8 ms·
Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
- readonthegoapp 4y agoi do like the idea that it would, at least in theory, allow humans to become as powerful as corporations in the US (because humans, too, would be able to live forever, accumulate wealth and power, etc.).
- XorNot 4y agoYes. No question. "Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we let them be, it's not innate. Maybe we might do something about the problem when there's a risk it'll last forever rather then pretending it's not a systemic failure. If it's possible to do, it's going to be done: the question is actually "should we let poor people (non-billionaires) have it?".
- h0l0cube 4y agoAre you advocating accelerationism for The Purge?
- XorNot 4y agoI'm saying that if clinical immortality is possible and you're asking "ethical questions" about doing it, what you're actually providing cover for is "we shouldn't give it to the poor" - which is as morally bankrupt a position as it ever was.
- h0l0cube 4y agoI was maybe being a little facetious. The moral question isn't important as much as how it will play out in practice. i.e., it will be available to the highest bidders, at first, and from then on, the best life extension will be available to those with the most money. It's only a matter of time before that sways the majority against the wealthy minority, and then pragmatism may dictate some concession to not as wealthy people, lest heads roll. The option B is governance at a global level that mandates equal access, which is hardly realistic in today's political climate.
- jessaustin 4y agoTFA notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect we'll get a magical immortality switch that can just be turned on. More likely, various treatments will incrementally delay death for more and more elderly rich people. In less civilized nations, this process has already been underway for decades. [0] "Governance at a global level" would put IP owners in charge of health care everywhere, which seems unlikely to increase egalitarianism in life expectancy. [0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/life-s22.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/life-s22.html
- kajaktum 4y agoYou do realize it's only going to be available for very rich people right? Assuming that the technology is not trivial, only the rich will ever get it. Same thing with genetically modified kids. Even if it is trivial, corporations will just hike up the price because clearly everyone wants it.
- BurningFrog 4y agoThe history of pretty much all inventions is that only the rich get it at first. After a while the slightly less rich get it, and after a few decades, it's everyone's absolute birthright.
- chaorace 4y agoI wonder if FDR would still be in office if he were still alive? It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how long he'd have lasted given his prior record.
- jessaustin 4y agoIf he hadn't died they would have had to kill him. He and Stalin trusted each other enough to make a lasting, nuclear-free peace. The wheels were already in motion when they replaced Wallace with the haberdasher.
- roca 4y agoIn the USA, the baby boomer gerontocracy has amassed dominating wealth and power to the detriment of all. It's daunting to imagine a world where they never die. "Do something about it" is much easier said than done. Another angle: what's science going to be like when no-one ever retires from faculty positions?
- rowanG077 4y agoI personally believe a few violent wars is much less inhumane then aging.
- jackblemming 4y agoInterestingly the people who say others should die to “fix” overpopulation change their minds when they’re up. We can solve overpopulation in other ways than letting people die.
- kajaktum 4y agoIt's obviously bad to want other people to die but there is a case to be made that no life (that can suffer) should be created. It also depend on what we mean by immortal, are they technically just alive? Or actively flourishing?
- robgibbons 4y ago"Life is no way to treat an animal"
- jquery 4y agoIt’s not necessary to do that, but we would have to move away from the current free for all. Probably a strict waiting list to have children, or something simpler like a one child policy. Sustainability would become vastly more important than our current short term horizons.
- nradov 4y agoThere is no such case. That's just silly. Suffering isn't even something that should necessarily be avoided.
- luxuryballs 4y agoBetter to end life entirely than to exist and endure suffering? This is a terrifyingly grim way of thinking, would you really rather not have experienced this world? There must be something in life you think is worth living for.
- whichfawkes 4y agoJust because I might turn chicken in my old age doesn't mean that my death wouldn't be a benefit for most people. There's one other way to "solve" overpopulation, and it's galactic conquest. Everything else we might do eventually devolves into nothing but shades of austerity and deprivation as we divide our planet up between more people. That's not to say that technical progress won't mitigate that problem. And yet, as it mitigates it, we tend to just make more people...so it's not like we're manufacturing much more runway for ourselves as a species.
- solveit 4y agoImagine that the status quo was that everyone lived forever. If someone suggested that we should kill literally everyone to solve overpopulation or rich people or meaning of life or whatever, they would rightly be called batshit insane.
- theGnuMe 4y agoWould enough people die in accidents? Also heart attacks and cancer. And how would it work? Some drug you take after a certain age?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Euphorbium 4y agoAging is not solved unless cancer is solved. Youre guaranteed to getcancer if you live long enough.
- theGnuMe 4y agoAgeing and cancer are correlated but I don't think ageing alone causes cancer. You could be very old, alive and full of cancer. Hela cells for example.
- rowanG077 4y agoThe way I interpret agelessness is that your body would be capable of maintaining homeostasis over indefinite periods of time. Internally caused disease would need to cease to exist (cancer, heart disease, dementia etc.). Essentially your body would be indistinguishable medically speaking, year to year, decade to decade. Of course extreme external factors could still kill you. Trauma, Infectious diseases etc.
- RayVR 4y agoI think this is the appropriate framing. The problems that would arise as a result of a “cure for aging” should result in societal decisions that fix existing problems we just push to the side because death kind of solves them.
- civilized 4y agoIf science invented a way to turn each human into an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, bioethicists would have an essay five minutes later about how deeply problematic it was. No one loves throwing cold water over literally everything more than bioethicists.
- BurningFrog 4y agoAs a bioethicist, your job description is to find a problematic angle on anything. No one is paying you to say everything is fine!
- civilized 4y agoHm, is that an ethical way to approach ethics? I think it's problematic, honestly.
- bpodgursky 4y agoThe field of bioethics would never pass an IRB.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoAny alternatives?
- civilized 4y agoBalanced consideration of positives and negatives rather than a focus on only negatives which is so strained and obsessive, it seems to be a professional requirement?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoWhat do you know about metaethics?
- 4y ago
- jen729w 4y agoLionel Shriver’s ‘Should We Stay or Should We Go’ (book, 2021) is a fun look at this idea. No-spoiler TL;DR: a couple decide to end it when she hits 80, because they know that life only gets worse. The book plays through various scenarios: some positive, some negative.
- googlryas 4y agoMy grandmother lived almost two decades longer than that and was enjoying life immensely until about 5 days before she died.
- jen729w 4y agoThis is the whole point of the book. It explores the various possibilities. Of which this is but one. Living a miserable dementia-ridden existence is another. Who could know which you’re going to get?
- datacruncher01 4y agoThe cost to manufacture medicine is cheap. The cost of surgical procedures and rehabilitation costs are extreme. Seems like a no brainer, and even accounting for the social effects of people living longer the odds are people will die of something in 300 years on average. If the gov wants a healthy and productive workforce, funding and providing medicine to slow down or stop aging will be a boon to society.
- ProfessorLayton 4y agoI’d be just fine with science prolonging my prime years, even if it didn’t mean living longer. My hope is that the life of my eyes, skin, and teeth are all able to make it in good condition into relatively old age — I don’t necessarily mean looking younger per se, but in good/decent working order.
- 01100011 4y agoWe can't currently cure aging and there is little convincing evidence that suggests we will be able to anytime soon. This is despite the claims of many attempts at peddling false hopes by folks like David Sinclair and Aubrey de Grey. We can mitigate some downsides of aging at best. Aging is baked into our genes as natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach.
- hello1234567 4y agoyes. current medical science is having issues treating simple thing with humans (paralysis or any thing related to it ). solving aging, may be in next 500 years.
- mtgx 4y ago"Humans overestimate progress in the short term and over estimate it in the long term." You're discounting the law of accelerated returns. It might take another 50 years to make a "big discovery/milestone in curing aging" but from that point forward it might become a lot easier to cure aging.
- GenerocUsername 4y agoSolving aging isn't the sum of all other cures. It could be just another track of medicine we haven't really begun to formalize correctly
- Winsaucerer 4y agoAre you basing this on research you've seen that runs counter to the unbridled optimism of Sinclair and others, or is this belief of yours just a consequence of your belief about "natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach"? I'm just wondering for myself, as an outsider to all this, what reason I would have to take your view rather than theirs.
- 01100011 4y agoCharles Brenner has been fairly active in debunking many of Sinclair's claims: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167494322002126?via%3Dihub#bib0009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016749432... Brenner also had a debate with de Grey: https://youtu.be/MJIvp_J-kzM https://youtu.be/MJIvp_J-kzM I was initially put off by Brenner because he can be abrasive but as far as I can tell he is correct and unrelenting when it comes to pointing out bad science.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- syncerr 4y agoWhile I don’t find the arguments in the article compelling (ie population increases are good as they lead to growth), enabling humans to live forever has a more dire consequence: an acceleration of the inequality gap. Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Without it, power will accumulate to those who already have it, forever.
- teaearlgraycold 4y ago> Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Have you heard of inheritance?
- jjj123 4y agoIn some countries, like France, you’re not allowed to give more than x% of your inheritance to a single person. This has drastic effects on how large multi-generational fortunes are able to grow. So yeah, death does have an effect on income inequality, as long as the fortunes are split up upon death.
- tsol 4y ago>Have you heard of inheritance? A powerful businessman living forever isn't the same thing as inheriting his son. Children rarely follow in the footsteps of their fathers. What if Warren buffet lived forever, for example? He's very good at saving money and investing. He'll eventually just have a large portion of the wealth that exists
- syncerr 4y agoInheritance does not sustain wealth. > A staggering 70 percent of wealthy families lose their wealth by the next generation, with 90 percent losing it the generation after that. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-do-70-of-families-lose-their-wealth-in-the-2nd-generation-2018-10 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...
- whichfawkes 4y agoIf we could cure some aspects of aging without prolonging life, that seems like it would be an obvious and nearly indisputable good. I'd rather have 80 good years than 80 years of progressive decline.
- Filligree 4y agoWell, yes. But you can't eliminate aging without also drastically cutting down on death. The answer to the article's question is, of course, 'yes'.
- melagonster 4y agoIs this even a question? ask people how many things they will pay for life of their families.
- samename 4y agoSimple, if you live longer, you would also work longer
- koheripbal 4y agoIs that a negative? If you live much longer, you'd likely invest more time in finding a job you really enjoy.
- Auracle 4y agoYou could stop working right now by killing yourself (or doing it soon). Not many make that choice.
- dqpb 4y agoScience is a methodology of exploration and problem solving. It doesn't say anything. "Problem solving says we could cure ageing."
- carapace 4y agoI figure life extension is more feasible than Faster-Than-Light space ships. If you could live for, say, 10,000 years you could travel.
- FiatLuxDave 4y agoObligatory link: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon
- grishka 4y agoTIL this exists in text form. Here's the same thing but as a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY
- Orthanc 4y agoFor the record, I suspect most Hacker News readers would get a lot more out of the text version. There was a lot of detail trimming to make it work as a video.
- bsenftner 4y agoEssays like this are dubious at best. As if anyone, any agency or government, could stop one or more billionaires if they chose to pursue immortality despite public opinion saying it's a bad idea. They will, they are, and if asked any elite wealth or world class power will say whatever is expected, despite what they are really doing.
- dontlaugh 4y agoSimilarly, who would get such a treatment in the first place? Most working people can’t afford or access far simpler medical care, a problem that’s only been getting worse.
- thirdmunky 4y agoI recommend 17776 [1] to anyone interested in the question of what a society of immortal humans would look like. It's thought-provoking and well-put-together. [1] https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football
- exolymph 4y agoWe can extend healthspan, how about that?
- grishka 4y agoSo people would still die because of the passage of time, but would stay healthy? But if they stay healthy without any age-related conditions, what would they die of? This whole idea that forced death is necessary is stupid. We need to let go of it.
- MattPalmer1086 4y agoPeople would still die in accidents, disasters and from disease, or war. Just not aging.
- grishka 4y agoYes, but then, firstly, that would be actually something you can influence by at least being more careful, and secondly, I've seen estimates that with aging removed, the average human lifespan would be around 1000 years. And 1000 years is quite a lot of time in terms of scientific progress. Just a reminder: electricity was very new just 150 years ago, yet it's essential for our current society.
- MattPalmer1086 4y agoI don't dispute anything you said, but I'm not sure what point you are making.
- nradov 4y agoWell that part is pretty easy for most people though a combination of frequent exercise, good nutrition, proper sleep hygiene, and avoidance of substance abuse. It doesn't even require any medications. It does require a certain degree of discipline.
- ck2 4y agoWe can't cure ageing this decade and likely not affordable to the masses this century. The problems are way way more complex than most imagine: https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/ https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/
- TheWoodsy 4y agoTaking this to the extreme; How many decades before the majority of the populace is saturated by serial killers, narcissists and psychopaths without natural ageing?
- rapjr9 4y agoEveryone seems to assume that memory capacity is infinite, what if it is not and our brains fill up and can not function as well after that point? Or maybe in order to store new memories you have to give up older ones by overwriting them. Are you you if you can't keep your memories?
- karmakurtisaani 4y agoBut this already happens all the time. You forget the vast majority of things that happen to you. I feel like we just basically compress the narrative of our lives better and better as time goes on, while dropping details we in the end don't care much about.
- rowanG077 4y agoI don't think anyone assumes that. Our brain is very good at forgetting things deemed unimportant. Your question is already applicable now. Ask me what I just read and I can give you a clear answer. Ask me the same question in 4 weeks and I most likely couldn't give you an answer. Am I the same person? Most people would say yes.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoWe should, when we will be able to expand out of this planet. Until then human race would get stuck in its development.
- lr1970 4y agoBy all means we should cure aging. Aging and longevity are not the same thing. Many people would prefer to live their entire lifes as they were young, healthy and at the top of their game, then peacefully die at a preset age of 101 yo. Sounds creepy :-)