Hacker News Reader

Comment by xvector | Hacker News Reader

The general public is unfortunately quite unsupportive of longevity initiatives. Death is a difficult topic for people to think about, and they convince themselves they're okay with it right up until they arrive at their deathbed, at which point the horror sets in - but it's too late.

As such, longevity research is crowdfunded by a small community that is willing to face the existential horror head-on by acknowledging it and attempting to actually do something about it.

View on HN

I think there’s a simpler explanation - the majority of people around the world believe in a soul / an afterlife.

This was a useful belief for humans to develop when there was nothing we could do about death, but now it actively inhibits progress.

I don't know about that, these lines of thinking seem dismissive. There are many valid lines of thought I've read right here on HN-- like one was if 75% of the 1800s generation were alive would society be as progressive and advanced as we are now, or would the elites like JP Morgan think we need to regulate the Internet for pushing unamerican ideals? I don't know how actually character, but many from that time weren't a fan of new political or social ideas.

But I can also think of a few others. Will my poor cousin India, me, and the millionaire rapper Lil Jon all have equal access, or will cost 50 million? Or, if giants like Rockafeller could continue to gain experience and acquire more money indefinitely would the economy be the same way it is today? Another thing to consider is; death can be an equalizing factor-- Steve Jobs died and now he's not part of the labor market. But if he were, he'd certainly get hired over any newcomers. Now multiply that times 1000 as more and more exceptional people become common. There will also come a point where the planet will be overpopulated and we have to choose who gets to live forever and who has to die. Ect, ect..

I think these ideas really need to be answered before people will be comfortable with the idea of a technology that allows some to live forever.

Just because death can be an equalizing factor doesn't mean it's a good thing. You wouldn't say that to a dying loved one, for example, or accept it as a reason if you were on your own deathbed.

These are problems to solve, but they shouldn't block saving billions of lives. For what it's worth, any real cure to aging would be nationalized by every state on the planet, lest they risk facing internal collapse.

Arguably, I can't really blame funding bodies for being turned off by "we may have found an elixir for eternal life, do you want to give us money ?"

Anyway, good fortune to them.

In reality, the discussion never even gets that far with potential funding bodies. A big problem with longevity research is that most people simply refuse to think about death. They both reflexively and purposefully avoid any and all thought about it.

In any case, these organizations never promote something so radical as a potential elixir of life, but rather incremental improvements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com