Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we? | Hacker News Reader

Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

polytechnique-insights.com

43 pointsfreediver95 comments

Imagine that the status quo was that everyone lived forever. If someone suggested that we should kill literally everyone to solve overpopulation or rich people or meaning of life or whatever, they would rightly be called batshit insane.

I think this is the appropriate framing.

The problems that would arise as a result of a “cure for aging” should result in societal decisions that fix existing problems we just push to the side because death kind of solves them.

Sadly I’m not sure I’m convinced that a need for a solution generates one. See Covid response or climate change.

People often do learn their lesson. The problem is that they then die and a new generation makes all the same mistakes again.

Making people like forever would automatically incentivise people to solve a whole host of problems.

The young care more about the future because they worry how emerging problems may affect them, and death is distant and abstract. Whereas older people feel their mortality more concretely, and wonder how they extract as much in the time they have left.

Also as you grow older the number of viable paths the keep life looking worthwhile really shrinks because there's so much less opportunity. If you're 50 and your retirement is entirely reliant on housing being wildly unaffordable most people will fight to keep housing unaffordable because the personal cost is too high (e.g. dying poor).

In your 20s or early 30s financial shocks are generally a lot less scary because you can still pivot, life will just be a little tougher for a while. At 60, it's usually utterly terrifying.

Your second paragraph is just wrong in my experience. You are seeing the protracted childhood extend into your 30's for a large subset of millenials now. I don't see any way living forever will make someone going through their 20's and 30's care about the future if they don't have a personality already prone to that. It seems far more likely this protracted childhood without many cares extending out further and further is far more likely. Also old people aren't sitting around wondering how to extract more. They are generally sitting around thinking about how their money can continue pushing the world in the direction they want after they are gone. You may have observation bias because you only see old people in high positions that didn't tap out at some earlier point where their lust was satiated and they moved on to doing something else (of which there will be far more of than those that got to those high positions just by nature of the math of old people vs % of positions that are "high").

I think the only thing that will happen for sure if we make people live forever is stagnation as all the people who feel strongly about something that is wrong don't die off and instead accumulate, likely filling up good positions in society that otherwise would have gone to a younger, more dynamic up and coming person.

Would enough people die in accidents? Also heart attacks and cancer. And how would it work? Some drug you take after a certain age?

Aging is not solved unless cancer is solved. Youre guaranteed to getcancer if you live long enough.

Ageing and cancer are correlated but I don't think ageing alone causes cancer. You could be very old, alive and full of cancer. Hela cells for example.

The way I interpret agelessness is that your body would be capable of maintaining homeostasis over indefinite periods of time. Internally caused disease would need to cease to exist (cancer, heart disease, dementia etc.). Essentially your body would be indistinguishable medically speaking, year to year, decade to decade. Of course extreme external factors could still kill you. Trauma, Infectious diseases etc.

We can't currently cure aging and there is little convincing evidence that suggests we will be able to anytime soon. This is despite the claims of many attempts at peddling false hopes by folks like David Sinclair and Aubrey de Grey. We can mitigate some downsides of aging at best. Aging is baked into our genes as natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach.

How do you suppose that is? If a species were completely able to avoid the effects of aging (including age-related diseases and degeneration) what evolutionary reason would there be for death at such an early age. Especially in the case of mammals, the process of rearing the young is a large investment of resources which takes a long time to produce a return. Surely it would be better to minimize that expenditure and have members of your species who've had time to learn from their experiences. If population were to become a problem, there are already plenty of instances of species killing their own for various reasons so some form of population control doesn't seem to be an entirely unexpected adaption. Sure there may have been other things that were more prescient at the time such as disease, lack of food, etc. But I don't see why not aging would be evolutionarilly unfavourable?

I'd split things into 3 cases: (1) aging is something for which there is a strong evolutionary pressure, (2) aging was dominated by other factors and is more or less indpendent of evolution, and (3) aging is something that is strongly unfavourable in evolution. In case (1), it may be that there are strong genetic mechanisms for evolution which we cannot reverse without changing genetic data. In case (3), we have to ask the question of why we age, given evolution has worked against it. If there were some compound that could prevent aging significantly, why don't more of us naturally produce it. Case (2) is where I'd expect the problem to be the most attainable. The existence of certain compounds that seem to alleviate aging significantly might be interpreted as evidence against the third case. If such (often naturally ocurring) compounds exist, then why don't we produce them? Of course, more evidence would be necessary to say anything conclusive.

Brenner touches in this in a recent paper:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016749432...

> Second, animal gene sets evolved to allow individuals to acquire food, avoid predation, find mates and successfully reproduce. Long-lived species like humans also provide a substantial investment in caretaking of offspring until they can obtain food, avoid predation and reproduce for themselves. The advantages conferred to youth by parents mean that genetic selections for parental health are extant in caretaking species. Such genetic selections for post-reproductive health are not extant in non-caretaking species (Brenner, 2022a).

...

> Think of it this way: if foxes can reproduce at 6 months, what genetic selections are present for them to live for six years? The ones that live for 6 years might reasonably produce 6 times as many offspring as those who perish in a year but those who die in a year would still contribute to the gene pool so long as they are successful at reproducing. Indeed, experiments done in flies that were selected for the ability to reproduce late in life suggest that hundreds or thousands of genes, not single dominantly acting genes, are modified to allow every organ system to function better over time in the resulting long-lived flies (Burke et al., 2010). However, animals in the wild are under little to no direct genetic selection for longevity beyond that to produce reproductive success.

Personally, my guess is that long lifespans are a tradeoff with reproductive age fitness. Also, it seems there are diminishing returns for longer lifespans and the benefits of knowledge transfer from post-reproductive age individuals.

Brenner claims "Animal gene sets have been subject to genetic selections for guile, strength and famine-resistance but have not been directly selected for longevity because". This is case 2 in my classification.

He writes, "Indeed, experiments done in flies that were selected for the ability to reproduce late in life suggest that hundreds or thousands of genes, not single dominantly acting genes, are modified to allow every organ system to function better over time in the resulting long-lived flies (Burke et al., 2010)." The case of sirtuin genes, however, is disctintly different from this. The hypothesis there is that increased expression of sirtuins increases longevity. This is a change to the epigenome, not to the genetic content itself, which is what is what Brenner comments on.

Also, what this says is not that "evolution never had any reason to favour another approach", but that evolution (at least in this controlled environment) was not able to stop aging. Perhaps you have other data to support that claim. Also, what this says is not that "evolution never had any reason to favour another approach", but that evolution (at least in this controlled environment) was not able to stop aging. Perhaps you have other data to support that claim.

From the perspective of maximizing reproduction, maximizing fertile population is oviously ideal. Surely, if it's possible for a member of the species that is fertile to continue to reproduce and live longer, this would increase the species' overall reproductive capacity. Obviously, post-reproductive age individuals do not have this benefit. However, it doesn't seem improbable that loss of reproductive ability is caused by aging.

I think that the tradeoff you mention between reproductive age fitness would make sense in the context of other adversity though. If survival in general is very difficult, surviving long enough to reproduce, reproducing as fast as possible, and being able to survive long enough to finish the process while it's placing various stressors on your body is desirable.

Are you basing this on research you've seen that runs counter to the unbridled optimism of Sinclair and others, or is this belief of yours just a consequence of your belief about "natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach"? I'm just wondering for myself, as an outsider to all this, what reason I would have to take your view rather than theirs.

Charles Brenner has been fairly active in debunking many of Sinclair's claims:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016749432...

Brenner also had a debate with de Grey:

https://youtu.be/MJIvp_J-kzM

I was initially put off by Brenner because he can be abrasive but as far as I can tell he is correct and unrelenting when it comes to pointing out bad science.

This is probably the key flaw with TFA. It makes the claim in the headline, and then doesn't back it up at all. Not a single reference or fact to justify this rather staggering assertion.

What makes you think that the aging process is somehow fundamentally irreversible?

yes. current medical science is having issues treating simple thing with humans (paralysis or any thing related to it ). solving aging, may be in next 500 years.

Solving aging isn't the sum of all other cures.

It could be just another track of medicine we haven't really begun to formalize correctly

"Humans overestimate progress in the short term and over estimate it in the long term."

You're discounting the law of accelerated returns. It might take another 50 years to make a "big discovery/milestone in curing aging" but from that point forward it might become a lot easier to cure aging.

... and gene therapy is now a reality.

If we could cure some aspects of aging without prolonging life, that seems like it would be an obvious and nearly indisputable good.

I'd rather have 80 good years than 80 years of progressive decline.

Well, yes. But you can't eliminate aging without also drastically cutting down on death.

The answer to the article's question is, of course, 'yes'.

Interestingly the people who say others should die to “fix” overpopulation change their minds when they’re up. We can solve overpopulation in other ways than letting people die.

It's obviously bad to want other people to die but there is a case to be made that no life (that can suffer) should be created. It also depend on what we mean by immortal, are they technically just alive? Or actively flourishing?

"Life is no way to treat an animal"

It’s not necessary to do that, but we would have to move away from the current free for all. Probably a strict waiting list to have children, or something simpler like a one child policy.

Sustainability would become vastly more important than our current short term horizons.

Better to end life entirely than to exist and endure suffering? This is a terrifyingly grim way of thinking, would you really rather not have experienced this world? There must be something in life you think is worth living for.

There is no such case. That's just silly. Suffering isn't even something that should necessarily be avoided.

Just because I might turn chicken in my old age doesn't mean that my death wouldn't be a benefit for most people.

There's one other way to "solve" overpopulation, and it's galactic conquest. Everything else we might do eventually devolves into nothing but shades of austerity and deprivation as we divide our planet up between more people.

That's not to say that technical progress won't mitigate that problem. And yet, as it mitigates it, we tend to just make more people...so it's not like we're manufacturing much more runway for ourselves as a species.

By this logic, death bed conversions are a strong argument for the existence of god.

In any case, I can't recall there being an epidemic of people doing the thing you're saying they do all the time: are you thinking of any specific examples?

<woo-woo-bullshit> The very idea of “overpopulation” is a rich man’s trick to arrest Humanity’s collectively-singular evolution to Oneness. We can become The Pyramid Unfinished together instead, racing against ourself to convert lifetimes worth of our only truly-limited human resource (our attention) into a non-human form that can be accumulated into a godlike simulacrum, beating death via the symmetric property of equality where money also equals time :)

Wut

iykyk http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/pyramid.html

The cost to manufacture medicine is cheap. The cost of surgical procedures and rehabilitation costs are extreme. Seems like a no brainer, and even accounting for the social effects of people living longer the odds are people will die of something in 300 years on average. If the gov wants a healthy and productive workforce, funding and providing medicine to slow down or stop aging will be a boon to society.

I figure life extension is more feasible than Faster-Than-Light space ships. If you could live for, say, 10,000 years you could travel.

Essays like this are dubious at best. As if anyone, any agency or government, could stop one or more billionaires if they chose to pursue immortality despite public opinion saying it's a bad idea. They will, they are, and if asked any elite wealth or world class power will say whatever is expected, despite what they are really doing.

Similarly, who would get such a treatment in the first place? Most working people can’t afford or access far simpler medical care, a problem that’s only been getting worse.

I’d be just fine with science prolonging my prime years, even if it didn’t mean living longer. My hope is that the life of my eyes, skin, and teeth are all able to make it in good condition into relatively old age — I don’t necessarily mean looking younger per se, but in good/decent working order.

Yes. No question.

"Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we let them be, it's not innate. Maybe we might do something about the problem when there's a risk it'll last forever rather then pretending it's not a systemic failure.

If it's possible to do, it's going to be done: the question is actually "should we let poor people (non-billionaires) have it?".

You do realize it's only going to be available for very rich people right? Assuming that the technology is not trivial, only the rich will ever get it. Same thing with genetically modified kids. Even if it is trivial, corporations will just hike up the price because clearly everyone wants it.

The history of pretty much all inventions is that only the rich get it at first.

After a while the slightly less rich get it, and after a few decades, it's everyone's absolute birthright.

I wonder if FDR would still be in office if he were still alive? It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how long he'd have lasted given his prior record.

If he hadn't died they would have had to kill him. He and Stalin trusted each other enough to make a lasting, nuclear-free peace. The wheels were already in motion when they replaced Wallace with the haberdasher.

In the USA, the baby boomer gerontocracy has amassed dominating wealth and power to the detriment of all. It's daunting to imagine a world where they never die. "Do something about it" is much easier said than done.

Another angle: what's science going to be like when no-one ever retires from faculty positions?

I personally believe a few violent wars is much less inhumane then aging.

Are you advocating accelerationism for The Purge?

I'm saying that if clinical immortality is possible and you're asking "ethical questions" about doing it, what you're actually providing cover for is "we shouldn't give it to the poor" - which is as morally bankrupt a position as it ever was.

I was maybe being a little facetious.

The moral question isn't important as much as how it will play out in practice. i.e., it will be available to the highest bidders, at first, and from then on, the best life extension will be available to those with the most money. It's only a matter of time before that sways the majority against the wealthy minority, and then pragmatism may dictate some concession to not as wealthy people, lest heads roll. The option B is governance at a global level that mandates equal access, which is hardly realistic in today's political climate.

TFA notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect we'll get a magical immortality switch that can just be turned on. More likely, various treatments will incrementally delay death for more and more elderly rich people. In less civilized nations, this process has already been underway for decades. [0]

"Governance at a global level" would put IP owners in charge of health care everywhere, which seems unlikely to increase egalitarianism in life expectancy.

[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/life-s22.html

While I don’t find the arguments in the article compelling (ie population increases are good as they lead to growth), enabling humans to live forever has a more dire consequence: an acceleration of the inequality gap.

Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Without it, power will accumulate to those who already have it, forever.

> Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power.

Have you heard of inheritance?

Inheritance does not sustain wealth.

> A staggering 70 percent of wealthy families lose their wealth by the next generation, with 90 percent losing it the generation after that.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...

In some countries, like France, you’re not allowed to give more than x% of your inheritance to a single person.

This has drastic effects on how large multi-generational fortunes are able to grow.

So yeah, death does have an effect on income inequality, as long as the fortunes are split up upon death.

>Have you heard of inheritance?

A powerful businessman living forever isn't the same thing as inheriting his son. Children rarely follow in the footsteps of their fathers. What if Warren buffet lived forever, for example? He's very good at saving money and investing. He'll eventually just have a large portion of the wealth that exists

I recommend 17776 [1] to anyone interested in the question of what a society of immortal humans would look like. It's thought-provoking and well-put-together.

[1] https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football

Everyone seems to assume that memory capacity is infinite, what if it is not and our brains fill up and can not function as well after that point? Or maybe in order to store new memories you have to give up older ones by overwriting them. Are you you if you can't keep your memories?

I don't think anyone assumes that. Our brain is very good at forgetting things deemed unimportant. Your question is already applicable now. Ask me what I just read and I can give you a clear answer. Ask me the same question in 4 weeks and I most likely couldn't give you an answer. Am I the same person? Most people would say yes.

But this already happens all the time. You forget the vast majority of things that happen to you. I feel like we just basically compress the narrative of our lives better and better as time goes on, while dropping details we in the end don't care much about.

By all means we should cure aging. Aging and longevity are not the same thing. Many people would prefer to live their entire lifes as they were young, healthy and at the top of their game, then peacefully die at a preset age of 101 yo. Sounds creepy :-)

Is this even a question? ask people how many things they will pay for life of their families.

Simple, if you live longer, you would also work longer

Is that a negative? If you live much longer, you'd likely invest more time in finding a job you really enjoy.

You could stop working right now by killing yourself (or doing it soon). Not many make that choice.

Science is a methodology of exploration and problem solving. It doesn't say anything.

"Problem solving says we could cure ageing."

We should, when we will be able to expand out of this planet. Until then human race would get stuck in its development.

Obligatory link: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon

TIL this exists in text form. Here's the same thing but as a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

For the record, I suspect most Hacker News readers would get a lot more out of the text version. There was a lot of detail trimming to make it work as a video.

i do like the idea that it would, at least in theory, allow humans to become as powerful as corporations in the US (because humans, too, would be able to live forever, accumulate wealth and power, etc.).

If science invented a way to turn each human into an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, bioethicists would have an essay five minutes later about how deeply problematic it was.

No one loves throwing cold water over literally everything more than bioethicists.

As a bioethicist, your job description is to find a problematic angle on anything.

No one is paying you to say everything is fine!

Hm, is that an ethical way to approach ethics? I think it's problematic, honestly.

The field of bioethics would never pass an IRB.

Any alternatives?

Balanced consideration of positives and negatives rather than a focus on only negatives which is so strained and obsessive, it seems to be a professional requirement?

What do you know about metaethics?

Enough to say that only looking at risks is not an ethical way to approach ethics.

Any proof or is it a gut feeling or hot take?

I think it's self-evident. If you disagree, feel free to do so in a more interesting way than your questions have been so far. Otherwise, it's probably best we stop here.

The truth of reality is that it's not self-evident. Anyone saying otherwise has an agenda. It's pretty cut and dry. Self-evidence is a form of assumption making I have no time for. Thank you.

Any proof of all that, or is it a gut feeling or hot take?

We can extend healthspan, how about that?

So people would still die because of the passage of time, but would stay healthy? But if they stay healthy without any age-related conditions, what would they die of?

This whole idea that forced death is necessary is stupid. We need to let go of it.

People would still die in accidents, disasters and from disease, or war. Just not aging.

Yes, but then, firstly, that would be actually something you can influence by at least being more careful, and secondly, I've seen estimates that with aging removed, the average human lifespan would be around 1000 years. And 1000 years is quite a lot of time in terms of scientific progress. Just a reminder: electricity was very new just 150 years ago, yet it's essential for our current society.

I don't dispute anything you said, but I'm not sure what point you are making.

Well that part is pretty easy for most people though a combination of frequent exercise, good nutrition, proper sleep hygiene, and avoidance of substance abuse. It doesn't even require any medications. It does require a certain degree of discipline.

Lionel Shriver’s ‘Should We Stay or Should We Go’ (book, 2021) is a fun look at this idea.

No-spoiler TL;DR: a couple decide to end it when she hits 80, because they know that life only gets worse. The book plays through various scenarios: some positive, some negative.

My grandmother lived almost two decades longer than that and was enjoying life immensely until about 5 days before she died.

This is the whole point of the book. It explores the various possibilities. Of which this is but one.

Living a miserable dementia-ridden existence is another. Who could know which you’re going to get?

Taking this to the extreme; How many decades before the majority of the populace is saturated by serial killers, narcissists and psychopaths without natural ageing?

We can't cure ageing this decade and likely not affordable to the masses this century.

The problems are way way more complex than most imagine:

https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com