10 ms·
> "with scientists set to look at how the theory of age reversal can be used to treat diseases such as cancer, dementia and diabetes." Alzheimer's medications
by fragsworth 13y ago
> "with scientists set to look at how the theory of age reversal can be used to treat diseases such as cancer, dementia and diabetes."
Alzheimer's medications can generally improve cognition. Age-reversal medications might work even better if used at an early age.
I always see articles, media, and papers focusing on how something new can be used to treat some existing disease. But what I'm always thinking is "can I use this if I don't have a disease?"
It's a strange disconnect. I know everyone is thinking what I'm thinking, but you never see this in the articles. Is it some kind of taboo?
- jaibot 13y agoYes. http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/ http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
- 11001 13y agoActually, before we started to "poop in the hole", the rates of infectious diseases were way lower.
- rictic 13y agoNot a bad point, especially given that the current consensus seems to be that the agricultural revolution[1] was a net negative for most individuals in society (evidence of significant wear on the body from bending all day, evidence of worse nutrition), but it was a winning adaptation at the group level. Underscores the point that progress can make us less happy. That said, I strongly believe that we can do anti-aging right and improve the lot of humanity. [1] We only started needing a designated place to poop because we stayed around in one place and became numerous.
- nzp 13y agoWhat are you talking about? (serious question)
- VLM 13y agoThe era between the end of nomadic lifestyle but before civil engineering of water and sewer systems aka the centuries where the average woman had 14 kids and watched 12 of them die before adulthood. It kinda sucked.
- derefr 13y agoWait, what? Pooping in a (deep) hole, as opposed to, say, against a tree, is extremely good for people. Especially people who don't wear shoes. Ref: http://endtheneglect.org/2012/01/how-the-outhouse-helped-save-the-south-and-what-it-can-do-for-the-worlds-bottom-billion/ http://endtheneglect.org/2012/01/how-the-outhouse-helped-sav...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jaibot 13y agoTechnically correct, but the pooping in the hole wasn't the cause of the disease - it was a necessary countermeasure against the effects of living in the same place for years on end.
- olalonde 13y agoThe same is true of artificial intelligence. For example, articles always mention that brain simulation would help us understand brain diseases (alzheimer, schizophrenia, etc.) better and barely mention the much bigger implications of strong AI (like that it might be the last thing humans ever need to invent).
- wyager 13y ago>like that it might be the last thing humans ever need to invent Damn. Putting it like that is powerful.
- _random_ 13y agoMaybe most people are not capable of understanding the possibilities of a strong AI? It's not like we will just have a nice sounding personal assistant.
- twobits 13y agoWhat can't one understand about "infinite 'free' labour"?
- krapp 13y agoThe labor won't be infinite... they'll work us to death at some point.
- kyzyl 13y agoBeat me to the punch ;-)
- charlieflowers 13y agoBut they'll pump us full of anti-aging meds that restore us to youth, so they can work us to the brink of death again. It's more efficient than growing new humans through that whole irritating "childhood" phase.
- maratd 13y ago> It's a strange disconnect. I know everyone is thinking what I'm thinking, but you never see this in the articles. Is it some kind of taboo? Sure. It's ridiculously selfish. As you age, you realize your success in all things eventually boils down to experience and ability to execute. Ability to execute wanes with age, as experience is accumulated, so it balances out. Now imagine a spry 20 year old with 60 years of experience? Not exactly fair to those actually 20 years old. EDIT: To the old farts responding below me, regardless of how well you take care of yourself, you wither with age. By removing that, you are messing with the balance that has existed for millions of years. It has nothing to do with fair competition, it has everything to do with using technology to get ahead of the competition, in the same way that some athletes use performance enhancing drugs, and we as a society frown on that too.
- johndevor 13y ago> Now imagine a spry 20 year old with 60 years of experience? Not exactly fair to those actually 20 years old. How is that "unfair"? You might as well criticize an old person who looks and acts young for taking good care of themselves.
- geoffschmidt 13y agoHazel thinks George looks exhausted and urges him to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weight placed in a bag and locked around George's neck. He says he hardly notices the weight any more. Hazel suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but he says if everyone broke the law, society would return to its old competitive ways. Hazel says she would hate that. A noise interrupts the conversation, and George cannot remember what they were talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
- sliverstorm 13y agoI don't think it's a taboo subject, it's just not really good journalistic form to employ relatively baseless speculation for more than a few sentences. Basically, as a matter of principal they report on what the researchers are doing, and the researchers are (quite reasonably) going to try to beat Alzheimer's in patients who actually have it before they try to apply it to everyone. No sense in worrying about, Can this be globally administered, like a vaccine? before they even know for sure how to beat it.
- deskglass 13y agoAnecdotally, yes. A a friend of mine works under a neuroscience researcher. They are studying the effectiveness of a substance at restoring ideal brain function to those who suffer from a disorder. When they asked the researcher why they don't study the substance as a way to improve cognition in already healthy people, they were told that doing so would violate medical ethics. I have no idea if that's representative of the beliefs of other researchers.
- PeterisP 13y agoThe medical estabilishment is hung up on 'above all, do no harm'. This means that if you don't have a disease, you generally don't 'deserve' a cure, since any cure or procedure tends to have some risk element in it, and if you don't have a disease then the risk is considered unacceptable. There are a bunch of substances that likely do improve things for healthy adults, but they won't get allowed to be marketed as such before they are proven safe&effective; and they won't get proven safe&effective because you can't do proper clinical trials to measure the effects on healthy people because of the possible downsides, etc. You can make and market 'dietary supplements' to the extent that they provably don't do anything significantly different and more effective than dietary choices; if it works really well, then it's a drug with a whole different regulation. You can make, test, verify and sell a medicine to improve cognitive function in people with a specific mental deficiency. You aren't really allowed (legally and ethically) to do proper medical tests on how some drug does/doesn't improve the same cognitive function in healthy adults and market & distribute it to them. You can make, test, verify and sell a medicine to fix erectile dysfunction. You aren't really allowed (legally and ethically) to do proper medical tests if some powerful drug changes sex to be more enjoyable for healthy adults, although it's quite likely that such drugs do exist.