9 ms·

"...aging is not currently regarded as a disease, but researchers tend increasingly to view it as the common origin of conditions like insulin resistance or car

"...aging is not currently regarded as a disease, but researchers tend increasingly to view it as the common origin of conditions like insulin resistance or cardiovascular disease, whose incidence rises with age. In treating cell aging, we could prevent these diseases." Preventing disease by preventing age could be an unending justification for prolonging life. Are there other benefits associated with this treatment? The above explanation of the research doesn't sit well with me.

tolmasky 14y ago
Are you against preventing aging? (Just wanting to clarify what you meant by "doesn't sit well with me")
- andrewfelix 14y ago
  Yes I mean ethically the idea of a single treatment extending life so dramatically doesn't sit well with me. I appreciate the need to improve quality of life in old age.
  - tolmasky 14y ago
    So is your concern that the quality of life would degrade as the rate it does now (so in other words, you don't want really miserable 110 year olds). Or, are you saying, even if we extended life and kept you feeling healthy for the same proportion as now, just longer (so things were now fine and dandy until, let's say, you're 80 and then slowly degrade to 110), you would still have a problem with it?
    - andrewfelix 14y ago
      What the researchers seem to be suggesting is extending life for no specific reason, other than preventing the complications that are associated with aging that can and do eventually lead to death. So my issue is; there is no great societal benefit to just extending life for the sake of it, as opposed to say, making people more comfortable in their old age. IMO the world would not benefit from millions of people living until they're 130 years old.
      - xiaoma 14y ago
        At what age then, do you feel people's lives should be terminated?
      - Nursie 14y ago
        So? Screw society and 'the world', the question is have you got a damn good reason why I, as an individual, should not be allowed to extend my life if I can afford both the treatment and to support myself?
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    People are downvoting you because they disagree with you, and not on the quality of your argument. Which I disagree with, but it's valid. The way I'm taking it is that you think humans should live a natural life span, rather than an unnatural one boosted by a treatment, as the risk could be upheaval to our already tenuous social situation due to rising old age and supporting that. However, if a life span is extended using this treatment by a factor of, lets say conservatively 15%, and helps offset some of the illness related to ageing (heart disease etc) then that's partially resolved the situation. There's two ways it'd go, it'd be cheap enough for many people to afford, or pricy enough for the top 10% to afford. Either way society as a whole would adapt to the change, if it's cheap and everyone can afford it then the mandatory retirement age would be lifted. We'd all be a lot healthier and we'd be capable of working longer, so pensions would take a lot longer to kick in, as would dependence on the state. If the top 10% get it we'll have a lot of rich, long living folk doing what rich, long living folk do. Making more money. Spending more money. Society will probably adapt around that again. It has the potential to make life on this planet untenable, but imagine what humanity could achieve if people had another 20% of time to work in. The discoveries scientists could make knowing that 20 years from being 35 they've still got chance to do another 20 year project, so fully invested in solving the problems that would take 20 years without worry it's worthless. (I also disagree with everyone suggesting you'd be a fan of eugenics as well, as that seems out of line with that fact you seem to be a proponent of naturalised life spans)
  - bitwize 14y ago
    The best way to improve quality of life towards the end is to end your life early, hence my support for legalization of physician-assisted suicide.
orangecat 14y ago
Preventing disease by preventing age could be an unending justification for prolonging life. Yes, I hope so. How on earth is that a bad thing?
- andrewfelix 14y ago
  The earth is struggling to sustain the population as it is. Older people tend to require more resources for support, putting further strain on society. This is happening already in many developed countries as baby boomers enter retirement. EDIT: PS. Thank you for not downvoting me. It's refreshing to see a difference of opinion without the vitriol
  - michael_michael 14y ago
    This is about making older people require fewer resources for support. The holy grail of longevity research is increased lifespan with no appreciable decline in quality of life. The main factors that contribute to a decreased quality of life are the same ones that eventually kill us. Namely, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and the general cognitive/motor decline that comes with aging. If we could effectively halt senescence, we'd be able to expend fewer resources on care for the elderly.
    - andrewfelix 14y ago
      This is turning into thread soup. But for arguments sake; Surely someone with low-grade aging symptoms living an additional 30 years is going to be a greater burden on society than someone dying from complications 30 years earlier?
      - ajuc 14y ago
        Are you aware that your argument also supports eugenics, sterlization of geneticaly sick people, etc? I'd say that burden isn't as much for the whole society, as for the family of each person and for that person. And it should be the decision of person (and maybe its family, but there's controversy there) if that person wants to live longer causing this burden. I don't think state or science should decide on such things. And it's better to at least have a choice.

tolmasky 14y ago

Are you against preventing aging? (Just wanting to clarify what you meant by "doesn't sit well with me")

andrewfelix 14y ago
Yes I mean ethically the idea of a single treatment extending life so dramatically doesn't sit well with me. I appreciate the need to improve quality of life in old age.
- tolmasky 14y ago
  So is your concern that the quality of life would degrade as the rate it does now (so in other words, you don't want really miserable 110 year olds). Or, are you saying, even if we extended life and kept you feeling healthy for the same proportion as now, just longer (so things were now fine and dandy until, let's say, you're 80 and then slowly degrade to 110), you would still have a problem with it?
  - andrewfelix 14y ago
    What the researchers seem to be suggesting is extending life for no specific reason, other than preventing the complications that are associated with aging that can and do eventually lead to death. So my issue is; there is no great societal benefit to just extending life for the sake of it, as opposed to say, making people more comfortable in their old age. IMO the world would not benefit from millions of people living until they're 130 years old.
    - xiaoma 14y ago
      At what age then, do you feel people's lives should be terminated?
    - Nursie 14y ago
      So? Screw society and 'the world', the question is have you got a damn good reason why I, as an individual, should not be allowed to extend my life if I can afford both the treatment and to support myself?
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  People are downvoting you because they disagree with you, and not on the quality of your argument. Which I disagree with, but it's valid. The way I'm taking it is that you think humans should live a natural life span, rather than an unnatural one boosted by a treatment, as the risk could be upheaval to our already tenuous social situation due to rising old age and supporting that. However, if a life span is extended using this treatment by a factor of, lets say conservatively 15%, and helps offset some of the illness related to ageing (heart disease etc) then that's partially resolved the situation. There's two ways it'd go, it'd be cheap enough for many people to afford, or pricy enough for the top 10% to afford. Either way society as a whole would adapt to the change, if it's cheap and everyone can afford it then the mandatory retirement age would be lifted. We'd all be a lot healthier and we'd be capable of working longer, so pensions would take a lot longer to kick in, as would dependence on the state. If the top 10% get it we'll have a lot of rich, long living folk doing what rich, long living folk do. Making more money. Spending more money. Society will probably adapt around that again. It has the potential to make life on this planet untenable, but imagine what humanity could achieve if people had another 20% of time to work in. The discoveries scientists could make knowing that 20 years from being 35 they've still got chance to do another 20 year project, so fully invested in solving the problems that would take 20 years without worry it's worthless. (I also disagree with everyone suggesting you'd be a fan of eugenics as well, as that seems out of line with that fact you seem to be a proponent of naturalised life spans)
- bitwize 14y ago
  The best way to improve quality of life towards the end is to end your life early, hence my support for legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

orangecat 14y ago

Preventing disease by preventing age could be an unending justification for prolonging life. Yes, I hope so. How on earth is that a bad thing?

andrewfelix 14y ago
The earth is struggling to sustain the population as it is. Older people tend to require more resources for support, putting further strain on society. This is happening already in many developed countries as baby boomers enter retirement. EDIT: PS. Thank you for not downvoting me. It's refreshing to see a difference of opinion without the vitriol
- michael_michael 14y ago
  This is about making older people require fewer resources for support. The holy grail of longevity research is increased lifespan with no appreciable decline in quality of life. The main factors that contribute to a decreased quality of life are the same ones that eventually kill us. Namely, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and the general cognitive/motor decline that comes with aging. If we could effectively halt senescence, we'd be able to expend fewer resources on care for the elderly.
  - andrewfelix 14y ago
    This is turning into thread soup. But for arguments sake; Surely someone with low-grade aging symptoms living an additional 30 years is going to be a greater burden on society than someone dying from complications 30 years earlier?
    - ajuc 14y ago
      Are you aware that your argument also supports eugenics, sterlization of geneticaly sick people, etc? I'd say that burden isn't as much for the whole society, as for the family of each person and for that person. And it should be the decision of person (and maybe its family, but there's controversy there) if that person wants to live longer causing this burden. I don't think state or science should decide on such things. And it's better to at least have a choice.