5 ms·

Health is only temporary, and everyone in your family is going to die, until someone makes a trillion dollar startup to cure aging. So it is fundamentally wrong

by chr1 2y ago

Health is only temporary, and everyone in your family is going to die, until someone makes a trillion dollar startup to cure aging. So it is fundamentally wrong to put health, family, and work as things opposing each other, ultimately they are all needed on a way to get all of the galaxy filled with life. And as Susan have shown one can both do great work, and have a big family with 5 children.

RobertDeNiro 2y ago
High levels of stress (often related to work) have been shown to impact health. So I think it’s a fair thing to oppose them.
- boringg 2y ago
  Isn't that person and stress source dependent. Also working until late in life actually improves mental acuity and fights off dementia. So maybe work but not in excessively high stress loads is your point? Though i think your implied underlying assumption that because she was a leader in tech and under a high workload somehow caused this is unfounded and unnecessary.
  - anon7725 2y ago
    There must be a difference between the stress experienced by a financially independent CEO and a marginally-employed gig worker. One is the stress of essentially playing a game or working on a challenge and the other is existential.
    - gunapologist99 2y ago
      This sample size of one would seem to disagree. Stress is stress, and the outcome can certainly be the same in the end. RIP
badpun 2y ago
Why it's a good idea to fill galaxy with life? Why should we care about it? Also, seeing that our current civilization-system is already at the brink of catastrophe, we should focus on less ambitious goals, such as preserving life on Earth.
- boringg 2y ago
  Absolutely worth it. We wont fill the galaxy filled with life because the galaxy is huge and we are but one tiny tiny portion of it. For us to survive and do anything impressive takes all of human ingenuity. Also those two items aren't mutually exclusive. Both can and should happen in tandem. Anyone arguing otherwise is just a mentally lazy person.
  - badpun 2y ago
    Whenever you have two goals competing for the same resources, you need to prioritize. I'm for preserving life on Earth first, and spreading it to other places as a distant second.
    - boringg 2y ago
      Again you aren't competing for the same resources. Our global resources are plenty. You are unnecessarily making a dichotomy. Of course preservation of life on our planet should be paramount. We can also pursue space travel. Space travel research isn't whats killing our planet.
- chr1 2y ago
  1. I don't want my children to die. And i don't want all the life on earth to be eliminated by a random asteroid. 2. Imagine two planets, people on one of them believe that expanding is the moral imperative, and the other want stay where they are. Eventually the people from the first planet will be technologically as far away from the people on first planet, as we are from people on Sentinel island. And therefore will be completely reliant on goodwill first people. 3. The only way to preserve life on earth is to develop space technology, once we have sufficient industry in space, controlling whether on earth will be a simple task, trivially solving climate change issue.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
melling 2y ago
Cure aging? We could relieve a lot of pain in the world by just curing cancer(s), or at least make them treatable like HIV. Jake died yesterday. I don’t even think he was 40 years old. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41201555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41201555 Susan was only 56. Let’s at least give everyone a chance at a full life.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Yeah, but magnitude wise it doesn't seem like a huge difference of 56 vs 90. 56 to me now looks way early, but I assume when I get 70 then I start to think that 90 looks way too early. When I was 10 years old, 56 seemed miles away though. So there's always going to be this problem. Especially since supposedly the older you get the faster time seems to go. So the fact that I and we are all going to die at some point not too far away is still something that is constantly in the back of the mind and frequently on the front. E.g. compared to being able to live more than 1,000 years or forever and with body in its prime condition recovery etc wise. E.g. having a 25 year old body for 1,000+ years.
  - melling 2y ago
    Sure, I’m all for living to 1000. Curing cancer(s) likely needs to happen first. The war on cancer started in 1971. We’d likely need trillions of dollars of investment, and a lot more people working on it, to increase our lifespan/healthspan. But hey, we can hope together, for what that’s worth.
theGnuMe 2y ago
Living in poverty and Being broke is stressful too. Living in a shit family as well.
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  Yes the upside of being rich and stressed is that it’s all your choice. You could retire at any moment if you wished to
yyyfb 2y ago
It's not about them opposing each other, it's about priorities.

by chr1 2y ago

RobertDeNiro 2y ago

High levels of stress (often related to work) have been shown to impact health. So I think it’s a fair thing to oppose them.

boringg 2y ago
Isn't that person and stress source dependent. Also working until late in life actually improves mental acuity and fights off dementia. So maybe work but not in excessively high stress loads is your point? Though i think your implied underlying assumption that because she was a leader in tech and under a high workload somehow caused this is unfounded and unnecessary.
- anon7725 2y ago
  There must be a difference between the stress experienced by a financially independent CEO and a marginally-employed gig worker. One is the stress of essentially playing a game or working on a challenge and the other is existential.
  - gunapologist99 2y ago
    This sample size of one would seem to disagree. Stress is stress, and the outcome can certainly be the same in the end. RIP

badpun 2y ago

Why it's a good idea to fill galaxy with life? Why should we care about it? Also, seeing that our current civilization-system is already at the brink of catastrophe, we should focus on less ambitious goals, such as preserving life on Earth.

boringg 2y ago
Absolutely worth it. We wont fill the galaxy filled with life because the galaxy is huge and we are but one tiny tiny portion of it. For us to survive and do anything impressive takes all of human ingenuity. Also those two items aren't mutually exclusive. Both can and should happen in tandem. Anyone arguing otherwise is just a mentally lazy person.
- badpun 2y ago
  Whenever you have two goals competing for the same resources, you need to prioritize. I'm for preserving life on Earth first, and spreading it to other places as a distant second.
  - boringg 2y ago
    Again you aren't competing for the same resources. Our global resources are plenty. You are unnecessarily making a dichotomy. Of course preservation of life on our planet should be paramount. We can also pursue space travel. Space travel research isn't whats killing our planet.
chr1 2y ago
1. I don't want my children to die. And i don't want all the life on earth to be eliminated by a random asteroid. 2. Imagine two planets, people on one of them believe that expanding is the moral imperative, and the other want stay where they are. Eventually the people from the first planet will be technologically as far away from the people on first planet, as we are from people on Sentinel island. And therefore will be completely reliant on goodwill first people. 3. The only way to preserve life on earth is to develop space technology, once we have sufficient industry in space, controlling whether on earth will be a simple task, trivially solving climate change issue.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

melling 2y ago

Cure aging? We could relieve a lot of pain in the world by just curing cancer(s), or at least make them treatable like HIV. Jake died yesterday. I don’t even think he was 40 years old. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41201555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41201555 Susan was only 56. Let’s at least give everyone a chance at a full life.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
Yeah, but magnitude wise it doesn't seem like a huge difference of 56 vs 90. 56 to me now looks way early, but I assume when I get 70 then I start to think that 90 looks way too early. When I was 10 years old, 56 seemed miles away though. So there's always going to be this problem. Especially since supposedly the older you get the faster time seems to go. So the fact that I and we are all going to die at some point not too far away is still something that is constantly in the back of the mind and frequently on the front. E.g. compared to being able to live more than 1,000 years or forever and with body in its prime condition recovery etc wise. E.g. having a 25 year old body for 1,000+ years.
- melling 2y ago
  Sure, I’m all for living to 1000. Curing cancer(s) likely needs to happen first. The war on cancer started in 1971. We’d likely need trillions of dollars of investment, and a lot more people working on it, to increase our lifespan/healthspan. But hey, we can hope together, for what that’s worth.

theGnuMe 2y ago

Living in poverty and Being broke is stressful too. Living in a shit family as well.

coffeebeqn 2y ago
Yes the upside of being rich and stressed is that it’s all your choice. You could retire at any moment if you wished to

yyyfb 2y ago

It's not about them opposing each other, it's about priorities.