3 ms·

Meaning how much you should save under the assumption that the biotech research community will fail to create any means for you to buy additional healthy years

Meaning how much you should save under the assumption that the biotech research community will fail to create any means for you to buy additional healthy years between now and your death by aging. That is a very shaky assumption if you are in your 40s now, and outright laughable if you are significantly younger. Forms of rejuvenation of function in specific tissues have been demonstrated in the lab in recent years, and the SENS Research Foundation continues to gather support and funding. Other research groups have their own SENS-alternatives in terms of plans to treat aging by addressing what they believe to be the primary causes. Biotechnology in general is showing no signs of slowing down.

anovikov 13y ago
Don't you think that this will first, and foremost, increase years of one's healthy life when one could work?
Shivetya 13y ago
then there are those of us who would prefer those extra years for something other than work. If anything, its best to save all you reasonably can. If not for what you plan for then for what you don't. That not planned for category doesn't always have to mean bad things
dllthomas 13y ago
It seems like you can hedge this, to some degree, by investing in biotech...
jl6 13y ago
While I share your optimism, there's a very large gap between "demonstrated in the lab" and the point where you can laugh at that assumption. Are there any proven life extension techniques beyond calorie restriction and regular exercise? I see a lot of possibilities and early research projects, but essentially nothing in the way of results.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Not to contradict your point, but what matters from this perspective is healthy life, not lifespan. If you're healthy enough that working to maintain whatever income you need or want (you might work less, because you need less, or go without working if you can; this is about having the option) remains a reasonable prospect till 75, and drop dead at 76, then retirement isn't a huge issue. We don't, strictly speaking, need people to live to be 150 to solve the retirement problem. (In fact, them living that long in poor health would be counterproductive; however, it's almost a certainty that radical life extension requires rejuvenation.) We just need for people to be healthy and able to work while they are alive.

anovikov 13y ago

Don't you think that this will first, and foremost, increase years of one's healthy life when one could work?

Shivetya 13y ago

then there are those of us who would prefer those extra years for something other than work. If anything, its best to save all you reasonably can. If not for what you plan for then for what you don't. That not planned for category doesn't always have to mean bad things

dllthomas 13y ago

It seems like you can hedge this, to some degree, by investing in biotech...

jl6 13y ago

While I share your optimism, there's a very large gap between "demonstrated in the lab" and the point where you can laugh at that assumption. Are there any proven life extension techniques beyond calorie restriction and regular exercise? I see a lot of possibilities and early research projects, but essentially nothing in the way of results.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Not to contradict your point, but what matters from this perspective is healthy life, not lifespan. If you're healthy enough that working to maintain whatever income you need or want (you might work less, because you need less, or go without working if you can; this is about having the option) remains a reasonable prospect till 75, and drop dead at 76, then retirement isn't a huge issue. We don't, strictly speaking, need people to live to be 150 to solve the retirement problem. (In fact, them living that long in poor health would be counterproductive; however, it's almost a certainty that radical life extension requires rejuvenation.) We just need for people to be healthy and able to work while they are alive.