? To be certain, I am not blind to the charms of being courageous in the face of death. But this isn’t what I’m driving at. It’s not just fear of death, it’s also a collective refusal to live exponentially better than we do today. So many of our problems as a species stem from a joint agreement that life is inherently bad when life really is, maybe this is just me talking here, everything we could ever have in this place. And could we also dare to improve? Quickly forgotten is a bit of a stretch when I often think of my grandparents. But your thinking on this notion of poor memory as a, what now? Good reason to die? Much of what you say seems to depend on this idea that we should die because we are selfish anyways so good riddance. If blind selfishness is a prime cause of our ills than wouldn’t our slow rate of progress be a result of that? It’s not like blind selfishness is directly causing immortality. You mention western culture which begs the question: are you culturally opposed to extreme life extension? “Psychedelic re-education” I’m not a actually serious. The bottom of the rabbit hole is just more rabbit hole. LSD can inspire but it’s not an end goal.

blawson 6y ago

Maybe you've read the book Lifespan, but the research talked about in it feels far more optimistic than what you've outlined. [1] Certainly there is already a decent amount of money being spent on it, and more and more each year with promising results. [2] Reading this book, aging feels like an area where we might see huge advances in the next 15-20 years. There are already really strong results for extending vital life by significant margins in other species, including rhesus monkeys. There are already drugs people take that seem to have some of this effect, though I think currently they come with some dangerous side-effects that might not be worth it if you didn't have the underlying disease the drug was intended for. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/1501191977 https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/150... [2] https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(17)30171-3 https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-779...

keenmaster 6y ago
Great book. David Sinclair makes a good case for why aging is the primary disease, and increased risk for cancer, heart disease, neurological decline, etc...are symptoms of the same disease. Even a universal cure for cancer would not increase lifespan drastically, because you'd just die from another collection of age-related ailments a few years later. We should try to find a direct cure for aging. Aging research in the past 5-10 years has been promising.

Dumblydorr 6y ago

We barely throw money at existential threats like nuclear de-escalation, pandemics, and climate catastrophe. If we can't even try to ensure the lives of those here now are regular length, what makes you think anyone in government is going to search for a fountain of youth? Science needs it's own legs to stand on here before government swoops in. Right now, its mostly hype and smoke and mirrors, there's nothing I've seen that warrants government funding.

mc32 6y ago

I get it but I don’t understand it. Can you imagine: on the one hand post industrial countries are inhabited by a bunch or multi centenarians, on the other hand poor countries are overpopulated by youngsters. In the post industrial countries their minuscule pool of young people have no chance to dislodge entrenched old people who have the power. There is less rejuvenation and less change in these multi centenarian societies and they become calcified, ossified. Old buggers hanging on for what? Will their minds be plastic? Sure, I don’t always agree with my young self or today’s young on all things, but I believe they should have the opportunity to shape their society in their time without obstructionist old timers.

kinghtown 6y ago
Good news is that those youngsters will have plenty of time to plot and wait with their extreme lifespans. People change. Life is change. Why would a longer life span be even more extremely boring and unchanging. I’m not convinced. It’s a big galaxy. Bad news: we probably won’t be getting extreme lifespan anyways. It’s very political.
- mc32 6y ago
  Youngsters are not typically known for patience with adults (witness progs vs liberals). I think it would be very socially destabilizing.
teorema 6y ago
It's kind of a false dilemma? Old persons who don't change versus young ones who do? Could be ageist, not to mention neglecting the real issue of experience. I agree with the "room for new people" conundrum but you could approach that as a population control issue from a couple of different directions. Or you could approach lifespan extension simultaneously with research on its consequences, like how to structure society (economics, politics, etc) so as to optimize well-being.
- mc32 6y ago
  With longer time spans compared to regular folks who don’t have the multicentennarian means, these people would accumulate more wealth and more power and would distort power imbalance even further (think the disparaging “boomer” remark but make it “multi cent”.

adamsea 6y ago

IMHO I'd rather see more social/economic justice, so that all of the increases in healthcare and expected lifespan are more evenly distributed. Otherwise with whatever extreme life extension stuff might happen, it'll just be unjustly distributed based on wealth and race is it is too often today. Also, man, let's not fear death too much : ). I'm not looking forward to it, but, my gut sense this whole extreme life extension thing is 50% pharoahnic - afraid of death and wanting to hold on to the toys you have, as opposed to living a full life.

Upvoter33 6y ago

Better be very careful before we make lives a lot longer. Death is one of life's greatest properties...

titzer 6y ago

> Maybe we should start force-feeding lsd into people who actively vote against and stand opposed to scientific progress. Maybe we should stop assuming that every selfish impulse, gluttonous instinct, and absurd demand on the universe is somehow "scientific" and "good". Who wants to live longer if you can't appreciate the one, short, life you do have? Why waste it trying to get more? Life extension has at its core an unquestionable assumption that parades itself as morality--the sanctity and worth of human life!--but it is really the basest narcissism and selfishness that is utterly alien to the functioning of every single component of this vast ecosystem. Things die. > Sinking into the past and eventually erased from living memory. I once saw a picture of a guy in the 1920s who bred horses in the Greek mountains. Yeah, well, the atoms that make up the molecules in the proteins in the cells in your body were manufactured in the massive explosions of supernovae billions of years ago that no one remembers. You think your great grandfather is lost to the sands of time for all eternity, when in reality he is only lost to you. It's just a further expression of unquestioned selfishness, wanting more life for yourself by coopting his into your experience. Let your great grandfather and his entire life be as it was. There is nothing required more of him now.

Viliam1234 6y ago
> Who wants to live longer if you can't appreciate the one, short, life you do have? Why waste it trying to get more? Why is the arbitrary length of human life sacred? Less is seemingly bad (because murder is illegal), but more would also be bad... so we got exactly the correct amount now, regardless of the fact that it is a different number for different people. Sounds like Stockholm syndrome. If you like your life, you still have to prioritize. You would like to do X and Y, time is short, you choose X. With more time, you could experience Y, too. Why not? If you don't want to live, I respect your decision, just please don't force it on other people. My preferred option would be an unlimited life, with perfect health, and the ability to choose quick painless death if you decide so.
- kinghtown 6y ago
  “If you don't want to live, I respect your decision, just please don't force it on other people.“ Isn’t that the funny part? It’s fascinating to me that the people arguing against life extension here have two main points: 1. People don’t deserve it because they are inherently bad, they are poorly optimized, are selfish agents, would exhaust their value, are incapable of managing the impact of life extension, and so on. 2. Life is meaningless without death. <—- I am willing to entertain this second idea but the first has a disciplinary puritanical feeling to it which I really don’t relate to at all. This profound pessimism is alien to me. I can’t help but feel that there are ultimately some religious undertones at play here.

Tarq0n 6y ago

Life extension would mean a massive change in population growth dynamics. That's pretty scary from a politician's perspective.