5 ms·

Sure, "the" elderly. Everyone who is suffering from aging will be helped. No special treatment for powerful people, it'll be all about "the elderly".

Tr03P 3y ago
Why throw out the baby with the bath water, just because the rich will live longer, no one should. This is the feeling I get everytime I see a comment that it will be only for the rich and powerful. I don't think that will be the case, as there will be a gold rush once the possibility is proven and visible, everyone will try to get it, even the naysayers. It will be more like the crash of prices from the Spanish mines in south America.
- caesil 3y ago
  Think of all the mundane technology we use every single day that was, when it was first introduced, priced for the rich and powerful. And then imagine if we'd used that as a reason not to produce it.
  - altairTF 3y ago
    And there is a lot of this sentiment around, specially with young people
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    Yeah. I wish I had saved the quote, but someone said something along the lines of "the rich get new technologies when they are expensive and sucky; the rest of us get them when the kinks have been ironed out." If you're worried about the rich getting things unfairly, focus on tax policy and closing all the thousands of loopholes. That's a lifetime's work.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > This is the feeling I get everytime I see a comment that it will be only for the rich and powerful. That's not a "feeling", that are words you put into my mouth, to then call it a "feeling" of yours. And that's the top voted reply. Just lol.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  > "I don't think that will be the case, as there will be a gold rush once the possibility is proven and visible, everyone will try to get it, even the naysayers." Maybe; instead when this happens, e.g. hairloss and finasteride, I look at people desperately trying to fight aging and stay young forever and then replacing their worry about hairloss with worry about post-finasteride[1] depression and sexual side effects. Or the people who are obsessed with nootropics ('smart drugs') who are in a hyper-competitive world I don't want to be in at all. Or the people who slather vitamin A creams on their skin to try and look younger who may give themselves retinol burn[2] and Vitamin A, E supplements to look younger which may[3] gives bone pain, liver damage, birth defects, increased risk of fractures, skin irritation, increased risk of prostate cancer. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5047 https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5047 [2] https://www.healthline.com/health/retinol-burn https://www.healthline.com/health/retinol-burn [3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/how-these-2-vitamin-supplements-could-do-more-harm-than-good- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/how-these... - "For context, consider that a single 3-ounce serving of pan-fried beef liver [alone] contains [over 2x the recommended daily upper limit of Vitamin A]."
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    Is your point that supplements have side effects? I don't think that's surprising to anyone at all.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      My point is that "once the possibility is proven and visible, everyone will try to get it, even the naysayers" is wrong. I could plausibly benefit from Finasteride, I'm not rushing for it even though I think it works. We can also see[1] which says "poor diet is recognized as the leading cause of death and disability in the United States, and the World Health Organization predicts that by 2020, two thirds of disease worldwide will exist because of a poor lifestyle.11-13 A large body of consistent evidence suggests eating a healthy diet can prevent, delay, or even reverse CVD, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and certain cancers.14-19 The effect of such intake is rapid and profound." - yet people aren't rushing for healthy diets and exercise, are they? And I think your claim is wrong; a lot of people pop vitamin supplements like candy expecting that they are harmless and would be surprised to find they are capable of causing harm; anecdotally I have read of people saying exactly that, which is enough to disprove "wouldn't be surprising to anyone at all". [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6506974/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6506974/
robertlagrant 3y ago
It's about a bazillion times easier to point out disparity than to make this work at all. If it does work, it will start out expensive, and get cheaper. Like everything.
seydor 3y ago
It's very handy that we can collapse whole threads whenever a longevity topic comes up
ChatGTP 3y ago
Knowledge and information are too easy to share, if this puzzle is solved everyone is getting it.
ben_w 3y ago
It’s in the interest of the rich that everyone else has it too. Even if you’re ultra cynical and model the rich as pure selfishness incarnate with zero altruism (which isn’t true), they’d still want the largest possible set of test subjects to find all the ways it can fail without the learning experience being a purely personal experience.
RobotToaster 3y ago
It is a concern, look at the current monoclonal antibody alzheimer's treatment that's insanely expensive. Generally though it's in the interest of the rich to extend the useful lifespan of their workers, training workers from babies is expensive, so it could be cheaper to keep the current ones going for 200 years.
- BizarreByte 3y ago
  > so it could be cheaper to keep the current ones going for 200 years. This sounds like a form of hell. I'd rather die than work for 200 years, I can already barely stomach working as long as I have to.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Unemployment is record low. You could get practically any job you want right now. Why are you working a job you hate?
- insanitybit 3y ago
  You're picking one single treatment and saying "look, this is proof of the problem", ignoring that the treatment is extremely new - like, ~2 years of availability (and it was rushed out!). There may be inherent costs to the treatment that are specific and unrelated to whatever is found in other treatments.
insanitybit 3y ago
The reality is that, for the majority of compounds we've found that provide "anti-aging" benefits, they are affordable by the middle class. Some are more expensive than others, but they're all well within an affordable range.

Tr03P 3y ago

Why throw out the baby with the bath water, just because the rich will live longer, no one should. This is the feeling I get everytime I see a comment that it will be only for the rich and powerful. I don't think that will be the case, as there will be a gold rush once the possibility is proven and visible, everyone will try to get it, even the naysayers. It will be more like the crash of prices from the Spanish mines in south America.

caesil 3y ago
Think of all the mundane technology we use every single day that was, when it was first introduced, priced for the rich and powerful. And then imagine if we'd used that as a reason not to produce it.
- altairTF 3y ago
  And there is a lot of this sentiment around, specially with young people
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Yeah. I wish I had saved the quote, but someone said something along the lines of "the rich get new technologies when they are expensive and sucky; the rest of us get them when the kinks have been ironed out." If you're worried about the rich getting things unfairly, focus on tax policy and closing all the thousands of loopholes. That's a lifetime's work.
johnnyworker 3y ago
> This is the feeling I get everytime I see a comment that it will be only for the rich and powerful. That's not a "feeling", that are words you put into my mouth, to then call it a "feeling" of yours. And that's the top voted reply. Just lol.
jodrellblank 3y ago
> "I don't think that will be the case, as there will be a gold rush once the possibility is proven and visible, everyone will try to get it, even the naysayers." Maybe; instead when this happens, e.g. hairloss and finasteride, I look at people desperately trying to fight aging and stay young forever and then replacing their worry about hairloss with worry about post-finasteride[1] depression and sexual side effects. Or the people who are obsessed with nootropics ('smart drugs') who are in a hyper-competitive world I don't want to be in at all. Or the people who slather vitamin A creams on their skin to try and look younger who may give themselves retinol burn[2] and Vitamin A, E supplements to look younger which may[3] gives bone pain, liver damage, birth defects, increased risk of fractures, skin irritation, increased risk of prostate cancer. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5047 https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5047 [2] https://www.healthline.com/health/retinol-burn https://www.healthline.com/health/retinol-burn [3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/how-these-2-vitamin-supplements-could-do-more-harm-than-good- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/how-these... - "For context, consider that a single 3-ounce serving of pan-fried beef liver [alone] contains [over 2x the recommended daily upper limit of Vitamin A]."
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Is your point that supplements have side effects? I don't think that's surprising to anyone at all.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    My point is that "once the possibility is proven and visible, everyone will try to get it, even the naysayers" is wrong. I could plausibly benefit from Finasteride, I'm not rushing for it even though I think it works. We can also see[1] which says "poor diet is recognized as the leading cause of death and disability in the United States, and the World Health Organization predicts that by 2020, two thirds of disease worldwide will exist because of a poor lifestyle.11-13 A large body of consistent evidence suggests eating a healthy diet can prevent, delay, or even reverse CVD, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and certain cancers.14-19 The effect of such intake is rapid and profound." - yet people aren't rushing for healthy diets and exercise, are they? And I think your claim is wrong; a lot of people pop vitamin supplements like candy expecting that they are harmless and would be surprised to find they are capable of causing harm; anecdotally I have read of people saying exactly that, which is enough to disprove "wouldn't be surprising to anyone at all". [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6506974/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6506974/

robertlagrant 3y ago

It's about a bazillion times easier to point out disparity than to make this work at all. If it does work, it will start out expensive, and get cheaper. Like everything.

seydor 3y ago

It's very handy that we can collapse whole threads whenever a longevity topic comes up

ChatGTP 3y ago

Knowledge and information are too easy to share, if this puzzle is solved everyone is getting it.

ben_w 3y ago

It’s in the interest of the rich that everyone else has it too. Even if you’re ultra cynical and model the rich as pure selfishness incarnate with zero altruism (which isn’t true), they’d still want the largest possible set of test subjects to find all the ways it can fail without the learning experience being a purely personal experience.

RobotToaster 3y ago

It is a concern, look at the current monoclonal antibody alzheimer's treatment that's insanely expensive. Generally though it's in the interest of the rich to extend the useful lifespan of their workers, training workers from babies is expensive, so it could be cheaper to keep the current ones going for 200 years.

BizarreByte 3y ago
> so it could be cheaper to keep the current ones going for 200 years. This sounds like a form of hell. I'd rather die than work for 200 years, I can already barely stomach working as long as I have to.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Unemployment is record low. You could get practically any job you want right now. Why are you working a job you hate?
insanitybit 3y ago
You're picking one single treatment and saying "look, this is proof of the problem", ignoring that the treatment is extremely new - like, ~2 years of availability (and it was rushed out!). There may be inherent costs to the treatment that are specific and unrelated to whatever is found in other treatments.

insanitybit 3y ago

The reality is that, for the majority of compounds we've found that provide "anti-aging" benefits, they are affordable by the middle class. Some are more expensive than others, but they're all well within an affordable range.