4 ms·

Plus you get a huuge bonus to quality of life. That said, I'm doing all those things already and since I really appreciate life, I am a big fan of any even remo

Plus you get a huuge bonus to quality of life. That said, I'm doing all those things already and since I really appreciate life, I am a big fan of any even remotely feasible life extension efforts. Aging sucks, and is by no means a physical necessity. If it were up to me, we would be devoting to it at least as many resources as were devoted to COVID, indefinitely until it's fixed.

dsign 5y ago
> If it were up to me, we would be devoting to it at least as many resources as were devoted to COVID, indefinitely until it's fixed. That. Governments around the world didn't hesitate on committing huge amounts of money and draconian, even devastating restrictions on society to fix what kills at most 3%. But what kills 95% of people--aging--doesn't get nearly the same obsession and resources. Worse, scientists who research aging need to apply for grants to research cancer or Alzheimer's, which is sad and silly when you think that the same money could be used to cure cancer, Alzheimer's and a broad variety of other diseases if we didn't have these taboos around the science of aging. Most people don't dare to think that aging is solvable, and a 99.9% of books I read, even science fiction that happens 200 years into the future, adopt the same mindset. There are are a few startups, talented scientists, and a "small elite" that thinks different, but they don't get billions in government budget nor around-the-clock media coverage. At this point, aging is much more a cultural issue than a scientific or technical challenge. After all, we can't fix what we are not trying to fix.
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  It's absolutely nuts to me that anyone would focus on this (idealistically, I understand the economic incentive) before fixing quality of life first. What's the point of living eternally if you can't enjoy it? I can only conclude that the people advocating for this live an immensely privileged and sheltered life.. for now. Eternity is a lot of time for bad luck.
  - admissionsguy 5y ago
    Living eternally is something else entirely. Curing every disease and completely stopping aging gives average life expectancy of a few hundred years only. Beyond health, quality of life is up to choices made by every individual and every society. It's not like there are technological fixes to most systemic issues that cause so many people to lead miserable lives.
  - dsign 5y ago
    >> before fixing the quality of life first... That sounds like whataboutism. Many people are happy with the way they live their lives, except for the aging bit. Many social problems that affect quality of life are caused by aging, including the need for child birth (emphasis in need because some enjoy raising children), the need to care for aging parents, horrible health problems (and their associated financial cost), and even poverty--just check wealth distribution across age cohorts. Speaking of which, what's the point of working hard and saving, if when retirement comes one is already an old wretch?

dsign 5y ago

> If it were up to me, we would be devoting to it at least as many resources as were devoted to COVID, indefinitely until it's fixed. That. Governments around the world didn't hesitate on committing huge amounts of money and draconian, even devastating restrictions on society to fix what kills at most 3%. But what kills 95% of people--aging--doesn't get nearly the same obsession and resources. Worse, scientists who research aging need to apply for grants to research cancer or Alzheimer's, which is sad and silly when you think that the same money could be used to cure cancer, Alzheimer's and a broad variety of other diseases if we didn't have these taboos around the science of aging. Most people don't dare to think that aging is solvable, and a 99.9% of books I read, even science fiction that happens 200 years into the future, adopt the same mindset. There are are a few startups, talented scientists, and a "small elite" that thinks different, but they don't get billions in government budget nor around-the-clock media coverage. At this point, aging is much more a cultural issue than a scientific or technical challenge. After all, we can't fix what we are not trying to fix.

Griffinsauce 5y ago
It's absolutely nuts to me that anyone would focus on this (idealistically, I understand the economic incentive) before fixing quality of life first. What's the point of living eternally if you can't enjoy it? I can only conclude that the people advocating for this live an immensely privileged and sheltered life.. for now. Eternity is a lot of time for bad luck.
- admissionsguy 5y ago
  Living eternally is something else entirely. Curing every disease and completely stopping aging gives average life expectancy of a few hundred years only. Beyond health, quality of life is up to choices made by every individual and every society. It's not like there are technological fixes to most systemic issues that cause so many people to lead miserable lives.
- dsign 5y ago
  >> before fixing the quality of life first... That sounds like whataboutism. Many people are happy with the way they live their lives, except for the aging bit. Many social problems that affect quality of life are caused by aging, including the need for child birth (emphasis in need because some enjoy raising children), the need to care for aging parents, horrible health problems (and their associated financial cost), and even poverty--just check wealth distribution across age cohorts. Speaking of which, what's the point of working hard and saving, if when retirement comes one is already an old wretch?