NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan(blog.newlimit.com)
blog.newlimit.com
NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan
https://blog.newlimit.com/p/announcing-newlimit-a-company-built
140 comments
This makes perfect sense to me. If I were a billionaire, I'd very quickly drop down to millionaire because I'd be putting 99% of my funds into solving the "our bodies and brains are ridiculously failure-prone" problem. And I'd be begging every other billionaire to do the same.
Most billionaires I know would rather leave behind a legacy in the form of charitable foundations, their work, and their families. Squandering their fortune in a vain attempt to extend their own lives is not a widely accepted choice.
Most rich folks would rather preserve their fortune for their offspring or try to make the world a better place. Eventually many people, rich or not, notice that the younger generations are better equipped to run the world.
Not to mention we'd be better off extending human life by preventing and curing diseases and ailments like cancer and heart disease.
Most rich folks would rather preserve their fortune for their offspring or try to make the world a better place. Eventually many people, rich or not, notice that the younger generations are better equipped to run the world.
Not to mention we'd be better off extending human life by preventing and curing diseases and ailments like cancer and heart disease.
There’s no better legacy than “stopped death and disease from tearing down your grandchildren’s generation and every generation after it.”
I agree with Elon Musk that immortality is actually not great, and would instead lead to a static dystopia. New generations need a chance to put their own stamp on the world.
The new generations would be (and are!) quicker to adapt to and create new norms. It used to be that just a few generations ago the middle and elder generations were the carriers of experience and wisdom vital to thriving in the world. This is still true to a certain extent but new societal norms created in large part thanks to the steady (or exponential) march of technological progress are more easily adapted to by the younger generations.
In addition, term lengths could be placed on more than government roles to prevent excessive solidification of rules and procedures.
In addition, term lengths could be placed on more than government roles to prevent excessive solidification of rules and procedures.
The idea is that we learn what to do and what not to do from our elders. The older people are, generally they get more stuck in their ways. Most effective way to pivot generational thinking is with turnover (until we can modulate our brain function better, then all bets are off)
I’d very much enjoy being young forever in a world built on collaboration than eventually die in a world where “the last people to die gets their way”.
Actually thinking about this more. Collaboration might currently be crippled because of age and death. When you know have a few more years to live, you just want to enjoy what you’ve had. When you have another 1000+ you can take a few to invest into “getting caught up to the times”.
Actually thinking about this more. Collaboration might currently be crippled because of age and death. When you know have a few more years to live, you just want to enjoy what you’ve had. When you have another 1000+ you can take a few to invest into “getting caught up to the times”.
I'd rather have people get stuck in their ways than literally dying. The deaths of billions of people is not an acceptable cost of "progress."
I raised $27M for longevity research (SENS.org). Summary of pro death arguments:
More people make more progress faster. Aren’t you glad your parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without you in it? If great minds like Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc., were still alive and productive today, the world would be a better place. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then.
Man up, save your family, save yourself.
P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horrible things comes true, even earlier.
Fairness
Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done this.)
Better to give money to the poor than science. (family, city, state, nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.)
Bad for society
Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistent)
Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.)
Stop having kids
Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136)
Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age)
Old people are expensive (50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your final year. Delay is profitable.)
Old people suck. (death is an inferior cure to robustness.)
Bad for individual
You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related)
You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?)
You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.)
Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)
People will force you to live forever (they aren't able to do this now, why would they begin to be?)
More people make more progress faster. Aren’t you glad your parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without you in it? If great minds like Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc., were still alive and productive today, the world would be a better place. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then.
Man up, save your family, save yourself.
P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horrible things comes true, even earlier.
I find the way you summarized the discussion unhelpful, because your goal is to present very reasonable critiques to living forever in the most absurd way, and insult those who have those opinions "Man up, save your family, save yourself"? Was it really necessary to insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? I do not even where one would start to debate this.
> More people make more progress faster.
Really? Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area?
> Stop having kids
Even if this were a viable solution (history teaches us it is not) dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives?
> If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then.
What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse? What about those who will suffer the many disadvantages?
> Old people suck.
No, they don't. Whoever makes this argument does not deserver a response. What is true however is that most old people seem to have less flexibility to adapting to change, and with accelerating progress the chasm between the generation widens. The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision.
> More people make more progress faster.
Really? Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area?
> Stop having kids
Even if this were a viable solution (history teaches us it is not) dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives?
> If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then.
What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse? What about those who will suffer the many disadvantages?
> Old people suck.
No, they don't. Whoever makes this argument does not deserver a response. What is true however is that most old people seem to have less flexibility to adapting to change, and with accelerating progress the chasm between the generation widens. The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision.
> insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying?
There is no courage in choosing death. If people could live forever, and some people suddenly started choosing death at 80, that wouldn't be seen as "courageous" but just plain weird.
> Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area?
Historically, higher populations do result in faster progress. This is pretty much fact.
> dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives?
It would be a choice - live forever or have kids. Many people would find life much more meaningful choosing the former.
> What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse?
The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress.
It is absurd to justify the cost of progress with death. If people lived for 10k+ years in a static society, you would be called a monster if you implied that they should be dying slowly and painfully at 80 so some aspects of their society evolve faster.
> The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision.
Again, this is not worth the deaths of literally BILLIONS of people! It is mad scientist talk to say that death on such a massive scale is acceptable for any cost.
There is no courage in choosing death. If people could live forever, and some people suddenly started choosing death at 80, that wouldn't be seen as "courageous" but just plain weird.
> Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area?
Historically, higher populations do result in faster progress. This is pretty much fact.
> dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives?
It would be a choice - live forever or have kids. Many people would find life much more meaningful choosing the former.
> What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse?
The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress.
It is absurd to justify the cost of progress with death. If people lived for 10k+ years in a static society, you would be called a monster if you implied that they should be dying slowly and painfully at 80 so some aspects of their society evolve faster.
> The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision.
Again, this is not worth the deaths of literally BILLIONS of people! It is mad scientist talk to say that death on such a massive scale is acceptable for any cost.
Not sure, again, how to respond to this. Why resort rhetorical devices?
I said "courage of people wo have no fear of dying" you said "courage in choosing death", very different.
You have not defined what type of "progress" you refer to, but let me just quote one sentence from one random article on that topic [1] "The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial." Care to provide a reference for your "This is pretty much a fact"?
> It would be a choice - live forever or have kids.
Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever?
> The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress.
Acceptable by whom? I understand it is not acceptable to you, and I value your perspective, but why do you write it as if it was some form of consensus.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440177360...
I said "courage of people wo have no fear of dying" you said "courage in choosing death", very different.
You have not defined what type of "progress" you refer to, but let me just quote one sentence from one random article on that topic [1] "The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial." Care to provide a reference for your "This is pretty much a fact"?
> It would be a choice - live forever or have kids.
Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever?
> The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress.
Acceptable by whom? I understand it is not acceptable to you, and I value your perspective, but why do you write it as if it was some form of consensus.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440177360...
> The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial
But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear.
In either case, whether technological growth happens or not is irrelevant. It's not worth billions of lives. Nothing is.
> Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever?
Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario.
> Acceptable by whom?
Consider a society in which everyone lives forever. You start saying that they should all start slowly dying for the sake of progress, that they likely won't even be around to see.
You'd be regarded as somewhat crazy. We shouldn't have to have (billions of) people die to accomplish our goals. That's like trying to hammer in a nail with a meteoroid.
But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear.
In either case, whether technological growth happens or not is irrelevant. It's not worth billions of lives. Nothing is.
> Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever?
Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario.
> Acceptable by whom?
Consider a society in which everyone lives forever. You start saying that they should all start slowly dying for the sake of progress, that they likely won't even be around to see.
You'd be regarded as somewhat crazy. We shouldn't have to have (billions of) people die to accomplish our goals. That's like trying to hammer in a nail with a meteoroid.
> But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear.
Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated.
> Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario.
I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense, the world were the last human was already born. I cannot imagine being part of it.
Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated.
> Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario.
I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense, the world were the last human was already born. I cannot imagine being part of it.
> I cannot imagine being part of it.
It would likely be temporary until we find a way to create more space and/or move to a synthetic medium.
In either case, it would be a choice. If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children, thus not "depriving them of the meaningful aspects of their lives," but rather, introducing something more meaningful: the ability to enjoy life without the Damocles Sword of death.
Bodily autonomy/choice ought to be a part of any society, and that includes dying when you choose to die. Who is anyone to tell an individual when they should die? The best we can do is give them the choice, as it's a deeply personal decision.
It would likely be temporary until we find a way to create more space and/or move to a synthetic medium.
In either case, it would be a choice. If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children, thus not "depriving them of the meaningful aspects of their lives," but rather, introducing something more meaningful: the ability to enjoy life without the Damocles Sword of death.
Bodily autonomy/choice ought to be a part of any society, and that includes dying when you choose to die. Who is anyone to tell an individual when they should die? The best we can do is give them the choice, as it's a deeply personal decision.
> If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children
No, I am not saying this. Even if only a very small fraction of people decides to live forever (rather than having kids), after sufficient generations all genealogical lines will hit an immortal. Think of it as a human gene-drive. Even a small minority will change the world for everyone.
No, I am not saying this. Even if only a very small fraction of people decides to live forever (rather than having kids), after sufficient generations all genealogical lines will hit an immortal. Think of it as a human gene-drive. Even a small minority will change the world for everyone.
Sure, and that would be their choice. Who are we to infringe on the bodily choices of others?
> Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
Thank you for this snarky remark.
Every time I hear people arguing against having kids for reasons (overpopulation, bad for environment, pessimism about the future), I cannot help but think: "why doesn't that argument extend to the present generation - i.e. suicide?"
So far, the best answer I've gotten is equivalent to "suicide is bad" (a.k.a. "I have no good rational arguments but it makes me feel bad")
Thank you for this snarky remark.
Every time I hear people arguing against having kids for reasons (overpopulation, bad for environment, pessimism about the future), I cannot help but think: "why doesn't that argument extend to the present generation - i.e. suicide?"
So far, the best answer I've gotten is equivalent to "suicide is bad" (a.k.a. "I have no good rational arguments but it makes me feel bad")
To me, longevity is just a bridge to get us to live long enough to transfer our consciousness to small robots. I'd rather live 1000 years as an solar-powered ion rocket roaming around the nearby stars than as a fragile protein meatpack
I personally think it would just be fun to re-program myself. What would life be like if I could make myself less argumentative? If I could turn myself Christian? If I could make myself enjoy OOP?
Also, imagine all the various hardware updates I could get - how cool would it be to see UV/IR?
Also, imagine all the various hardware updates I could get - how cool would it be to see UV/IR?
"I don’t want to be human! I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more."
https://youtu.be/mPnx3zO3SDc
Context at 1:14, quote at 2:08
https://youtu.be/mPnx3zO3SDc
Context at 1:14, quote at 2:08
richard, do you think a DAO would be better for this than traditional non-for profit organisation? notably newlimit is a for-profit. given the aubrey de grey was ousted from sens in suspicious way after the capital injection, its time to rethink traditional legal entities for this kind of work?
Registered charities get special tax treatment. Tangentially, profit is sustainability.
makes sense. would you consider supporting a longevity DAO effort? mechanisms like onchain treasury to fund projects and voting on those. who knows what the barriers for newlimit will be, but surely one challenge is the traditional legal process.
Richard, besides donating, how can those of us with technical skills help the effort?
If I look around me - and I'm more at the bottom, at grassheight relative to billionaires and UHNWI in general on skyscrapers - I see a host of other immediate "longevity issues".
For one there is a substantial amount of people just trying get by and being like 50/50 on the choice of rather being dead already or trying to get through somehow 'till the next day, ad infinitum: from depressives who are stuck in a loop of ever growing void of meaningless in "wealthy" countries to factory workers serving as means to an end kept away from "jumping to termination" by saftey nets. And of course those infamous 10% in absolute poverty which nowadays is more like a definition game by statisticians sponsored by the World Bank showing steady progress since the 1800s.
From a psychological point of view it becomes exponentially difficult to not have an inflated ego with more and more wealth. If I would win the lottery today my ordinary psyche would not be able to process it adequately, I would inevitably grossly overestimate my contribution to it, we are simply not finetuned to handle gigantic orders of probabilites. So it comes off as a childish thing for most of us mere mortals trying to overcome your "lifetime" limitations without taking into account your environment the "soil of decaying and growing matter" in a biosphere going around an unimaginable ball of pure "fuel" in its dimension and age seperated by a vastness of nothingness in between.
At some point in the "success-intoxicated" linear chase of an ever increasing personal "lifetime" I would speculate that one would reach a critical point, a no point of return in which the sense of the self would ultimatley shatter, your (biographical) memories become obliterated beyond "recognition", so just another death-life cycle we are seeing and studying already in all life around us.
So, I would appreciate the more sober tone of just improving life in general like addressing immediate, mundane and unspectcular things like e.g. the wealth gap instead of playing on the reptilians chords of our brains by searching the "cure of aging" which kind of gives off a vibe of an coke head.
For one there is a substantial amount of people just trying get by and being like 50/50 on the choice of rather being dead already or trying to get through somehow 'till the next day, ad infinitum: from depressives who are stuck in a loop of ever growing void of meaningless in "wealthy" countries to factory workers serving as means to an end kept away from "jumping to termination" by saftey nets. And of course those infamous 10% in absolute poverty which nowadays is more like a definition game by statisticians sponsored by the World Bank showing steady progress since the 1800s.
From a psychological point of view it becomes exponentially difficult to not have an inflated ego with more and more wealth. If I would win the lottery today my ordinary psyche would not be able to process it adequately, I would inevitably grossly overestimate my contribution to it, we are simply not finetuned to handle gigantic orders of probabilites. So it comes off as a childish thing for most of us mere mortals trying to overcome your "lifetime" limitations without taking into account your environment the "soil of decaying and growing matter" in a biosphere going around an unimaginable ball of pure "fuel" in its dimension and age seperated by a vastness of nothingness in between.
At some point in the "success-intoxicated" linear chase of an ever increasing personal "lifetime" I would speculate that one would reach a critical point, a no point of return in which the sense of the self would ultimatley shatter, your (biographical) memories become obliterated beyond "recognition", so just another death-life cycle we are seeing and studying already in all life around us.
So, I would appreciate the more sober tone of just improving life in general like addressing immediate, mundane and unspectcular things like e.g. the wealth gap instead of playing on the reptilians chords of our brains by searching the "cure of aging" which kind of gives off a vibe of an coke head.
Addressing the "wealth gap" sounds good but is ultimately misguided.
If you look 100 years back, Rockefeller was the richest man in history (and might still be...), yet 1 of his 5 children died in infancy of a bacterial disease. These days, such diseases are extremely rare for about 1bn people in the western world, all of whom are effectively wealthier than Rockefeller was.
Yes, you can "save" people from poverty by giving them money, but ultimately you're just condemning their children to the same fate (after your money runs out). The only real progress is technology. And billionaires spending on anti-aging is exactly the kind of technology that will immensely benefit billions of people in the future.
If you look 100 years back, Rockefeller was the richest man in history (and might still be...), yet 1 of his 5 children died in infancy of a bacterial disease. These days, such diseases are extremely rare for about 1bn people in the western world, all of whom are effectively wealthier than Rockefeller was.
Yes, you can "save" people from poverty by giving them money, but ultimately you're just condemning their children to the same fate (after your money runs out). The only real progress is technology. And billionaires spending on anti-aging is exactly the kind of technology that will immensely benefit billions of people in the future.
> If you look 100 years back, Rockefeller was the richest man in history
Perhaps Mansa Musa [0] has that title?
[0]: https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/human-interest/richest-m...
Perhaps Mansa Musa [0] has that title?
[0]: https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/human-interest/richest-m...
John D Rockefeller is generally considered the richest person in history who earned his wealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_...
Of course, there are many others richer, who stole it (kings, tyrants).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_...
Of course, there are many others richer, who stole it (kings, tyrants).
While people working on longevity might sound like "coke heads" to you, generations from now your descendants will scarcely be able to imagine a world where death was not a willful choice, and they will look back on today as "that horrific time when people just dropped dead."
They will find it barbaric and terrifying that people could not live life out to contentment, but rather, were forced to die, and people merely accepted it rather than doing anything to fight it.
Finally, addressing the wealth gap is not mutually exclusive from solving much more important problems like death.
They will find it barbaric and terrifying that people could not live life out to contentment, but rather, were forced to die, and people merely accepted it rather than doing anything to fight it.
Finally, addressing the wealth gap is not mutually exclusive from solving much more important problems like death.
> What differentiates SpaceX from NASA, or SpaceX from Blue Origin, is people and culture. We are not trying to build an institute or academic minded organization where papers are more important than products. Our goal is to build an ambitious, well run, for-profit company that will deliver revenue generating products on the way toward accomplishing its much bigger objective.
It is debatable whether they truely understand the financials of biotech. The grind of basic research will never go away. Many successful biotech company essentially acquihire researchers and work that is already 80% complete, the role of the company is to bring it to production. That itself will make up the bulk of the company's workload. Similarly, SpaceX had the benefit of leveraging an existing pool of talent and resources; you cannot build a heavy launch company in Zimbabwe. If they want to do both active basic research and at the same time trial therapies, then they would need an enormous amount of funding (on the software unicorn level). You will need scale on the same magnitude as Pharma giants like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson to be able to acquire companies, run trials, and discard ideas that do not work. In the current bull market, this is the perfect company to build with Coinbase's founder as the chief fundraiser.
It is debatable whether they truely understand the financials of biotech. The grind of basic research will never go away. Many successful biotech company essentially acquihire researchers and work that is already 80% complete, the role of the company is to bring it to production. That itself will make up the bulk of the company's workload. Similarly, SpaceX had the benefit of leveraging an existing pool of talent and resources; you cannot build a heavy launch company in Zimbabwe. If they want to do both active basic research and at the same time trial therapies, then they would need an enormous amount of funding (on the software unicorn level). You will need scale on the same magnitude as Pharma giants like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson to be able to acquire companies, run trials, and discard ideas that do not work. In the current bull market, this is the perfect company to build with Coinbase's founder as the chief fundraiser.
I'll take any opportunity to post this William S. Burroughs essay: https://introcritsfai.blogspot.com/2015/03/immortality-by-wi...
Only Burroughs could truly capture the ghastly consequences.
Only Burroughs could truly capture the ghastly consequences.
I'm not criticizing the effort nor being sarcastic: was there any measurable progress by any of the companies working on increasing longevity? I'm talking about actual increase of lifespan, not promising ideas.
Imagine you are "filthy rich", what would be your main worry? Having money without having time is meaningless. Consider also that "crypto millionaires" are often sophisticated "lottery winners", they didn't get their money like Bezos or Musk.
The bright side is that society as a whole will profit from this also.
Frankly, this is what America has always been about - A combination of science, technology and capitalism. We need a lot more of these moonshots attempted at a massive scale. So what if it may not work out? People can not stop for the fear of failure. If founders have money and resources, by all mean I for one welcome these with open arms.
Yeah I wouldn't even mind if somebody spent billions on finding an 'Upload' like solution where you can just put your consciousness in a computer and live forever like that instead.
People generally have a knee jerk hate for such things but I welcome that with open arms too.
People generally have a knee jerk hate for such things but I welcome that with open arms too.
I wouldn't push the upload button unless it is a last resort.
It's a philosophy problem about consciousness and continuity more than anything else. Call it the star trek teleporter problem.
It's a philosophy problem about consciousness and continuity more than anything else. Call it the star trek teleporter problem.
It really depends on how the hypothetical upload process works.
Scan and replicate? Heck no. That's just death, with the creation of a new consciousness that behaves exactly like the original, while not being the original.
It would require mature nanotechnology, but it might be possible to transition a whole brain neuron-by-neuron into a simulated space, while proxying existing connectivity between the original not-yet-transferred neurons and newly transferred simulated neurons.
Our brains already experience continuous physical drift while maintaining a continued sense of self. So the gradual, online, ship of Theseus approach might work for uploading as well.
Ultimately I don't think it will be provable as to what is actually required for a non-destructive transfer of consciousness, as a copied consciousness will still perceive itself to be the original.
Scan and replicate? Heck no. That's just death, with the creation of a new consciousness that behaves exactly like the original, while not being the original.
It would require mature nanotechnology, but it might be possible to transition a whole brain neuron-by-neuron into a simulated space, while proxying existing connectivity between the original not-yet-transferred neurons and newly transferred simulated neurons.
Our brains already experience continuous physical drift while maintaining a continued sense of self. So the gradual, online, ship of Theseus approach might work for uploading as well.
Ultimately I don't think it will be provable as to what is actually required for a non-destructive transfer of consciousness, as a copied consciousness will still perceive itself to be the original.
Permutation City is a great exploration of this idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City
Gradual replacement uploads would retain continuity of consciousness
Can somebody explain to me why do people fear death?
I don't fear it. I simply don't want to unwillingly die. Life is incredible, and I'd like to continue enjoying it on my schedule.
"Conscious entity doesn't want to die" should be justification enough for not wanting to die. However, it seems that just because we've lived with a naturally imposed expiry date for so long, we are expected to accept death after an arbitrarily imposed time limit.
I live in an artificial structure because I do not accept the natural outdoor conditions that my ancestors lived in.
I communicate with people around the world, using horrendously artificial means, because I refuse to accept the silly natural limitations of local auditory communication.
I choose to accept antibiotics for infections that would otherwise naturally kill or maim me.
And if I can, I will choose to opt-out of death, the greatest disease that afflicts all of us.
As an aside, I do fear the tragedy of the aging process, for both myself and other people, but although that's presently a tightly-coupled problem, I'm assuming we're strictly discussing death and not aging.
"Conscious entity doesn't want to die" should be justification enough for not wanting to die. However, it seems that just because we've lived with a naturally imposed expiry date for so long, we are expected to accept death after an arbitrarily imposed time limit.
I live in an artificial structure because I do not accept the natural outdoor conditions that my ancestors lived in.
I communicate with people around the world, using horrendously artificial means, because I refuse to accept the silly natural limitations of local auditory communication.
I choose to accept antibiotics for infections that would otherwise naturally kill or maim me.
And if I can, I will choose to opt-out of death, the greatest disease that afflicts all of us.
As an aside, I do fear the tragedy of the aging process, for both myself and other people, but although that's presently a tightly-coupled problem, I'm assuming we're strictly discussing death and not aging.
I fear not being there to provide for my kids and seeing them grow up. The opportunity to help them grow into better people than myself and watch what they do with their lives.
I think that’s a legitimate fear, and nothing to do with what happens next to me.
I think that’s a legitimate fear, and nothing to do with what happens next to me.
have you tried it?
Pretty much every night when I go to sleep.
You would not sleep tonight if you knew with complete certainty that you would not wake up.
On the one hand, try to live forever with this.
On the other hand, accelerate the burning of the planet by giving more people access to an energy-wasting ponzi scheme.
Your 2 goals are incompatible with each other, Brian and Blake.
On the other hand, accelerate the burning of the planet by giving more people access to an energy-wasting ponzi scheme.
Your 2 goals are incompatible with each other, Brian and Blake.
Clearly, they don't think so.
We know how to make people live longer – provide them with good healthcare from cradle on, reduce pollution, help them out of poverty etc.
Biggest problem with people living longer is the costs of supporting them increase dramatically, and who's going to pay these costs?
Increasing longevity places a burden on our children, and their children
Biggest problem with people living longer is the costs of supporting them increase dramatically, and who's going to pay these costs?
Increasing longevity places a burden on our children, and their children
You're confusing (deliberately?) a few different things.
(1) better healthcare, reducing poverty etc. lift the floor of longevity but not the ceiling
(2) "cost of old age" is exactly what longevity research attempts to reduce - noone is interested in living longer as a vegetable; instead, the goal is to increase healthspan - living healthier for longer
(1) better healthcare, reducing poverty etc. lift the floor of longevity but not the ceiling
(2) "cost of old age" is exactly what longevity research attempts to reduce - noone is interested in living longer as a vegetable; instead, the goal is to increase healthspan - living healthier for longer
Better healthcare, reducing poverty etc., lift the ceiling.
In many parts of the worth we are living longer due to these things (or were before Covid)
Longevity research may also be interested in lifting this further but are all these people who now live cor even longer going to want to carry on working?
If not what are they going to live on, how are their pensions going to be paid for, how are we going to mitigate the extra demand placed on earth etc.?
I'm going to die one day and I'm fine with that
In many parts of the worth we are living longer due to these things (or were before Covid)
Longevity research may also be interested in lifting this further but are all these people who now live cor even longer going to want to carry on working?
If not what are they going to live on, how are their pensions going to be paid for, how are we going to mitigate the extra demand placed on earth etc.?
I'm going to die one day and I'm fine with that
That's the logic of mass homicide. How many children would you kill now, today, to spare the generation after the burden of taking care of them? Why haven't you killed yourself to spare (y)our children the pollution your existance causes?
Humans are a burden to humans, but we're also humans' best shot at prosperity. Let's not be so quick to deny the upside of living longer, healthier.
(That said I agree with you that up to age 80 or so the recipe for general healthspan is very simple and up to personal responsibility)
Humans are a burden to humans, but we're also humans' best shot at prosperity. Let's not be so quick to deny the upside of living longer, healthier.
(That said I agree with you that up to age 80 or so the recipe for general healthspan is very simple and up to personal responsibility)
There is something dystopian, childish, naive, desperate, arrogant, sad and tragic about billionaires founding and funding longevity companies and projects. They think that they've got it all, but deep down there's still this gaping hole of meaninglessness. They can control evertything. Everything but death. If only they can find a way to live longer, maybe even a way to never die of natural causes, everything will be better.
I'm not against research to better understand aging and diseases that are a consequence of aging such as dementia and various cancers. But when I read this announcement I feel an air of arrogance that fucking annoys me.
I'm not against research to better understand aging and diseases that are a consequence of aging such as dementia and various cancers. But when I read this announcement I feel an air of arrogance that fucking annoys me.
There's very little funding of longevity research apparently. Probably because of people sharing your opinion that stopping aging is selfish/immoral. But this is not right, we've severely underestimated the biological dangers of our overpopulated-overconnected world. We find ourselves needing to fight a pandemic with similar methods as in 1917, because we ve not prepared for that. Biotech should be an imperative for humanity if we want to live in an open connected world or if we want to go to space.
> I'm not against research to better understand aging and diseases that are a consequence of aging
That's like researching the symptoms instead of the cause, it's the wrong way to do medicine
> I'm not against research to better understand aging and diseases that are a consequence of aging
That's like researching the symptoms instead of the cause, it's the wrong way to do medicine
> people sharing your opinion that stopping aging is selfish/immoral.
People share this opinion until they're on their deathbed. If offered a pill to be restored to youthful longevity in that moment, most people would give up everything and endure just about anything for a mere chance at it.
People are remarkably shortsighted and don't take the time to comprehend what the horror at the end of the tunnel will really feel like.
People share this opinion until they're on their deathbed. If offered a pill to be restored to youthful longevity in that moment, most people would give up everything and endure just about anything for a mere chance at it.
People are remarkably shortsighted and don't take the time to comprehend what the horror at the end of the tunnel will really feel like.
I’m not even sure it’s that deep. Having listened to some of David Sinclair’s work, he talks about how modern medicine doesn’t see old age as an illness to cure, hence it not getting any funding.
It’s just accepted that you get old and your health goes down the toilet, because “that’s life”. Nobody bats an eyelid when we hear “died of natural causes”.
It’s just accepted that you get old and your health goes down the toilet, because “that’s life”. Nobody bats an eyelid when we hear “died of natural causes”.
Although I don't disagree, I think that's a very narrow way to look at it.
I think it's more about the fear of dying than about actual death. If you just died tomorrow in your sleep, what would it matter? Assuming you didn't have a terminal illness or are of old age, you probably didn't fear immediate death. And you didn't suffer one bit.
Sure, it would suck for your friends and family, but for you, it wouldn't matter.
I think it's more about the fear of dying than about actual death. If you just died tomorrow in your sleep, what would it matter? Assuming you didn't have a terminal illness or are of old age, you probably didn't fear immediate death. And you didn't suffer one bit.
Sure, it would suck for your friends and family, but for you, it wouldn't matter.
>If offered a pill to be restored to youthful longevity in that moment
The only enticing thing of that pill would be if you'd retain all your memories and material possessions, because let's say you had to compromise that:
- You get a pill but your memory will be wiped;
- The cost of the pill would be so high you'd lose all your material possessions;
What would be the difference between that and dying?
The only enticing thing of that pill would be if you'd retain all your memories and material possessions, because let's say you had to compromise that:
- You get a pill but your memory will be wiped;
- The cost of the pill would be so high you'd lose all your material possessions;
What would be the difference between that and dying?
People would still take the deal because it gives them the hope that they can somehow avoid the biggest, most unavoidable, irreversible unknown: death.
And for a billionaire the second choice is a no-brainer. They lose all the material possessions but still have all the knowledge, experiences and relationships that would allow them to easily get back in the saddle.
On the other hand for a person living day-to-day trying to make ends meet the idea of "enjoying" some more years of the same may not be as thrilling as it is for a millionaire. Sure, nobody wants to die, leave family and loved ones but at some point they may want an out. Some lives are hard or become unpleasant enough to feel like a never ending punishment, like extending a life sentence in prison.
And for a billionaire the second choice is a no-brainer. They lose all the material possessions but still have all the knowledge, experiences and relationships that would allow them to easily get back in the saddle.
On the other hand for a person living day-to-day trying to make ends meet the idea of "enjoying" some more years of the same may not be as thrilling as it is for a millionaire. Sure, nobody wants to die, leave family and loved ones but at some point they may want an out. Some lives are hard or become unpleasant enough to feel like a never ending punishment, like extending a life sentence in prison.
You've said it all man.
The value of life seems to only be worth if you've got enough material possessions - else, it's a prison.
How messed up is that?
How fucked up are we that this is even a discussion without the prior discussion about the value of life to begin with.
So, this would only make sense if after you take the pill, your memory is wiped and you're given a random geographical location on earth.
Would be fun to see a billionaire having to make it somewhere in the horn of Africa.
The value of life seems to only be worth if you've got enough material possessions - else, it's a prison.
How messed up is that?
How fucked up are we that this is even a discussion without the prior discussion about the value of life to begin with.
So, this would only make sense if after you take the pill, your memory is wiped and you're given a random geographical location on earth.
Would be fun to see a billionaire having to make it somewhere in the horn of Africa.
> Would be fun to see a billionaire having to make it somewhere in the horn of Africa.
"Naked and Afraid 2: Bezos in Somalia."
People would love that. It'd be like Black Mirror S02E05, White Bear.
Cable news outlets would have to air live human sacrifice just to keep up.
Anderson Cooper reluctantly lifts the obsidian blade. He looks distraught. "Do we really have to do this, guys?" From Erin Burnett, he hears a bene gesserit voice of outrage and command. Down plunges the knife. Mixed with the blood, tears stream down Anderson's face.
(On Fox, Tucker Carlson has a pro wrestler do it for him, and they just Photoshop his face on.)
You flip the channel.
Jeff Bezos has somehow acquired a bandolier, and is wearing the pelt of a human being.
"Damn."
"Naked and Afraid 2: Bezos in Somalia."
People would love that. It'd be like Black Mirror S02E05, White Bear.
Cable news outlets would have to air live human sacrifice just to keep up.
Anderson Cooper reluctantly lifts the obsidian blade. He looks distraught. "Do we really have to do this, guys?" From Erin Burnett, he hears a bene gesserit voice of outrage and command. Down plunges the knife. Mixed with the blood, tears stream down Anderson's face.
(On Fox, Tucker Carlson has a pro wrestler do it for him, and they just Photoshop his face on.)
You flip the channel.
Jeff Bezos has somehow acquired a bandolier, and is wearing the pelt of a human being.
"Damn."
I remembered a person asked questions about everlasting youth and indefinite lifespan to people, with the option to commit suicide.
People weirdly reject it for some reason, even though there's no catch. I suspect it's a cultural cached response, because taking these pill always mean some sort of catch.
People weirdly reject it for some reason, even though there's no catch. I suspect it's a cultural cached response, because taking these pill always mean some sort of catch.
> most people would give up everything and endure just about anything for a mere chance at it
I feel like you just make assumptions here.
I feel like you just make assumptions here.
So humanity has problems stemming from overpopulation and your take is that we should reduce the rate at which nature makes space for others? Death scares me as much the next person, but I feel like we’re not fully considering the consequences of “curing” it.
And call me cynical but IMO it’s naive to think that this technology would be accessible to the average person. If it makes it to market it’s going to cost a small fortune and every super wealthy person in the world is going to be throwing money at it. It’s going to be the luxury yacht of healthcare.
And call me cynical but IMO it’s naive to think that this technology would be accessible to the average person. If it makes it to market it’s going to cost a small fortune and every super wealthy person in the world is going to be throwing money at it. It’s going to be the luxury yacht of healthcare.
And call me cynical but IMO it’s naive to think that this technology would be accessible to the average person. If it makes it to market it’s going to cost a small fortune and every super wealthy person in the world is going to be throwing money at it. It’s going to be the luxury yacht of healthcare.
There's necessarily no reason to think it will be horrifically expensive. Maybe it will be, maybe it will not. mRNA vaccines cost something like ~25 dollars and yet it will save lives for many years to come. It's a very effective medicine.
It's also incorrect to think that this is necessarily one treatment or one therapy. It may be a whole series of therapies that treat one aspect of aging over another.
There's necessarily no reason to think it will be horrifically expensive. Maybe it will be, maybe it will not. mRNA vaccines cost something like ~25 dollars and yet it will save lives for many years to come. It's a very effective medicine.
It's also incorrect to think that this is necessarily one treatment or one therapy. It may be a whole series of therapies that treat one aspect of aging over another.
the same concerns have been raised for every technoogy ever
> Probably because of people sharing your opinion that stopping aging is selfish/immoral
That's not what I said at all.
That's not what I said at all.
Is it not arrogant and selfish to tell people that they should die at 80-90 years old, if there could be a way to live longer?
If we flip the script and imagine a world where everyone lives healthily, forever, the person advocating that everyone die painfully at 70 seems like a murderous psychopath.
How exactly are you guys imagining that we support a population that lives forever? Earth’s population cannot grow exponentially indefinitely. Where do these people live, what do they do, where does their trash go?
It’s not clear whether humans can live on the moon long-term. The more likely solution is that we’ll need to heavily discourage people from having kids. Is that really more humane?
It’s not clear whether humans can live on the moon long-term. The more likely solution is that we’ll need to heavily discourage people from having kids. Is that really more humane?
Well, maybe we should focus on expanding outside of the earth too? Population is growing anyways.
Also that seems like a way more rewarding way to spend life, than meaninglessness, risk-less human zoo, that some commenters are trying to sell, while bashing any project more ambitious than just keeping general population warm and cozy.
Also that seems like a way more rewarding way to spend life, than meaninglessness, risk-less human zoo, that some commenters are trying to sell, while bashing any project more ambitious than just keeping general population warm and cozy.
No if we lived to a 1000 years, almost all of our problems here would be solved -- as people would finally take responsibility for their futures.
The dystopian take on this being that longevity will always be gated, limiting it to the wealthy. They would continue to externalize the actions as being the result of lesser people.
The way the wealthy will take responsibility is by taking up the mantle of human zookeeper, restricting lesser people's locations and movements. Just look at where the toll roads are near you, it's already happening.
Then the negative actions necessary to create personal benefit will be limited to the areas of the lesser people. After you find the toll roads, look for the power plants and factories in your area.
There's a reason we keep coming back to fiction that elevates the obscenely wealthy as being beyond the law, beyond the control of governments, and eventually physically beyond the world in floating cities.
It's a small solace that rich people continue to die within the same age range as poor people. I hope I don't live long enough to witness longevity being solved for the 1% only.
edit: changed "gated behind price" to just "gated" since gatekeeping comes in many forms.
The way the wealthy will take responsibility is by taking up the mantle of human zookeeper, restricting lesser people's locations and movements. Just look at where the toll roads are near you, it's already happening.
Then the negative actions necessary to create personal benefit will be limited to the areas of the lesser people. After you find the toll roads, look for the power plants and factories in your area.
There's a reason we keep coming back to fiction that elevates the obscenely wealthy as being beyond the law, beyond the control of governments, and eventually physically beyond the world in floating cities.
It's a small solace that rich people continue to die within the same age range as poor people. I hope I don't live long enough to witness longevity being solved for the 1% only.
edit: changed "gated behind price" to just "gated" since gatekeeping comes in many forms.
There's a reason we keep coming back to fiction that elevates the obscenely wealthy as being beyond the law, beyond the control of governments, and eventually physically beyond the world in floating cities.
There's a reason for that. It makes for entertaining fiction. Why would anyone reads utopian novels anyway? They're boring.
It's also a not a good idea to base your model of society on fiction. Fiction is not evidence for anything.
There's a reason for that. It makes for entertaining fiction. Why would anyone reads utopian novels anyway? They're boring.
It's also a not a good idea to base your model of society on fiction. Fiction is not evidence for anything.
Fiction is evidence for trends in cultural thought. I did not say the wealthy will live in the clouds one day in the far future, I implied here and now we as a society produce fiction that dreams that this will be the future. It's indicative of how a subset of people around you actually feel based on their real world experiences.
Ok. But why would mass production of longevity treatment not be affordable. Maybe you live in the US -- this is pretty much the only place where the price of medicine and medical treatment is obscene.
If longevity comes -- it will be affordable for $1000 once a year for as long as you like in some other part of the world. Or if you live in any other Western country, part of your universal medical plan.
If longevity comes -- it will be affordable for $1000 once a year for as long as you like in some other part of the world. Or if you live in any other Western country, part of your universal medical plan.
Thanks, I updated my post. Gatekeeping comes in many forms, not just price.
OK! Alot of your other points I agree with actually :)
they 'd push all their problems to the next millenium
Hahaha. That's not bad, actually. :)
I'm not against research to better understand aging and diseases that are a consequence of aging such as dementia and various cancers. But when I read this announcement I feel an air of arrogance that fucking annoys me.
Your feeling of arrogance seems to be a product of a cultural programmed reaction. There's no shortage of movies, cultural works, and tv shows that tell us that immortality is unwanted, unattainable, selfish, or somehow otherwise bad, starting with our oldest myths and stories, Epic of Gilgamesh.
If the goal of medicine is to cure or prevent every diseases and dysfunction in the human body, then we must conclude that as an unavoidable side effect that being healthier will extend long life.
If we care about our fellow human beings, especially the elderly, then we do not want them to live in pain, to be in dementia, or otherwise have a poor quality of life. We must also recognize that many of them may not want to die.
I applaud the pursuit of longevity and health so long it is paired with the egalitarian outcome in that everybody will be entitled and receive it, regardless of who they are and what they did.
Your feeling of arrogance seems to be a product of a cultural programmed reaction. There's no shortage of movies, cultural works, and tv shows that tell us that immortality is unwanted, unattainable, selfish, or somehow otherwise bad, starting with our oldest myths and stories, Epic of Gilgamesh.
If the goal of medicine is to cure or prevent every diseases and dysfunction in the human body, then we must conclude that as an unavoidable side effect that being healthier will extend long life.
If we care about our fellow human beings, especially the elderly, then we do not want them to live in pain, to be in dementia, or otherwise have a poor quality of life. We must also recognize that many of them may not want to die.
I applaud the pursuit of longevity and health so long it is paired with the egalitarian outcome in that everybody will be entitled and receive it, regardless of who they are and what they did.
> I applaud the pursuit of longevity and health so long it is paired with the egalitarian outcome in that everybody will be entitled and receive it, regardless of who they are and what they did.
And therein lies the crux. I don’t believe that’ll be the actual outcome.
And therein lies the crux. I don’t believe that’ll be the actual outcome.
We are already doing the unegalitarian distribution of medicine with horrifically expensive drugs for fighting cancers.
We are also seeing relatively egalitarian drugs like mRNA vaccine against COVID being distributed to the population at large, only that some refused it. Meanwhile, the third world just lag behind in vaccination.
Some of which can be solved through better social cohesion and better systems, but a lot of the challenge will be simply in getting the cost of technology down or finding cheaper way to do something.
Therapies for longevity is unlikely to be a single drug or treatment, more likely a whole series of them. I also don't know if they're going to be expensive or cheap.
However, the best and most effective medicine in the world are often very cheap or relatively so, such as mRNA vaccines(~25 USD or so) and they saved countless lives. I am hopeful that more effective medicine will be cheap and affordable, or at least basically 'self-funding' in that lives saved will dramatically affect the economic balance sheet of countries for the better.
We are also seeing relatively egalitarian drugs like mRNA vaccine against COVID being distributed to the population at large, only that some refused it. Meanwhile, the third world just lag behind in vaccination.
Some of which can be solved through better social cohesion and better systems, but a lot of the challenge will be simply in getting the cost of technology down or finding cheaper way to do something.
Therapies for longevity is unlikely to be a single drug or treatment, more likely a whole series of them. I also don't know if they're going to be expensive or cheap.
However, the best and most effective medicine in the world are often very cheap or relatively so, such as mRNA vaccines(~25 USD or so) and they saved countless lives. I am hopeful that more effective medicine will be cheap and affordable, or at least basically 'self-funding' in that lives saved will dramatically affect the economic balance sheet of countries for the better.
> I applaud the pursuit of longevity and health so long it is paired with the egalitarian outcome in that everybody will be entitled and receive it, regardless of who they are and what they did.
Aren't Americans struggling getting diabetes medicine? And chemo? Is it a reasonable expectation that this treatment, whatever it is, will be any different?
Aren't Americans struggling getting diabetes medicine? And chemo? Is it a reasonable expectation that this treatment, whatever it is, will be any different?
This is just deathist brainrot. If we lived for 10k years "naturally", would you support killing people off after 70-80 years? Of course living longer would make things better.
What are you even talking about? Of course I wouldn't. I also didn't say that I'm against researching ways to live longer, actually I said the opposite.
Living that much longer through disease and natural degeneration elimination with the possibility of still dying from trauma might be quite horrible. Aversion to risk would logically skyrocket. Would skiing or even driving make sense?
You'd make the same argument if your life expectancy was 40 years and people proposed medicine could let you live to 80.
You'd also make the same argument if your life expectancy was 200 years and medicine advancements could let you live to 300.
You'd also make the same argument if your life expectancy was 200 years and medicine advancements could let you live to 300.
I suspect almost no human beings actually carry out such a rational calculation of risk.
Better?
Arguably worse since old people have stubborn thought processes, especially politically. Usually the only way societies get change is once all the "boomers" die off.
I think it sad but death is evolved for a real reason and we should not forget Chesterton's fence, even if it was not designed but rather converged on by almost all species except for trees.
I think it sad but death is evolved for a real reason and we should not forget Chesterton's fence, even if it was not designed but rather converged on by almost all species except for trees.
Youthful longevity would obviously be a focus of any longevity initiative. Far future, we are unlikely to remain on any fragile biological substrate. Not sure why people keep on bringing up the idea of 90-year-olds living forever.
> death is evolved for a real reason
Not necessarily true. Evolution only cares that we fuck and pop out kids and they grow up and do the same. Once we've accomplished that goal, we are irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective.
> death is evolved for a real reason
Not necessarily true. Evolution only cares that we fuck and pop out kids and they grow up and do the same. Once we've accomplished that goal, we are irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective.
The psychological rot is what I'm talking about - not anything physical. Perhaps it has to do with aging brain anatomy but we don't know that it isn't due to the arduous nature of life itself. Life has a way of beating people down and making them bitter, far too often. Hell, you could be right and perhaps seeing everyone they know and love, sans their children, get sick and die, perhaps that is traumatizing though we have normalized it.
P.S. Don't know why you are being downvoted. Some people find fault in healthy discussion :-/
P.S. Don't know why you are being downvoted. Some people find fault in healthy discussion :-/
You have to remember that society changing over 200-300 years is an anomaly in the history of humanity.
Also, I am pretty sure that old people were involved in historical changes themselves, or will be forced to confront historical changes anyway.
Also, I am pretty sure that old people were involved in historical changes themselves, or will be forced to confront historical changes anyway.
Increase in human lifespan (and longevity of "youth") is the most obvious sign of the success of modern civilization. We have doubled the average life expectancy in just about a century, so by your reasoning, past humans would likely call us "arrogant" when on average we live better, more fuller lives than they ever did.
There will be unintended consequences of humans living longer, of course but those are problems which will be solved by smart people of the future (and present).
There will be unintended consequences of humans living longer, of course but those are problems which will be solved by smart people of the future (and present).
There is no "by your reasoning" here at all. That is miles away from what he actually said.
>We have doubled the average life expectancy
The only reason the average value shifted so much is drastically reduced infant mortality rate. If you managed to live to the age of twenty two centuries ago, chances were you'd die as an old man
The only reason the average value shifted so much is drastically reduced infant mortality rate. If you managed to live to the age of twenty two centuries ago, chances were you'd die as an old man
Or twenty two centuries ago.
Even in Roman times healthy individuals lived to 60
Even in Roman times healthy individuals lived to 60
We've doubled life expectancy by lowering the rates of early deaths.
Even in antiquity, healthy people lived to their 60s.
That might be the 70s or 80s now, but the quality of life at those ages isn't great - take a stroll to your local elderly home.
Even in antiquity, healthy people lived to their 60s.
That might be the 70s or 80s now, but the quality of life at those ages isn't great - take a stroll to your local elderly home.
On the other hand, I think that aging is an extremely destructive process to the individual (while possibly still a net good for the species) and billionaires who spend their money on longevity research are doing a good thing, regardless of their motivation.
It is not just death, it is the long period of chronic illness that currently tends to precede it. Understanding aging will let us combat a thousand diseases at once.
I thin the reason why this wasn't attempted before wasn't humility. Rather, people (including many people today) did not think of aging as something modifiable. Aging has been until today understood as an unstoppable force beyond human possibilities, something like gravity or a hurricane.
Now that the viewpoints are slowly changing, we may be up to picking some low hanging fruit, and if a billionaire or ten decides to fund the necessary research, I won't be complaining. Unless they somehow manage to hoard the necessary knowledge only to themselves, which is rather unlikely in the modern world, where technological and scientific capabilities are spread more than ever before.
To be a little less than polite: fuck cancer, fuck cardiovascular disease, fuck Alzheimers, fuck severe covid etc. And whoever contributes to this great fucking of age-related disease is a friend of the whole humanity.
It is not just death, it is the long period of chronic illness that currently tends to precede it. Understanding aging will let us combat a thousand diseases at once.
I thin the reason why this wasn't attempted before wasn't humility. Rather, people (including many people today) did not think of aging as something modifiable. Aging has been until today understood as an unstoppable force beyond human possibilities, something like gravity or a hurricane.
Now that the viewpoints are slowly changing, we may be up to picking some low hanging fruit, and if a billionaire or ten decides to fund the necessary research, I won't be complaining. Unless they somehow manage to hoard the necessary knowledge only to themselves, which is rather unlikely in the modern world, where technological and scientific capabilities are spread more than ever before.
To be a little less than polite: fuck cancer, fuck cardiovascular disease, fuck Alzheimers, fuck severe covid etc. And whoever contributes to this great fucking of age-related disease is a friend of the whole humanity.
I don't see it as arrogance at all, I see it as being uniquely fortunate to be in a position where one can attempt to address a fundamental problem that affects most people.
I'm not a billionaire and have zero prospects of ever becoming one. Maybe this would also be considered arrogance, but I don't want to grow old and die. Neither do any of my friends or family. None of them are billionaires either.
Life is absolutely incredible. Humanity is on the brink of technological progress the likes of which we've never seen before, and I'd love to (selfishly) stick around to experience it. I also don't see anything noble or enjoyable in watching friends, family and other people slowly break down and eventually die. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of people share this opinion.
I sadly don't have the resources to direct activity against the scourge of aging and death, and can only hope that fortunately-resourced individuals decide to do so.
I'm not a billionaire and have zero prospects of ever becoming one. Maybe this would also be considered arrogance, but I don't want to grow old and die. Neither do any of my friends or family. None of them are billionaires either.
Life is absolutely incredible. Humanity is on the brink of technological progress the likes of which we've never seen before, and I'd love to (selfishly) stick around to experience it. I also don't see anything noble or enjoyable in watching friends, family and other people slowly break down and eventually die. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of people share this opinion.
I sadly don't have the resources to direct activity against the scourge of aging and death, and can only hope that fortunately-resourced individuals decide to do so.
The extradordinary negativity of this comment actually got to me, I wish I hadn't read that; it's really just a string of adjectives and name-calling that finished with "fucking annoys me".
Please reconsider sharing this type of thinking, it's too arrogant for anyone.
Please reconsider sharing this type of thinking, it's too arrogant for anyone.
On the one hand, it is another step towards more inequality, a society of Eloi and Morlocks, since these treatments will only be available to the very rich who develop them. They claim in the announcement that the costs will (eventually) come down so ordinary people can afford this, but that's not the way all tech goes. As shown by the rising difference in health-span between the wealthy and working poor, medical advances do not always trickle down.
On the other hand, it could actually provide tangible benefits to some human beings. Saying "I was the first to land a human on Mars" has no such advantage.
On the other hand, it could actually provide tangible benefits to some human beings. Saying "I was the first to land a human on Mars" has no such advantage.
Longevity is a worthwhile goal for striving for. It is horrific that beings with hopes, dreams, and loves are forced to die and lose everything they have ever had, doomed to an eternity of the black void of nonexistence. That should be a choice.
I for one am thrilled that society is starting to view death as something we might be able to one day defeat, rather than the resigned acceptance that has reigned throughout the history of our species.
I for one am thrilled that society is starting to view death as something we might be able to one day defeat, rather than the resigned acceptance that has reigned throughout the history of our species.
That's a very egocentric view of the whole endeavor of life.
Part of the game is the renewal process of it.
If for once find it way more creepy to have centennial billionaires that are hoarding land and resources, because they have the illusion that things belong to them, when in reality it was never theirs to begin with.
Part of the game is the renewal process of it.
If for once find it way more creepy to have centennial billionaires that are hoarding land and resources, because they have the illusion that things belong to them, when in reality it was never theirs to begin with.
> to have centennial billionaires
All technologies are expensive at first. To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd. The riots would collapse society.
Technology becomes affordable over time.
> Part of the game is the renewal process of it.
There is no renewal process. There is only a permanent end. A void that you will never escape from.
--
Whether you agree with that or not, what's clear is that this stuff should be a choice. Who are you to tell someone that they shouldn't live as long as they want? It's their body.
All technologies are expensive at first. To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd. The riots would collapse society.
Technology becomes affordable over time.
> Part of the game is the renewal process of it.
There is no renewal process. There is only a permanent end. A void that you will never escape from.
--
Whether you agree with that or not, what's clear is that this stuff should be a choice. Who are you to tell someone that they shouldn't live as long as they want? It's their body.
>The riots would collapse society.
Except you're starting to see the first cracks of that, but we're just too busy to see it: when you have people willing to die for a chance of a better life, then you're not that far from it.
>To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd.
How can you say that when longevity isn't available to all in the current days?
>There is no renewal process. There is only a permanent end. A void that you will never escape from.
Of course there's a renewal process, old habits, vices, skewed and biased perspectives of the world are all flushed and reset with death. The only void is the space you leave and that will eventually be filled up, and that's ok.
Except you're starting to see the first cracks of that, but we're just too busy to see it: when you have people willing to die for a chance of a better life, then you're not that far from it.
>To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd.
How can you say that when longevity isn't available to all in the current days?
>There is no renewal process. There is only a permanent end. A void that you will never escape from.
Of course there's a renewal process, old habits, vices, skewed and biased perspectives of the world are all flushed and reset with death. The only void is the space you leave and that will eventually be filled up, and that's ok.
> How can you say that when longevity isn't available to all in the current days?
Because technology inevitably becomes cheaper. Your smartphone did not exist 20 years ago, and 15 years ago only the rich could afford it. Today the whole world has one. Such is the way of technology.
> Of course there's a renewal process, old habits, vices, skewed and biased perspectives of the world are all flushed and reset with death.
Let's say people lived forever. Would killing them at 80 years be justifiable because "we need to flush out their ways of life?"
Humanity can progress without death. It might be slower, even glacial, but that is completely irrelevant because you will experience more net progress in the end.
Because technology inevitably becomes cheaper. Your smartphone did not exist 20 years ago, and 15 years ago only the rich could afford it. Today the whole world has one. Such is the way of technology.
> Of course there's a renewal process, old habits, vices, skewed and biased perspectives of the world are all flushed and reset with death.
Let's say people lived forever. Would killing them at 80 years be justifiable because "we need to flush out their ways of life?"
Humanity can progress without death. It might be slower, even glacial, but that is completely irrelevant because you will experience more net progress in the end.
Don't call it renewal, call it rot.
Some things, we let rot. We shouldn't let people rot.
Some people call it stasis, when you're in equilibrium with the system you're in.
People call things a lot of things. People die because of disequilibria in their bodies, because their own internal systems come undone. I care more about the internal systems of humans that break and murder non-sentient cells, than the external systems of nature that break and murder things that can scream.
The problem IMO is that average person would want to live longer as long as they can still eat pizza, drink beer, sit all day and not work out much.
I mean there is decent research on calorie restriction. Of course the huge problem with calorie restriction is the eating less part.
I mean there is decent research on calorie restriction. Of course the huge problem with calorie restriction is the eating less part.
That just seems really presumptuous to me: I don't see anything in the article to support that outlook -- it even contradicts your position by emphasizing healthspan over lifespan.
Rather than your judgemental take-- Why not adopt the simpler theory that these are simply parties that can afford fund very expensive efforts which are extremely likely to fail?
Rather than your judgemental take-- Why not adopt the simpler theory that these are simply parties that can afford fund very expensive efforts which are extremely likely to fail?
I agree with all that you said, but I'd add [0] I'd rather see them pouring money here, than funding real estate bubbles or oil companies you know.
[0] unless their ventures are really immature glorifying ways to spend money and produce nothing
[0] unless their ventures are really immature glorifying ways to spend money and produce nothing
The number one factor driving cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and a myriad of other types of human suffering by an order of magnitude is biological age.
But how is it different from a company spending money to find cure for cancer which also ultimately extends the lives of the people? Am I missing something?
[deleted]
How do you know what their inner thoughts and motives are?
Unless they explicitly communicate this, you are just guessing.
Unless they explicitly communicate this, you are just guessing.
[deleted]
Argumentum ad absurdum.
According to this, all of medicine is pointless.
Would you not want grandma's back to hurt a little less?
According to this, all of medicine is pointless.
Would you not want grandma's back to hurt a little less?
Well this certainly makes sense in a country where people can't afford healthcare at all and some even do their own dentistry.
SpaceX is titering on bankruptcy so I don't know if your really want to be the "SpaceX of living for ever".
Also asking your employees to work over the holidays (SpaceX Company email) because of your management failures is not a good company culture.
Also asking your employees to work over the holidays (SpaceX Company email) because of your management failures is not a good company culture.
Mixed feelings. On one hand I can imagine situations where longetivity and its development might really be useful, for example when (if ever) we enter the human space travel era, where the human lifespan will eventually start to factor in. On the other, its hard to not consider the deeper meaning of such pursuits. After all, death is what gives life meaning and pushing it further raises lots of possible negatives e.g. 1) less sense of urgency 2) traumatic death will be even more traumautic, especially in the early years of life… I do wish I can live healthily to the end of my days, but its really a sort of miracle in todays world if the reaper doesn’t collect you before aging runs it course.
The real problem is that it will even further empower the gerontocracy. Imagine older people accumulating more and more wealth and being an ever larger voting bloc. Now you could imagine a world in which lifespan is extended and these issues are also resolved and we don't get stasis where nothing can be built and huge inequality, but it's unlikely to happen in a democracy.
> death is what gives life meaning
citation needed
citation needed
For me this statement is a logical conclusion to the thought experiment ”imagine if everyone lived forever”. But I realize maybe for some it isn’t, so lets categorize this as an opinion.
Well there's probably no version of everyone living forever. Societies will still fail. Natural disasters will still happen, not to mention wars and terrorism.
Functionally there'll still be an end-date for most "human" lives.
But there's plenty of meaning to be found in 10,000 or 100,000 years of life, without disease and death lurking around the corner every day.
Functionally there'll still be an end-date for most "human" lives.
But there's plenty of meaning to be found in 10,000 or 100,000 years of life, without disease and death lurking around the corner every day.
> death lurking around the corner every day.
It will still be lurking around the corner and it will change your risk calculus completely. Today, if you go out and get hit by a bus, at worst, you lost 70 years of your life. In the future, you're risking 10-100k years of your life. What's worse is having to accept this risk for your loved ones.
A better question to consider would be, what would people do if they had only 1/5/10 years to live.
It will still be lurking around the corner and it will change your risk calculus completely. Today, if you go out and get hit by a bus, at worst, you lost 70 years of your life. In the future, you're risking 10-100k years of your life. What's worse is having to accept this risk for your loved ones.
A better question to consider would be, what would people do if they had only 1/5/10 years to live.
Sure. I’m not saying death is the sole provider of meaning, but still a major one, no matter how far we push it. As long as an inevitable end exists, we will adjust our life and actions with it.
> death is what gives life meaning
We define the meaning of life, not death. I would find my life perfectly meaningful without death.
We define the meaning of life, not death. I would find my life perfectly meaningful without death.