$250K Longevity Prize Announced(longevityprize.com)
longevityprize.com
$250K Longevity Prize Announced
https://www.longevityprize.com/
86 comments
> But as virtue-signaling and because otherwise we would go mad, we tend to say that we are happy with our time in the world.
It's not so simple. If we could be like in the famous Alphaville song, longevity seems exciting. Imagine. on the other hand, that you are senile, can hardly move, and have a multitude of ailments in addition to your main disease. No wonder many old people don't perceive death as an unfortunate event, on the contrary. Also, I think there is an Eastern proverb, "Miserable people pass away easily."
It's not so simple. If we could be like in the famous Alphaville song, longevity seems exciting. Imagine. on the other hand, that you are senile, can hardly move, and have a multitude of ailments in addition to your main disease. No wonder many old people don't perceive death as an unfortunate event, on the contrary. Also, I think there is an Eastern proverb, "Miserable people pass away easily."
I doubt that all that many old people welcome it, somehow. And that’s not what’s being suggested either - rather more years of active life, more time to enjoy the world.
I suggest that we should all have starships and time machines. So what. Suggestions are meaningless without at least a scientifically plausible path.
> We need mainstream movies, tv-series and books where the guys who want to live longer are the good guys
Faust? Not sure he is a good guy though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust
Faust? Not sure he is a good guy though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust
Not "mainstream" but still fairly popular on the internet is Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality: http://www.hpmor.com/. Yudkowski's Harry Potter makes a pretty good case for seeking immortality.
The actual problem with "longevity" research and its funding is that the topic is so broad and vague as to be meaningless. If you want people to live longer then find ways to prevent them from dying prematurely from chronic diseases. The leading causes of death in the USA are heart disease and cancer. So maybe start there.
https://www.heart.org/en/get-involved/ways-to-give
https://www.cancer.org/involved/donate.html
https://www.heart.org/en/get-involved/ways-to-give
https://www.cancer.org/involved/donate.html
Interesting point!
In that respect Ghost In the Shell and the protagonist moving beyond the human body seems like an alternative take on this issue.
More broadly, it looks to me like the ones who succeed in going beyond their allocated life-time are rarely at the center of the story, and more assisting figures or legends. The witch who've lived for 500 years stays in a remote forest far from the world, will help the heroes in a Deus Ex Machina way and get back in the background once her part is done.
In that respect Ghost In the Shell and the protagonist moving beyond the human body seems like an alternative take on this issue.
More broadly, it looks to me like the ones who succeed in going beyond their allocated life-time are rarely at the center of the story, and more assisting figures or legends. The witch who've lived for 500 years stays in a remote forest far from the world, will help the heroes in a Deus Ex Machina way and get back in the background once her part is done.
>>We need mainstream movies, tv-series and books where the guys who want to live longer are the good guys and they do it through science.
In that respect, Vitalik Buterin is a great role model, in presenting the case for longevity front and center on his Twitter profile:
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin
In that respect, Vitalik Buterin is a great role model, in presenting the case for longevity front and center on his Twitter profile:
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin
How is he a role model? He hasn't done anything, it's just talk.
I say that people should stop killing each other. Now I'm a role model for world peace.
I say that people should stop killing each other. Now I'm a role model for world peace.
The Dragon Fable? Seems more like the case for moonshots rather than longevity explicitly.
I believe the Dragon Fable's main point is that longevity is good, and that the belief that it isn't springs from the attempt by human cultures to concoct meaning in death in order to make it less frightening and heartbreaking.
I find it curious and depressing that the solution to a problem like this are movies tv series and books.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Really surprised that it's only $250K in total. I would have thought that there would be enough widespread interest in this to raise a lot more.
Also some of this is a bit confusing 'the longevity prize' (singular) but multiple prizes apparently? Only a $20k prize mentioned on front page?
Also some of this is a bit confusing 'the longevity prize' (singular) but multiple prizes apparently? Only a $20k prize mentioned on front page?
An average NIH grant is >$500k.[1] I fail to see how a $20k prize is going to motivate anyone. It’s not like a rando can do longevity research in their garage.
[1] https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/155
[1] https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/155
The $20k prize is specifically, from what I read, for randos who can trawl through past research and find forgotten ideas, with the goal to resurface them.
To quote: "Over a century of all the world’s biological knowledge is available to anyone taking the time to read the literature."
To quote: "Over a century of all the world’s biological knowledge is available to anyone taking the time to read the literature."
If you read the details at https://www.longevityprize.com/prizes/hypothesis, it's really aimed mainly at people with relevant training who's already working in the area of their submission or ready to do follow-up hands-on research, rather than being a public suggestion box. I agree it doesn't preclude randos from winning though.
That's basically $20K for an idea.
That's very good money if you already have the right idea.
Or can come up with one real easy.
That's very good money if you already have the right idea.
Or can come up with one real easy.
Was gonna ask the same, why are these things so low? With the current super high salaries many people should have 250k in the bank i assume, so an organization should have 50x as much?
Because it's almost entirely funded by bitcoin and DAO projects. Half the page is crypto.
You mean earlier this year it was $25 million?
More seriously though, its small change for some of the donors listed here.
More seriously though, its small change for some of the donors listed here.
created by VitaDAO. $20M Market Cap & 20+ projects funded.
Vita(lik)DAO wink wink
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/vitadao
Vita(lik)DAO wink wink
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/vitadao
"Sponsored by marks"
> “I hope to see the concept of watching your parents and grandparents die, disappear from the public consciousness as a thing that happens over the course of half a century.” — Vitalik Buterin
A storage problem on the horizon...
A storage problem on the horizon...
This guy is super cringe. So are rich people that are so afraid of dying and becoming irrelevant that they invest billions in trying to achieve immortality.
It's a good thing for society and humanity that people die. It ensures change, innovation and the flow of new ideas.
Don't get me wrong: I think we should invest money and resources that help people live healthy lifes. But the idea of stopping aging or wanting to live to hundreds of years just seems that it comes from people who have deep psychological problems with themselves.
It's a good thing for society and humanity that people die. It ensures change, innovation and the flow of new ideas.
Don't get me wrong: I think we should invest money and resources that help people live healthy lifes. But the idea of stopping aging or wanting to live to hundreds of years just seems that it comes from people who have deep psychological problems with themselves.
>>It's a good thing for society and humanity that people die.
And once upon a time 40% of children died before the age of 5. That had been the norm throughout the entirety of human history, and indeed throughout the entire history of all animals.
Things will change and we will look back upon the times when people only lived to 70 years as the dark ages, and the justifications given for this brutal mortality as a coping mechanism.
The anti-longevity position doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Just think: we locked down billions of people to prevent the spread of COVID, mostly because of the toll it takes on those over the age of 70, who died at a rate 5 percent upon infection, yet aging is going to kill the vast majority of those over the age of 70 within a decade, and the resources going toward stopping it are infinitismal in comparison to those spent trying to stop COVID.
And once upon a time 40% of children died before the age of 5. That had been the norm throughout the entirety of human history, and indeed throughout the entire history of all animals.
Things will change and we will look back upon the times when people only lived to 70 years as the dark ages, and the justifications given for this brutal mortality as a coping mechanism.
The anti-longevity position doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Just think: we locked down billions of people to prevent the spread of COVID, mostly because of the toll it takes on those over the age of 70, who died at a rate 5 percent upon infection, yet aging is going to kill the vast majority of those over the age of 70 within a decade, and the resources going toward stopping it are infinitismal in comparison to those spent trying to stop COVID.
That sounds like a cope, because we don't have any solution for now so we try to justify it as a "good thing for society"
If we had a way to live forever healthily, essentially no one would chose to die except the people with deep psychological problems with themselves
If we had a way to live forever healthily, essentially no one would chose to die except the people with deep psychological problems with themselves
the thing is: Would it be possible to make sure that no new people will be born if we achieve longlevity? You are right that noone would choose to die. But then the human population would grow even more out of bounds than it's already doing now.
You are probably rational enough to give up getting new kids if that means achieving longlevity/immortality. But most people aren't as rational as HN forum members.
You are probably rational enough to give up getting new kids if that means achieving longlevity/immortality. But most people aren't as rational as HN forum members.
Why do you think that population growth is a bad thing and giving up getting new kids is in any way a rational decision?
Earth could easily carry 100 billion people, we could build cities on venus and mars, and if people could live for thousands of years, 100 year journey to another star on a slow ship would become quite acceptable.
Bedsides, In most places birth rate is already below replacement level, so longer lifespan is necessary to prevent population collapse.
Earth could easily carry 100 billion people, we could build cities on venus and mars, and if people could live for thousands of years, 100 year journey to another star on a slow ship would become quite acceptable.
Bedsides, In most places birth rate is already below replacement level, so longer lifespan is necessary to prevent population collapse.
>Earth could easily carry 100 billion people
Source? Based on what standard of living/level of technology? There was even a time I thought Julian Simon had a point, but in the years since then everything I've witnessed has suggested quite the opposite. The more of us there are it's just as likely a tiny percentage will destroy the planet for the rest of us than it is a few geniuses will help us invent our way out of trouble.
Source? Based on what standard of living/level of technology? There was even a time I thought Julian Simon had a point, but in the years since then everything I've witnessed has suggested quite the opposite. The more of us there are it's just as likely a tiny percentage will destroy the planet for the rest of us than it is a few geniuses will help us invent our way out of trouble.
> Bedsides, In most places birth rate is already below replacement level, so longer lifespan is necessary to prevent population collapse.
No, it's not. Current estimates are that population will stabilize around 10bn people, not collapse: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
No, it's not. Current estimates are that population will stabilize around 10bn people, not collapse: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
Just extrapolate what elderly (90+) contribute to society now. Before even thinking about longevity, we need to eradicate degenerative diseases that make old people useless in society - Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Dementia, Arthritis, ...
There would also be a necessity to allow (and even force) euthanasia for people in persistent vegetative state.
There would also be a necessity to allow (and even force) euthanasia for people in persistent vegetative state.
Longevity is not about keeping people with dementia alive indefinitely, it is about repairing damage caused by aging, before that can cause degenerative diseases, cancer, etc.
Most of the diseases you’re describing are associated with ageing, if you can treat ageing their prevalence would likely be vastly reduced; not to mention that there wouldn’t really be a concept of “elderly” anymore, just people who’ve been alive longer.
Shared elsewhere, but here's a video about the overpopulation angle, which even if it doesn't persuade you, should be food for thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Ve0fYuZO8
The issue of death is the deepest lying human trait. It defines the human condition.
Hardly a "deep psychological problem".
More generally, the main trait that differentiate humans from any other animal (including apes) is the ability to look into the future, which makes us capable of planning ahead and recognizing the significance of history, but also leads to us knowing that we will one day die, which, combined with the self-preservation instinct that every animal has, leads to a very bad feeling. So we spend our lives either doing our best not to think about it, or making up and (trying to) believe in stories about what happens after death (=religion).
Not dying is a pretty major goal of most life, even.
> But the idea of stopping aging or wanting to live to hundreds of years just seems that it comes from people who have deep psychological problems with themselves.
Why? Why should I be content with the years nature has given me? Why should I not seek to have more? Do you not get joy from living? From being with the people you love? From exploring, learning, experiencing?
Why is a 'normal' human lifetime the perfect and most moral amount of years to have?
Your attitude is so full of suppositions. Frankly it seems to me that anyone who doesn't want more life must have deep psychological problems, some deep rooted depression or ennui.
Why? Why should I be content with the years nature has given me? Why should I not seek to have more? Do you not get joy from living? From being with the people you love? From exploring, learning, experiencing?
Why is a 'normal' human lifetime the perfect and most moral amount of years to have?
Your attitude is so full of suppositions. Frankly it seems to me that anyone who doesn't want more life must have deep psychological problems, some deep rooted depression or ennui.
In my case, knowing that I have a limited amount of time to save for retirement makes it difficult to consider a career switch from a high-earning career like tech to something I might find more fulfilling or noble. Curing ageing could eliminate this pseudo-mandatory retirement phase of our lives, which means more freedom to switch career tracks, to find more ways to impact the world.
If not wanting to see people die is an indication of psychological problems then I am okay with being counted in that number.
I aleady had one parent die before their time, and would love to not experience that again.
I don't think we can become immortal within my lifetime, nor will we live for hundreds of years but it would be nice if all our parents could at least live into their 90s.
Beyond that, I don't see what's wrong with immortality as a goal. Yes it's impractical but if you fail to attain it, at least you gain massive health benefits for the already elderly who have poor quality of life.
I aleady had one parent die before their time, and would love to not experience that again.
I don't think we can become immortal within my lifetime, nor will we live for hundreds of years but it would be nice if all our parents could at least live into their 90s.
Beyond that, I don't see what's wrong with immortality as a goal. Yes it's impractical but if you fail to attain it, at least you gain massive health benefits for the already elderly who have poor quality of life.
As long as wealth inequality continues to exist, so too will immortality fail to exist.
Immortality has no tolerance for stagnant dynasties. Intertwined with mortality and death is one chimp tribe believing they are superior to another, biologically identical chimp tribe simply due to differing starting circumstances or chance (right place, right time, right background, “wow I must be a genius!”).
As long as our economy plays out via genetic and social lottery instead of true merit, rewards the unrewarding, and allows small groups to profit while large groups toil and suffer, immortality will be out of reach.
Might also want to be in space, too, since Earth has limited capacity. May also want to have more reliable energy that can come with us into the depths of space.
What do I know though, just some nobody.
Immortality has no tolerance for stagnant dynasties. Intertwined with mortality and death is one chimp tribe believing they are superior to another, biologically identical chimp tribe simply due to differing starting circumstances or chance (right place, right time, right background, “wow I must be a genius!”).
As long as our economy plays out via genetic and social lottery instead of true merit, rewards the unrewarding, and allows small groups to profit while large groups toil and suffer, immortality will be out of reach.
Might also want to be in space, too, since Earth has limited capacity. May also want to have more reliable energy that can come with us into the depths of space.
What do I know though, just some nobody.
We could just stop having babies except deliberately to replace accidental deaths.
I’d you are immortal then why worry about not having children, over a long enough timeline eventually your turn in the queue will come.
But that’s just philosophical thought. In reality, we are too far away from even living to 200 years old to start worrying about what comes after that.
I’d you are immortal then why worry about not having children, over a long enough timeline eventually your turn in the queue will come.
But that’s just philosophical thought. In reality, we are too far away from even living to 200 years old to start worrying about what comes after that.
If you had the option to extend your life by a hundred healthy years, can you in good faith say that you would't take it?
Of course I would take, and so would most people. And this is exactly the problem. This will mean that it will be harder than ever to get rid of old, entrenched ideas. It's already hard now: Most decisions are taken by old white men, who are out of touch with today's world and don't have any real incentive to care about the long-term.
I would probably take it, but that doesn't mean it's not harmful. I drink coca cola, doesn't mean I have to think it's healthy or the the coca cola company is fantastic.
Isn't the derision in your original comment about people trying to pursue this a little hypocritical in that case? Sounds a bit like "This guy and rich dudes wanting to live forever are so cringe. Sign me up though."
(Edit: Just saw that you aren't the person who left the original comment, so I guess the above is moot unless the original commenter feels the same way.)
(Edit: Just saw that you aren't the person who left the original comment, so I guess the above is moot unless the original commenter feels the same way.)
As I've commented above, I do feel the same way. But two things can be true at the same time: 1) The technology to make humans immortal shouldn't exist, and 2) if it existed, I'd probably still use it.
This is not hypocritical in my mind. It would be hypocritical if I myself would work on or invest money into longevity tech and make a statement like this.
This is not hypocritical in my mind. It would be hypocritical if I myself would work on or invest money into longevity tech and make a statement like this.
Where death is concerned, you and yours first. I'm not that afraid of dying but I'd much rather not go through the experience. Or have my mom and dad die. Is that so bad?
By this logic you should be euthanized once you stop being able to contribute to society - you'll reduce social burden and speed up social change.
I’ve seen this type of an argument before and it seems not just skeptical for the sake of it but super lazy. The main reason for progress is that people with outdated ideas die and if they don’t, the progress will end - that’s the best we can do? A bastardization of Max Plank’s idea, ad hominem, (justifiable) criticism of western approach to death, and anti-capitalist motives all blended into some kind of pro-death philosophy? Maybe let’s reform how science operates to promote innovation in hundreds of possible ways instead of telling billions to die because of an idea if we don’t have to? And is the quickest innovation necessarily even a good goal? AGI presents serious dangers.
I don't know how uncharitable I'm being, but sometimes the argument that death is the great idea palate cleanser, just comes across as a way people attempt to come to terms with mortality. Maybe it is a valid argument, but as you've pointed out, there's plenty to suggest the opposite might also be true -- death/ageing cuts down brilliant minds before they have a chance to do their best work.
If you don't find organ transplants (which include bone marrow transplants) to be cringe, or believe the people who wish to receive them to have deep psychological problems with themselves, then you might want to consider why many folks would believe your stance on the matter of human longevity to be fundamentally inconsistent.
Not sure if you read my comment in its entirety. I said that I think it's important that we do things that improve the qualiy of life for people, which includes organ transplants. Which is different from investing into resources which will make the old and rich live hundreds of years.
I did read your comment in its entirety.
> [Y]ou might want to consider why many folks would believe your stance on the matter of human longevity to be fundamentally inconsistent.
> [Y]ou might want to consider why many folks would believe your stance on the matter of human longevity to be fundamentally inconsistent.
Imagine Trump and Biden living forever holding outsized political power in perpetuity.
Without the cycle of life there's no evolution, with no evolution there's no progress. That goes for biology, but certainly also for ideas.
Without the cycle of life there's no evolution, with no evolution there's no progress. That goes for biology, but certainly also for ideas.
Imagine that when lifespans change and mortality drops, society adapts and changes too. Imagine.
Actually we don't have to imagine, for instance we can see that in general birth rates drop when infant mortality falls.
The idea that stagnation is the only possible outcome of longer lifespans seems ... reductivist.
Actually we don't have to imagine, for instance we can see that in general birth rates drop when infant mortality falls.
The idea that stagnation is the only possible outcome of longer lifespans seems ... reductivist.
How do you see that happening? Would you just exclude people that are older than, say, 100 years, of doing anything that affects the world? They will still try to influence the world according to their old, outdated ideas.
No, I think that’s more of the same flawed thinking.
The answer is I don’t know, and further, that trying to predict the outcome of societal change like that is probably a fool’s game. Pre-emptive, discriminatory rules seem like the absolute worst way to start out. Well, perhaps second worst compared to an outright ban on the technology, which is unfortunately where I think we’ll probably go first due to societal fear of change. Which is ironic given how much you and the OP think it would cause stagnation…
You've started by assuming the same as the OP, that having older people will necessarily cause societal stasis. But you're basing that both on a preconception of what you think older people are like now (personally I dispute this, and I'm not that old), and on a supposition that whatever longevity treatment we come up with won't change that. How do we know? How do we know that a particular treatment to, say, keep people younger for longer, wouldn't result in more youthful and dynamic society?
We don't know. And any supposition is based on flawed ideas.
The answer is I don’t know, and further, that trying to predict the outcome of societal change like that is probably a fool’s game. Pre-emptive, discriminatory rules seem like the absolute worst way to start out. Well, perhaps second worst compared to an outright ban on the technology, which is unfortunately where I think we’ll probably go first due to societal fear of change. Which is ironic given how much you and the OP think it would cause stagnation…
You've started by assuming the same as the OP, that having older people will necessarily cause societal stasis. But you're basing that both on a preconception of what you think older people are like now (personally I dispute this, and I'm not that old), and on a supposition that whatever longevity treatment we come up with won't change that. How do we know? How do we know that a particular treatment to, say, keep people younger for longer, wouldn't result in more youthful and dynamic society?
We don't know. And any supposition is based on flawed ideas.
We do know that new and better ideas usually come from younger people, not older people who have been doing the same thing for 50 years. We also know that in general, once people have status and power, they do a lot to not give it up.
I do think that we as a humans need to become more responsible with developing new technologies. There are technologies that do more bad than good, and we should develop techniques to better asses this before we just yolo a technology and then try to damage control later.
I do think that we as a humans need to become more responsible with developing new technologies. There are technologies that do more bad than good, and we should develop techniques to better asses this before we just yolo a technology and then try to damage control later.
[deleted]
It's from the perspective of someone (a friend of mine actually) who's involved in anti-aging research, but this is still a pretty good video that goes into the overpopulation concerns related to anti-aging treatments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Ve0fYuZO8
How about we work on the solved problem of infant mortality instead...
Talk about "whataboutism". Regardless of the discourse of whether extending your lifespan is a worthwhile goal, working on one problem doesn't preclude us from working on other, more or less important ones. In this case, the OA is about longevity.
Winner to collect their prize money at a ceremony in 3022
That would be the XKCD image hover text.
so basically they've put 20 bucks in a savings account and are relying on compound interest to pay off the prize.
And to think that Musk wanted to (and might have to) spend $44bn on Twitter. That's over 100k such prizes.
One of the companies behind the prize is VitaDAO: https://www.vitadao.com/
I know close to nothing about decentralized finance, coins, etc., but this caught my eye because I am interested in longevity research and tech. Does anybody know more about VitaDAO? Are they successful? Reputable?
I know close to nothing about decentralized finance, coins, etc., but this caught my eye because I am interested in longevity research and tech. Does anybody know more about VitaDAO? Are they successful? Reputable?
Rich people are OBSESSED by the idea of leaving their possessions.
People are obsessed with not dying, yes.
I'd go as far as to say "obsession with not dying" is a, if not the most, common behavior for living things in general
I'd go as far as to say "obsession with not dying" is a, if not the most, common behavior for living things in general
> People are obsessed with not dying, yes.
I'd say it's more like
"People are obsessed with not dying early."
I'd say it's more like
"People are obsessed with not dying early."
Happy and successful people want to keep being happy and successful for longer.
How evil of them!
How evil of them!
Some of them are surely happy and successful. I'd like to think (no citation whatsoever), that a nontrivial portion of them have the mindset of "I'm currently building this empire and then I will reap the benefits of this vast wealth". They are not happy per se in the moment, but have some future vision of happiness away from the grind of being "successful". At some point, they realize that they don't have that much time left to actually enjoy life outside of amassing money/possessions, so they get obsessed with extending their life.
Ironically, happiness and success often don't go together.
Someone who is happy has no need of working towards success (defined conventionally, as getting close to the top of the wealth/career/peer ranking). It is often unhappiness that drives people towards success. And then, due to hedonic adaptation, they find they are not necessarily much happier, there is always someone ahead of them on some metric so there is always more success to strive for to alleviate unhappiness.
It only really works when what you call success comes as a byproduct of something else, not as a goal, of an activity that makes one happy regardless of peer ranking or any other such 'success' metric. Feynman comes to mind, who seemed to be mostly driven by curiosity and the joy of finding out how things work. In fact, according to his own writings (or my interpretation of them), he was most unproductive and miserable when he was trying to be 'successful'.
Someone who is happy has no need of working towards success (defined conventionally, as getting close to the top of the wealth/career/peer ranking). It is often unhappiness that drives people towards success. And then, due to hedonic adaptation, they find they are not necessarily much happier, there is always someone ahead of them on some metric so there is always more success to strive for to alleviate unhappiness.
It only really works when what you call success comes as a byproduct of something else, not as a goal, of an activity that makes one happy regardless of peer ranking or any other such 'success' metric. Feynman comes to mind, who seemed to be mostly driven by curiosity and the joy of finding out how things work. In fact, according to his own writings (or my interpretation of them), he was most unproductive and miserable when he was trying to be 'successful'.
Insofar as longevity is correlated with reducing suffering due to chronic pain and old-age disease, I think it's great.
But there is one problem with longevity: Boredom is a thing. When you are a toddler even a small piece of paper or a string can excite you. But then you get bored and you need to find something else. I am almost 40 years old now and pretty much all my drive in life is my two kids. If I didn't have them I doubt I would find reason to get up from bed every morning. If I had to live forever or for a very great number of years I believe life would become a burden. It's always been possible to be old and sick and thus unable to do things you crave. But I fear one day it will be possible to be young (in body) and healthy and unwilling to do things because you've done them all before too many times.
But there is one problem with longevity: Boredom is a thing. When you are a toddler even a small piece of paper or a string can excite you. But then you get bored and you need to find something else. I am almost 40 years old now and pretty much all my drive in life is my two kids. If I didn't have them I doubt I would find reason to get up from bed every morning. If I had to live forever or for a very great number of years I believe life would become a burden. It's always been possible to be old and sick and thus unable to do things you crave. But I fear one day it will be possible to be young (in body) and healthy and unwilling to do things because you've done them all before too many times.
I'm almost 40 as well, with no kids, and I'm never bored. Sometimes I wish life slowed down enough to allow me to be bored, but there's a neverending stream of entertainment, information, and educational materials to draw from
$250k will barely pay for kimwipes and pipet tips in 2022. :(
It looks similar to the Methuselah Mouse Prize that used to be offered by the Methuselah Foundation. I don't know if those low prize amounts have really an effect on research interest.
They should rather set a prize over a million usd to generate additional interest from the research community, otherwise it's just beer money for researchers that are already deeply invested in the topic.
They should rather set a prize over a million usd to generate additional interest from the research community, otherwise it's just beer money for researchers that are already deeply invested in the topic.
The Methuselah Foundation is kicking in $50,000, so 20% of the total prize pool.
Looking forward to 200 year old heads of state, so that the status quo changes even less than it does with the gerontocracy we already have.
Gonna ape in with $100k. Is Vitalik involved in VitaDAO?
Related:
My family has been through a lot of death in the last few years. We've had 6 fairly close members die since the pandemic started, accounting for ~15% of the family. Most were unexpected, some weren't. It's been real rough. So, I think I have a bit of a 'fresh' perspective on how people view death and dying.
This is going to sound strange, but you know how to die. Some of my family has been lucky enough to pass with all their marbles in a 'comfortable' place. Their deaths seemed to have taken the same paths. It's as if the body knows what is coming and knows how to do it. It's not painless, by any means, but it's predictable. Food and water refusal, organ failure, death, those kids of things. It's not panicked; your loved ones sure are, but not you.
Also, your time here on Earth is very very short. With some family, we were lucky enough to have the time to play old VHS movies of old Christmases and other holidays. (ProTip: Take more pictures and movies of people you love) But it's just amazing to see how short it all is. Our lives are a flash, a few days of a few movies, a picture book, old baseball games, memories, nothing more. But, they really can't be more.
Pain is where most of my family took the dive. They could endure and hold on for a long time. But when the pain came, that was the end of the line. Have plans for when that happens.
One family member was obsessed with life extension and health. They forbid microwaves and cell phones near them. They kinda mostly ate supplements and nootropics and kale. They ran miles everyday. Lots of podcasts on life extension. Maybe they had a premonition, but cancer took them pretty quick and pretty young for nowadays. Again, life is short, eat the fries, or not. Just don't worry about death so much that you don't live and love.
You're remembered by your loved ones. One family member was very well regarded in their field. Lots of people came by to say their goodbyes. You may know a few of them as minor intellectual-ish celebrities. Now that they died, those people will talk to us and try to remember and commiserate. It's stunning to see how little they knew of them. You may have good work friends, but your true loved ones know you much better. Fortunately, you can have as many true loved ones as you'd like.
Get a death-doula. For those family members that passed in 'comfort', it was anything but. Your family has to take over your bodily functions for a lot longer than you'd think. And you are very heavy as nearly-dead weight. Just keeping your urine away from your skin and not making more open sores is really time consuming and difficult, let alone fecal matter, bed sores, etc. Sure, hospice says that they'll be by daily, but the realities of the staffing shortage can't be avoided these days. Pay someone to help out your family in helping you.
I know this is super jumbled and doesn't read well. Sorry about that.
My family has been through a lot of death in the last few years. We've had 6 fairly close members die since the pandemic started, accounting for ~15% of the family. Most were unexpected, some weren't. It's been real rough. So, I think I have a bit of a 'fresh' perspective on how people view death and dying.
This is going to sound strange, but you know how to die. Some of my family has been lucky enough to pass with all their marbles in a 'comfortable' place. Their deaths seemed to have taken the same paths. It's as if the body knows what is coming and knows how to do it. It's not painless, by any means, but it's predictable. Food and water refusal, organ failure, death, those kids of things. It's not panicked; your loved ones sure are, but not you.
Also, your time here on Earth is very very short. With some family, we were lucky enough to have the time to play old VHS movies of old Christmases and other holidays. (ProTip: Take more pictures and movies of people you love) But it's just amazing to see how short it all is. Our lives are a flash, a few days of a few movies, a picture book, old baseball games, memories, nothing more. But, they really can't be more.
Pain is where most of my family took the dive. They could endure and hold on for a long time. But when the pain came, that was the end of the line. Have plans for when that happens.
One family member was obsessed with life extension and health. They forbid microwaves and cell phones near them. They kinda mostly ate supplements and nootropics and kale. They ran miles everyday. Lots of podcasts on life extension. Maybe they had a premonition, but cancer took them pretty quick and pretty young for nowadays. Again, life is short, eat the fries, or not. Just don't worry about death so much that you don't live and love.
You're remembered by your loved ones. One family member was very well regarded in their field. Lots of people came by to say their goodbyes. You may know a few of them as minor intellectual-ish celebrities. Now that they died, those people will talk to us and try to remember and commiserate. It's stunning to see how little they knew of them. You may have good work friends, but your true loved ones know you much better. Fortunately, you can have as many true loved ones as you'd like.
Get a death-doula. For those family members that passed in 'comfort', it was anything but. Your family has to take over your bodily functions for a lot longer than you'd think. And you are very heavy as nearly-dead weight. Just keeping your urine away from your skin and not making more open sores is really time consuming and difficult, let alone fecal matter, bed sores, etc. Sure, hospice says that they'll be by daily, but the realities of the staffing shortage can't be avoided these days. Pay someone to help out your family in helping you.
I know this is super jumbled and doesn't read well. Sorry about that.
Also, I can't remember a single mainstream book[^1], movie or tv-series where the guys who want to live beyond their natural lifespans are not the antagonists.
We need mainstream movies, tv-series and books where the guys who want to live longer are the good guys and they do it through science. That instead of, say, a dramatization of the life of Elizabeth Báthory, or another vampire movie. In other words, we are very much in need of a cultural movement that makes socially acceptable to fund and to work in these types of projects.
----
[^1]: Somebody already commented here that it's better to put that money into fighting infant mortality. As often the case with moonshots, it's easy to find more "rational" things to allocate the money to.
[^2]: I guess there are some people in the Bible that live for a long time. Maybe priests talk about them at mass sometimes?