4 ms·

You are of course being facetious, but as for any objection to working on extension of healthy life, you should ask yourself how exactly your speculative proble

You are of course being facetious, but as for any objection to working on extension of healthy life, you should ask yourself how exactly your speculative problem is worse than the real problem of 100,000 horrible deaths every day, as well as the ongoing pain and suffering of hundreds of millions of people trapped in failing bodies.

klipt 12y ago
Extension of healthy life doesn't solve the problems you mention, it merely delays them (unless the extension is forever, which is impossible given our current understanding of physics). And population will be an issue - but I think that's largely self correcting. If everyone lives 1000 years, it may well take 500 of those to be financially stable enough to have kids, because you're competing against other people who can also plan on 1000 year spans.
- jordanb 12y ago
  It also seems weird to focus on longevity when there are so many low hanging fruit that strike people down before they've had a chance to enjoy a long life. My aunt just died in her early 40s of cancer. Maybe one can argue that there's already enough money flowing into cancer research, ok, how about parasites, tuberculosis, malaria, the more general problem of drug resistance in infectious diseases? While we're being bold how about research into the causes of and solutions to violent behavior? There's really some truth in advertising in calling this the "Palo Alto prize" as its impetus is clearly not really to make the world a better place or to solve serious problems affecting many millions (billions?) of people but to assuage the minds of the privileged class of soft-livers sitting in their suburban pleasure dome agonizing about the slow encroachment of inevitability.
  - forloop 12y ago
    > its impetus is clearly not really to make the world a better place or to solve serious problems affecting many millions (billions?) of people but to Are you suggesting millions (billions?) of people don't have a problem with death/cancer/dementia? Because that's obviously incorrect! What do you think would happen if top research scientists lived longer and maintained their intellectual capabilities? What would happen if people stopped thinking so much in the short term, because they expected to face the consequences of the more distant future? What would happen to the resources that are currently being spent on diseases of ageing? Heart disease, cancer, dementia. How much wealth would be created by an increased number of experienced people working? Resource allocation to lifespan/healthspan doesn't seem zero-sum. Despite the temptation to create a dichotomy, there is none!
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > unless the extension is forever, which is impossible given our current understanding of physics If our problem moves from "how do we live longer than ~120 years or so" to "how do we outlive the heat death of the universe", that's a rather impressive improvement, and it gives us a lot more time to solve the admittedly harder problem.

klipt 12y ago

Extension of healthy life doesn't solve the problems you mention, it merely delays them (unless the extension is forever, which is impossible given our current understanding of physics). And population will be an issue - but I think that's largely self correcting. If everyone lives 1000 years, it may well take 500 of those to be financially stable enough to have kids, because you're competing against other people who can also plan on 1000 year spans.

jordanb 12y ago
It also seems weird to focus on longevity when there are so many low hanging fruit that strike people down before they've had a chance to enjoy a long life. My aunt just died in her early 40s of cancer. Maybe one can argue that there's already enough money flowing into cancer research, ok, how about parasites, tuberculosis, malaria, the more general problem of drug resistance in infectious diseases? While we're being bold how about research into the causes of and solutions to violent behavior? There's really some truth in advertising in calling this the "Palo Alto prize" as its impetus is clearly not really to make the world a better place or to solve serious problems affecting many millions (billions?) of people but to assuage the minds of the privileged class of soft-livers sitting in their suburban pleasure dome agonizing about the slow encroachment of inevitability.
- forloop 12y ago
  > its impetus is clearly not really to make the world a better place or to solve serious problems affecting many millions (billions?) of people but to Are you suggesting millions (billions?) of people don't have a problem with death/cancer/dementia? Because that's obviously incorrect! What do you think would happen if top research scientists lived longer and maintained their intellectual capabilities? What would happen if people stopped thinking so much in the short term, because they expected to face the consequences of the more distant future? What would happen to the resources that are currently being spent on diseases of ageing? Heart disease, cancer, dementia. How much wealth would be created by an increased number of experienced people working? Resource allocation to lifespan/healthspan doesn't seem zero-sum. Despite the temptation to create a dichotomy, there is none!
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> unless the extension is forever, which is impossible given our current understanding of physics If our problem moves from "how do we live longer than ~120 years or so" to "how do we outlive the heat death of the universe", that's a rather impressive improvement, and it gives us a lot more time to solve the admittedly harder problem.