4 ms·

When somebody asks about what is the next big thing, I always think on anti-aging. If you think that you don’t want to live forever, imagine that today when you

by dsign 4y ago

When somebody asks about what is the next big thing, I always think on anti-aging. If you think that you don’t want to live forever, imagine that today when you arrive home you find a note saying that you will die exactly 1531[^1] days from today. How would you feel? With that said, I would stay away from miracle drugs, because no two human beings have the same physiology. But that’s not an unsolvable problem. [^1]: It’s a random number to “erase hope”. Not knowing when we are going to die keep us slightly hopeful and perky, our mind away from the problem.

abcc8 4y ago
I would argue that a miracle anti aging drug would work well for the majority of the population, much like NSAIDs work well for the majority of the population. Bonus points for being cheap and easy to synthesize.
lijogdfljk 4y ago
Honestly, at peace lol. I don't really care about living. My primary desire for living atm is keeping my family safe, providing for them, etc. Beyond that, i am living just because i am - and i enjoy life as much as i don't want to _not_ enjoy time i'm here anyway.
rr888 4y ago
I agree. But would be interested in staying younger/stronger/healthier for the same lifespan.
fatuna 4y ago
I think this is a great example of "what's good for the individual, is bad for humanity as a whole". Imagine we'd discovered a drug that adds 100 years to a persons natural life. Now imagine this drug was discovered 100 years ago. J.D. Rockefeller and the likes would still be alive and influencing politics. I can't even begin to think how much humanity would stagnate after such an invention. See also the Planck principle: "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" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
- dsign 4y ago
  People don't need life-extending drugs to hold onto power or ways of doing things, that's what dynasties are for. And if in a democracy somebody like J.D. Rockefeller gets a voice that is too loud, then the democracy is flawed and we the citizens are ultimately at fault.

by dsign 4y ago

abcc8 4y ago

I would argue that a miracle anti aging drug would work well for the majority of the population, much like NSAIDs work well for the majority of the population. Bonus points for being cheap and easy to synthesize.

lijogdfljk 4y ago

Honestly, at peace lol. I don't really care about living. My primary desire for living atm is keeping my family safe, providing for them, etc. Beyond that, i am living just because i am - and i enjoy life as much as i don't want to _not_ enjoy time i'm here anyway.

rr888 4y ago

I agree. But would be interested in staying younger/stronger/healthier for the same lifespan.

fatuna 4y ago

I think this is a great example of "what's good for the individual, is bad for humanity as a whole". Imagine we'd discovered a drug that adds 100 years to a persons natural life. Now imagine this drug was discovered 100 years ago. J.D. Rockefeller and the likes would still be alive and influencing politics. I can't even begin to think how much humanity would stagnate after such an invention. See also the Planck principle: "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" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

dsign 4y ago
People don't need life-extending drugs to hold onto power or ways of doing things, that's what dynasties are for. And if in a democracy somebody like J.D. Rockefeller gets a voice that is too loud, then the democracy is flawed and we the citizens are ultimately at fault.