3 ms·

There's nothing foolish about it at all, it's just not simple. You can keep a classic car going forever if you keep replacing parts when they wear out. Of cou

There's nothing foolish about it at all, it's just not simple. You can keep a classic car going forever if you keep replacing parts when they wear out. Of course, you eventually end up with the Classic Car of Theseus, but so what? Humans are already like this: your cells have all died out and been replaced over the course of ~7 years. I don't see why the same won't be true of humans eventually: it'll require constant maintenance of course, and maybe artificial parts or implants, but there are other organisms out there that are biologically immortal, so it's certainly not impossible.

wpietri 3y ago
It's deeply disappointing to me when somebody here responds to one part of a sentence. I get that sometimes people get excited and don't read a whole comment. But I think making it all the way through a sentence is a reasonable minimum bar.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  It's deeply disappointing to me when somebody here can't seem to understand the point of my post. I DID read your whole sentence. What exactly are you not understanding? I even acknowledged that keeping a classic car is not as simple as a different motor oil, and eventually ends up with a car that isn't even the original car. Did you somehow miss all that?
  - wpietri 3y ago
    I was agreeing with zug_zug's point: "The idea that the human body has the formula for immortality 99% right an it just 'forgot to make enough of protein X which has no downsides seems hopelessly naive [...]" That was specifically what I was calling foolish. That is what my metaphor was referring to. You leapt into say, "There's nothing foolish about it at all", suggesting that the ”anti-ageing by chemical cocktails” approach was in fact reasonable. You from there went on to make a different car analogy, one I also think hopelessly naive. But if even you don't support the magic chemicals option, then again, it looks like you didn't really read what you were replying to, just in a different way.

wpietri 3y ago

It's deeply disappointing to me when somebody here responds to one part of a sentence. I get that sometimes people get excited and don't read a whole comment. But I think making it all the way through a sentence is a reasonable minimum bar.

midoridensha 3y ago
It's deeply disappointing to me when somebody here can't seem to understand the point of my post. I DID read your whole sentence. What exactly are you not understanding? I even acknowledged that keeping a classic car is not as simple as a different motor oil, and eventually ends up with a car that isn't even the original car. Did you somehow miss all that?
- wpietri 3y ago
  I was agreeing with zug_zug's point: "The idea that the human body has the formula for immortality 99% right an it just 'forgot to make enough of protein X which has no downsides seems hopelessly naive [...]" That was specifically what I was calling foolish. That is what my metaphor was referring to. You leapt into say, "There's nothing foolish about it at all", suggesting that the ”anti-ageing by chemical cocktails” approach was in fact reasonable. You from there went on to make a different car analogy, one I also think hopelessly naive. But if even you don't support the magic chemicals option, then again, it looks like you didn't really read what you were replying to, just in a different way.