4 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoThere 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 agoWhat 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.