4 ms·

"He says he'd give anything to be young again and that no matter how much money he has, he'll never get time back." Indeed. And yet I don't see his name in "th

by sho 17y ago

"He says he'd give anything to be young again and that no matter how much money he has, he'll never get time back." Indeed. And yet I don't see his name in "the 300". Why aren't these rich people throwing money at SENS research?

dennisgorelik 17y ago
> Why aren't these rich people throwing money at SENS research? Because at this moment science is very far from solving human aging problem, and significant investments wouldn't likely help much.
- ruby_roo 17y ago
  I just want to live long enough to live forever: http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/
- sho 17y ago
  "Because at this moment science is very far from solving human aging problem, and significant investments wouldn't likely help much." A lot of very intelligent people think otherwise. Do you have a good justification for such a position?
  - arakyd 17y ago
    A lot of very intelligent people notwithstanding, the burden of proof is still on those who claim that the first person to live for a thousand years is sixty years old today. Even De Grey is sensible enough to realize that he's going to have to show some pretty remarkable results in mice before efforts to combat aging get serious amounts of funding.
    - sho 17y ago
      Very true - we do have a long way to go. And I am pretty sceptical of that "is sixty years old today" claim myself - that's a pretty short window. But "significant investments wouldn't likely help much"? I rather think they would, actually. There is a lot of research to be done, a lot we need to know. This is going to take significant investment; it is hard to think of any comparable research project that hasn't. This guy, Felix Dennis, is over 60 now. He's worth somewhere north of half a billion. What else does he plan to use the money for? He even says, and I quote: "Could you turn the clock back for me by forty years, I would willingly swap you every penny and every possession I own in return. And I would have the better of the bargain, too!" If he believes that, then why not at least throw the dice on aging research? Just 20% of his (largely unnecessary) loot would have an unimaginable effect on the project. Especially if he could shame other rich old coots to match him. And who knows, they might find something quickly enough to give him his extra life. As opposed to doing nothing, that is, and all those zeroes in his bank balance being transferred directly to Her Majesty's Finest the moment he predictably keels over. Why not try and throw a spanner in the works? Mix things up a bit? See what the judicious application of Amount of Funds A to Promising Line of Enquiry B can come up with? Maybe I lack the perspective of being a grizzly rich old goat but geeze, with their own lives on the table you'd think they would find more productive uses of their money than paintings and bonds. Where altruism fails, naked self-interest should start kicking in. Why isn't it?
      - Ardit20 17y ago
        maybe because they don't know about it. Not many people have heard about the ageing research and I think the project would gain a lot of funding if they started raising awareness by targeted advertising and marketing.
      - arakyd 17y ago
        Tell me why you're not just another dude with a cause who wants to tell other people how to spend their money, because that's what you sound like. Not to be combative, and I want to live for a thousand years as much as the next guy, but this is why I lean libertarian. My naked self interest is my naked self interest.
        sho 17y ago
        I'm not telling others how to spend their money, I'm wondering aloud why they don't do what seems to be best for them. Sorry if I implied otherwise. If your net worth ran into the hundreds of millions and you'd expressed the heartfelt desire to live longer, as Mr. Felix has, then upon noticing you hadn't taken any action in furtherance of that desire I'd suggest your investment in life extension research, too. But it's just a suggestion, of course. That said, sometimes compulsion is reasonable. I would not argue with tax money going towards SENS research. A better use than guns and foreign bases, certainly.
      - dennisgorelik 17y ago
        Why do you think that pouring half a billion dollars into anti-aging research would give a good chance of accomplishing something in that field? Spending tons of money guarantees only one thing -- spending money. If there were promising results in anti-aging research -- savvy investors would be heavily investing into that field. But they don't, because savvy investors understand that it's not practical at this point, even considering HUGE demand for anti-aging technology.
- Eliezer 17y ago
  If you're that old then you should be investing in cryonics. Same logic. Death is for people who don't understand technology.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    There's more to death than just getting old, and expecting to buy one's way out of it with technology is a bit over-optimistic. You don't have to accept it passively, but nor is it fundamentally awful. One might question, for example, the overall value of medical enhancements which lead to gerontocracy, and the subsequent economic and political disadvantage to the generation that comes along afterwards, a problem that the developed world is beginning to experience.
  - dmm 17y ago
    You and I have different understandings of death. You've been dying since the moment you were born. I was once a child. That child is nowhere in the world. He is dead. In his place is a young man. Some day, very soon, that young man will no longer exist and in his place someone else will live. Death and rebirth are constant processes. You cannot live without changing. And what is death but change? Three weeks ago I was a man who was ignorant of opengl. That man is now dead forever. In his place, reborn, is a man who has a passing knowledge of it. The event we normally call death is simply a dramatic version of what occurs every day, every possible moment.
    - sho 17y ago
      While I can sympathise with anyone who has learnt OpenGL, I think he is talking about non-metaphoric, actual death, the kind that results in you being actually dead, ie heart stopped, not breathing, will never see or speak again - that kind of death.
      - dmm 17y ago
        Oh I know. I was just trying to challenge the statement "Death is for people who don't understand technology." by pointing out a different view. Duality is one of the triumphs of western thought. It has allowed us to escape superstition and is the basis of science and engineering. It keeps the bridges from falling down, but it is not a perfect description of reality and it falls apart if expected to be. What I'm saying is that so far as it is meaningful to specify things* are "you" and parts of "you", these things do not end or disappear with real, physical, heart-stopping, rotting in ground death. The things which are lost with physical death are in constant flux, so they are constantly being lost anyway. * No need for a soul or some sort of material ectoplasm. You are in constant subtle contact with everything.
CamperBob 17y ago
Perhaps because when we finally do conquer aging, it's going to cause societal disruption unseen since humanity's beginnings. Chances are good that you won't want to live through such a time. Think about it. It takes time and money to commoditize any new technology; wealthy early adopters are often required to help the technology evolve to the point where it's ready for the masses. Remember when only the "rich" had phones in their cars? And the way ordinary people would often snicker at the very idea of such an indulgence? Now imagine a time in which only the "rich" can live forever. Suddenly there's not so much snickering, as there is the sound of axes being sharpened.
- sho 17y ago
  Hm. I am not so sure about that. There are many societies around the world in which the rich live in near-obscene luxury while mere kilometres away the masses huddle in abject poverty, dying of curable illnesses, helpless and starving while their betters fly past in their Mercedes and helicopters. They do not rise up. I think the rule of law will prevail for the most part, and private security will make up the gaps. Whether this is just or injust is left for the reader to ponder but I don't think radical life extension for the rich will prompt revolution.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    so...because you live farther away you don't think you're a member of this group? by sane metrics the person who makes $60k a year is fabulously wealthy.
    - sho 17y ago
      Well, relatively speaking a middle class living is privileged, sure. I wouldn't describe $60k/yr in a country like this as "fabulously wealthy", though, and doubt even an inhabitant of the Sao Paulo Favelas (whom I had in mind writing the above) would consider it as such. However, we have at least the opportunity to reach for the stars - or to continue in relative middle class comfort. They don't have this and yes, it is unfair. But what can we do? Is not the solution to raise the tide for all, rather than scuttle our own ships? There is no reason our planet, properly ordered, cannot provide all its inhabitants a comfortable, dignified, even prosperous stay. Would that I live to see it happen. Everything good comes from the middle classes. Multiply them and you multiply everything - technology, culture, progress. Expanding the middle class should be the goal of any technocrat with an eye to the future. Helping the poor isn't just altruism, it's self-interest too because while they suffer we cannot conspicuously splash money around on more useful things.

by sho 17y ago

dennisgorelik 17y ago

> Why aren't these rich people throwing money at SENS research? Because at this moment science is very far from solving human aging problem, and significant investments wouldn't likely help much.

ruby_roo 17y ago
I just want to live long enough to live forever: http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/
sho 17y ago
"Because at this moment science is very far from solving human aging problem, and significant investments wouldn't likely help much." A lot of very intelligent people think otherwise. Do you have a good justification for such a position?
- arakyd 17y ago
  A lot of very intelligent people notwithstanding, the burden of proof is still on those who claim that the first person to live for a thousand years is sixty years old today. Even De Grey is sensible enough to realize that he's going to have to show some pretty remarkable results in mice before efforts to combat aging get serious amounts of funding.
  - sho 17y ago
    Very true - we do have a long way to go. And I am pretty sceptical of that "is sixty years old today" claim myself - that's a pretty short window. But "significant investments wouldn't likely help much"? I rather think they would, actually. There is a lot of research to be done, a lot we need to know. This is going to take significant investment; it is hard to think of any comparable research project that hasn't. This guy, Felix Dennis, is over 60 now. He's worth somewhere north of half a billion. What else does he plan to use the money for? He even says, and I quote: "Could you turn the clock back for me by forty years, I would willingly swap you every penny and every possession I own in return. And I would have the better of the bargain, too!" If he believes that, then why not at least throw the dice on aging research? Just 20% of his (largely unnecessary) loot would have an unimaginable effect on the project. Especially if he could shame other rich old coots to match him. And who knows, they might find something quickly enough to give him his extra life. As opposed to doing nothing, that is, and all those zeroes in his bank balance being transferred directly to Her Majesty's Finest the moment he predictably keels over. Why not try and throw a spanner in the works? Mix things up a bit? See what the judicious application of Amount of Funds A to Promising Line of Enquiry B can come up with? Maybe I lack the perspective of being a grizzly rich old goat but geeze, with their own lives on the table you'd think they would find more productive uses of their money than paintings and bonds. Where altruism fails, naked self-interest should start kicking in. Why isn't it?
    - Ardit20 17y ago
      maybe because they don't know about it. Not many people have heard about the ageing research and I think the project would gain a lot of funding if they started raising awareness by targeted advertising and marketing.
    - arakyd 17y ago
      Tell me why you're not just another dude with a cause who wants to tell other people how to spend their money, because that's what you sound like. Not to be combative, and I want to live for a thousand years as much as the next guy, but this is why I lean libertarian. My naked self interest is my naked self interest.
      - sho 17y ago
        I'm not telling others how to spend their money, I'm wondering aloud why they don't do what seems to be best for them. Sorry if I implied otherwise. If your net worth ran into the hundreds of millions and you'd expressed the heartfelt desire to live longer, as Mr. Felix has, then upon noticing you hadn't taken any action in furtherance of that desire I'd suggest your investment in life extension research, too. But it's just a suggestion, of course. That said, sometimes compulsion is reasonable. I would not argue with tax money going towards SENS research. A better use than guns and foreign bases, certainly.
    - dennisgorelik 17y ago
      Why do you think that pouring half a billion dollars into anti-aging research would give a good chance of accomplishing something in that field? Spending tons of money guarantees only one thing -- spending money. If there were promising results in anti-aging research -- savvy investors would be heavily investing into that field. But they don't, because savvy investors understand that it's not practical at this point, even considering HUGE demand for anti-aging technology.
Eliezer 17y ago
If you're that old then you should be investing in cryonics. Same logic. Death is for people who don't understand technology.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  There's more to death than just getting old, and expecting to buy one's way out of it with technology is a bit over-optimistic. You don't have to accept it passively, but nor is it fundamentally awful. One might question, for example, the overall value of medical enhancements which lead to gerontocracy, and the subsequent economic and political disadvantage to the generation that comes along afterwards, a problem that the developed world is beginning to experience.
- dmm 17y ago
  You and I have different understandings of death. You've been dying since the moment you were born. I was once a child. That child is nowhere in the world. He is dead. In his place is a young man. Some day, very soon, that young man will no longer exist and in his place someone else will live. Death and rebirth are constant processes. You cannot live without changing. And what is death but change? Three weeks ago I was a man who was ignorant of opengl. That man is now dead forever. In his place, reborn, is a man who has a passing knowledge of it. The event we normally call death is simply a dramatic version of what occurs every day, every possible moment.
  - sho 17y ago
    While I can sympathise with anyone who has learnt OpenGL, I think he is talking about non-metaphoric, actual death, the kind that results in you being actually dead, ie heart stopped, not breathing, will never see or speak again - that kind of death.
    - dmm 17y ago
      Oh I know. I was just trying to challenge the statement "Death is for people who don't understand technology." by pointing out a different view. Duality is one of the triumphs of western thought. It has allowed us to escape superstition and is the basis of science and engineering. It keeps the bridges from falling down, but it is not a perfect description of reality and it falls apart if expected to be. What I'm saying is that so far as it is meaningful to specify things* are "you" and parts of "you", these things do not end or disappear with real, physical, heart-stopping, rotting in ground death. The things which are lost with physical death are in constant flux, so they are constantly being lost anyway. * No need for a soul or some sort of material ectoplasm. You are in constant subtle contact with everything.

CamperBob 17y ago

Perhaps because when we finally do conquer aging, it's going to cause societal disruption unseen since humanity's beginnings. Chances are good that you won't want to live through such a time. Think about it. It takes time and money to commoditize any new technology; wealthy early adopters are often required to help the technology evolve to the point where it's ready for the masses. Remember when only the "rich" had phones in their cars? And the way ordinary people would often snicker at the very idea of such an indulgence? Now imagine a time in which only the "rich" can live forever. Suddenly there's not so much snickering, as there is the sound of axes being sharpened.

sho 17y ago
Hm. I am not so sure about that. There are many societies around the world in which the rich live in near-obscene luxury while mere kilometres away the masses huddle in abject poverty, dying of curable illnesses, helpless and starving while their betters fly past in their Mercedes and helicopters. They do not rise up. I think the rule of law will prevail for the most part, and private security will make up the gaps. Whether this is just or injust is left for the reader to ponder but I don't think radical life extension for the rich will prompt revolution.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  so...because you live farther away you don't think you're a member of this group? by sane metrics the person who makes $60k a year is fabulously wealthy.
  - sho 17y ago
    Well, relatively speaking a middle class living is privileged, sure. I wouldn't describe $60k/yr in a country like this as "fabulously wealthy", though, and doubt even an inhabitant of the Sao Paulo Favelas (whom I had in mind writing the above) would consider it as such. However, we have at least the opportunity to reach for the stars - or to continue in relative middle class comfort. They don't have this and yes, it is unfair. But what can we do? Is not the solution to raise the tide for all, rather than scuttle our own ships? There is no reason our planet, properly ordered, cannot provide all its inhabitants a comfortable, dignified, even prosperous stay. Would that I live to see it happen. Everything good comes from the middle classes. Multiply them and you multiply everything - technology, culture, progress. Expanding the middle class should be the goal of any technocrat with an eye to the future. Helping the poor isn't just altruism, it's self-interest too because while they suffer we cannot conspicuously splash money around on more useful things.