3 ms·

“ 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 m

“ 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.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    I strongly recommend reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn for an excellent treatise on why the answer to "Would Newton be of negative value today?" is almost certainly yes (in the context of scientific progress). It's a dense book but it's a seminal work on the philosophy of science and Kuhn goes to great lengths to dig into how scientific revolutions developed and entered the mainstream. Long story short, Max Planck was on the money when he said that "“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
    - Lewton 6y ago
      Part of the reason why old fuddy duddies are obstructionist to science is the fact that brain plasticity drops off sharply somewhere in your mid twenties. There's zero reason to believe that we won't also find a solution to this issue if we manage to fix aging
      - akiselev 6y ago
        There is zero evidence that keeping neural plasticity at adolescent or young adult levels will help, especially considering it's mostly an issue of power dynamics (preserving social status), not the merits of the science. Based on our studies of childhood trauma, increased neural plasticity is likely to hurt as much as help.
      - nickt 6y ago
        ^science^politics probably
    - kinghtown 6y ago
      Ah, but we are also judging Newton’s future and value where he would still act as a person with a short lifespan. Living for hundreds of years would have a profound effect on the psyche. I’m prone to think he would be a little bit cooler than we are giving him credit for regardless. I’m not demanding calculus part two or off with his head. Also, would Newton really be a tyrant? A lot of this has a particularly precrime vibe to it. But I’ll accept your point about Newton. He was a bit of a dick. Joyce on the other hand: a saint.
- nradov 6y ago
  Don't worry about it, there's no need for you to decide upon anything. There is zero chance of seeing a dramatic breakthrough in life extension within our lifetimes. So the issue is entirely a matter of hypothetical philosophy.
  - ninjanomnom 6y ago
    I wouldn't say zero chance. Even if for sake of argument we take it as true, both the statement "There is zero chance of seeing a dramatic breakthrough in life extension within our lifetimes." and "People alive today may live to be biologically immortal." can be true at the same time. Every minor advance medical technology that effectively increases lifespan gives those living more time on the clock to hit one of those major breakthroughs. If we had a sudden breakthrough that allowed us to reverse some aspects of aging resulting in a lifespan increase of 20 or perhaps even 10 years, I would think that those additional years plus the new public attention would give enough time to find further improvements. Eventually you reach the point that the average human lifespan starts increasing per year by more than one year. At this point even if you don't yet know how to make people biologically immortal you're going to drastically decrease the chance of death to the point that many of those alive will live to be biologically immortal. To a lesser degree this applies to all sorts of medical advancements that increase lifespan. All sorts of things could combine to allow those currently living to survive long enough to make use of true longevity treatments. Cures for cancer, alzheimer, and other such symptoms of aging brings us closer to this possibility. At this point it's a lottery game and I wouldn't bet against at least some people winning the jackpot.
    - nradov 6y ago
      That's not how it works. There are multiple limiting factors which all conspire to limit human lifespan to an absolute maximum of about 120 years. Minor advancements in any of those individual factors won't significantly increase lifespan. One of the other limiting factors will just kill you soon after. Look at the actual evidence. For centuries life expectancy in developed countries was on a general upward trend. Now it has flattened out and is no longer increasing. There is no scientific basis to think that curve will trend up at a rate of more than one year per year in our lifetimes. If you believe that will happen then it's based on faith, not science.

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.
- akiselev 6y ago
  I strongly recommend reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn for an excellent treatise on why the answer to "Would Newton be of negative value today?" is almost certainly yes (in the context of scientific progress). It's a dense book but it's a seminal work on the philosophy of science and Kuhn goes to great lengths to dig into how scientific revolutions developed and entered the mainstream. Long story short, Max Planck was on the money when he said that "“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
  - Lewton 6y ago
    Part of the reason why old fuddy duddies are obstructionist to science is the fact that brain plasticity drops off sharply somewhere in your mid twenties. There's zero reason to believe that we won't also find a solution to this issue if we manage to fix aging
    - akiselev 6y ago
      There is zero evidence that keeping neural plasticity at adolescent or young adult levels will help, especially considering it's mostly an issue of power dynamics (preserving social status), not the merits of the science. Based on our studies of childhood trauma, increased neural plasticity is likely to hurt as much as help.
    - nickt 6y ago
      ^science^politics probably
  - kinghtown 6y ago
    Ah, but we are also judging Newton’s future and value where he would still act as a person with a short lifespan. Living for hundreds of years would have a profound effect on the psyche. I’m prone to think he would be a little bit cooler than we are giving him credit for regardless. I’m not demanding calculus part two or off with his head. Also, would Newton really be a tyrant? A lot of this has a particularly precrime vibe to it. But I’ll accept your point about Newton. He was a bit of a dick. Joyce on the other hand: a saint.
nradov 6y ago
Don't worry about it, there's no need for you to decide upon anything. There is zero chance of seeing a dramatic breakthrough in life extension within our lifetimes. So the issue is entirely a matter of hypothetical philosophy.
- ninjanomnom 6y ago
  I wouldn't say zero chance. Even if for sake of argument we take it as true, both the statement "There is zero chance of seeing a dramatic breakthrough in life extension within our lifetimes." and "People alive today may live to be biologically immortal." can be true at the same time. Every minor advance medical technology that effectively increases lifespan gives those living more time on the clock to hit one of those major breakthroughs. If we had a sudden breakthrough that allowed us to reverse some aspects of aging resulting in a lifespan increase of 20 or perhaps even 10 years, I would think that those additional years plus the new public attention would give enough time to find further improvements. Eventually you reach the point that the average human lifespan starts increasing per year by more than one year. At this point even if you don't yet know how to make people biologically immortal you're going to drastically decrease the chance of death to the point that many of those alive will live to be biologically immortal. To a lesser degree this applies to all sorts of medical advancements that increase lifespan. All sorts of things could combine to allow those currently living to survive long enough to make use of true longevity treatments. Cures for cancer, alzheimer, and other such symptoms of aging brings us closer to this possibility. At this point it's a lottery game and I wouldn't bet against at least some people winning the jackpot.
  - nradov 6y ago
    That's not how it works. There are multiple limiting factors which all conspire to limit human lifespan to an absolute maximum of about 120 years. Minor advancements in any of those individual factors won't significantly increase lifespan. One of the other limiting factors will just kill you soon after. Look at the actual evidence. For centuries life expectancy in developed countries was on a general upward trend. Now it has flattened out and is no longer increasing. There is no scientific basis to think that curve will trend up at a rate of more than one year per year in our lifetimes. If you believe that will happen then it's based on faith, not science.