4 ms·

I seem to be much more confident that technology could solve the aging problem. Two routes come to mind: 1. We can already splice up DNA with decent accuracy,

I seem to be much more confident that technology could solve the aging problem. Two routes come to mind: 1. We can already splice up DNA with decent accuracy, so it's just a matter of finding what DNA to splice in/out to have the desired effects, and then a method to apply this to every cell. 2. We're close to being able to disassemble someone's nerves and simulate them with a very high accuracy. So, at the very least we could give people new robot bodies. Now, it's true that even the wealthiest people in the world several hundred years ago had no hope to get either of these done. But it seems entirely plausible that if everyone came together to work on this now, it could be solved in a few decades. I think it isn't happening because (1) people's discount factors aren't high enough to throw everything to their future; (2) the wealthiest people are older, and have the least chance of success; (3) it's a coordination problem that most people aren't even aware they can coordinate on; (4) a significant number of people don't even think it's a problem (because of the stories their ancestors told about death maybe not being the end). The last two are solvable, but the first are just mismatched preferences that you can't really get around.

somenameforme 2y ago
I'm rather late here so I'll keep this short since I'm probably just talking to myself, but hey it's fun to organize one's thoughts anyhow. I could argue that CRISPR is more like a chainsaw than a scalpel, but I think things like this are tangential. In general a lot of the research around aging is more motivated by a desired outcome than a the evidence in question. Telomeres, for instance, are clearly correlational rather than causal with contrary evidence in numerous species such as mice most obviously. In general there seems to be practically a rule that any observation of biological immortality is later met with a refutation. For instance lobsters are observed to eventually stop even trying to moult as they age, which inevitably leads to their death. Senescence manifesting differently in different species obviously does not imply immortality. People, even very smart people, have a habit of lying to themselves when they want something to be true. Obviously religion is a good example of this in the past. And in the present I think we're largely just replacing religion with pseudo-scientific hypotheses to the same end. For instance I personally am a strong believer in the simulation hypothesis, at least I think I am. I don't know whether I "really" believe it's as sound as it seems, or if it's a coping mechanism to balance a secular worldview and the desire to not die. I mean it's not really even a theory since if it turns out to be true, and one day I simply 'wake up' - is that new reality "real" or just another simulation? But I'm at least aware of the fact I may well be lying to myself with a highly debatable theory.

somenameforme 2y ago

I'm rather late here so I'll keep this short since I'm probably just talking to myself, but hey it's fun to organize one's thoughts anyhow. I could argue that CRISPR is more like a chainsaw than a scalpel, but I think things like this are tangential. In general a lot of the research around aging is more motivated by a desired outcome than a the evidence in question. Telomeres, for instance, are clearly correlational rather than causal with contrary evidence in numerous species such as mice most obviously. In general there seems to be practically a rule that any observation of biological immortality is later met with a refutation. For instance lobsters are observed to eventually stop even trying to moult as they age, which inevitably leads to their death. Senescence manifesting differently in different species obviously does not imply immortality. People, even very smart people, have a habit of lying to themselves when they want something to be true. Obviously religion is a good example of this in the past. And in the present I think we're largely just replacing religion with pseudo-scientific hypotheses to the same end. For instance I personally am a strong believer in the simulation hypothesis, at least I think I am. I don't know whether I "really" believe it's as sound as it seems, or if it's a coping mechanism to balance a secular worldview and the desire to not die. I mean it's not really even a theory since if it turns out to be true, and one day I simply 'wake up' - is that new reality "real" or just another simulation? But I'm at least aware of the fact I may well be lying to myself with a highly debatable theory.