Hacker News Reader

Comment by dasil003 | Hacker News Reader

Do you not see how there just might be a few unintended social consequences with people living forever?

So your argument is "Let's not fix a horrible problem, because fixing it might expose other problems with our civilization"?

No, my argument is "let's not classify a universal constant of all known life as a horrible problem, because the repercussions of messing with fundamental biological imperatives will probably open a can of worms bigger than anyone can anticipate"

You're being a fear monger. No other species has had the capacity to take control of their own evolution, that doesn't mean doing so would be bad. We're in a unique position and the natural order of things sucks, if we can fix it we should.

Look, I truly hate fear-mongering, and I see where you are coming from, but I'm not being a luddite here or arguing against science out of dogma.

I believe it's hubris to think we can change the fundamental natural order of things, and by fundamental order I am setting the bar extremely high. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything else that qualifies in fact.

Of course that doesn't matter. If people can do it they will do it. But if I could place a bet I'd say it will do us more harm than good in the long run. That's all I'm saying, nothing more nothing less.

Why and how is aging a "horrible problem"?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cost+of+aging%22

http://news.google.com/news?q=cost+aging

People do not retire (become unproductive members of society) because they simply want to. People retire because they become physically degraded. Many nations outlaw old car-drivers. Many professions force retirement at threshold ages. This loss of productivity hurts everyone.

This loss of productivity hurts everyone.

Sorry, so let me make sure I understand you: Aging is bad because it hurts productivity?

I must say that if life is simply an application of productive output, you are missing the point.

Aging is bad because it hurts quality of life. Right now, people live longer than their bodies can perform at full capacity. Most people would prefer to remain healthy for their entire lives. No matter how ready someone is to die, no one wants to spend ten years in a nursing home. So everyone could find a way to die before then, or they could find a way to stay healthy even if that doesn't increase their life expectancy. You can guess which option is more likely to catch on.

The argument over whether we should fight aging is one worth having, but only as a philosophical exploration. The reality is that we always have fought aging, and we always will, because those who think otherwise have a tendency to die first.

Hm, I often say "I would do X if I had infinite time and motivation"... if De Grey and Sens comes to pass I may have to just stop procrastinating and do these things.

Why wait? Your glycation-blocking benfotiamine is just a few mouseclicks away: http://www.easycart.net/BeyondACenturyInc./B_Vitamins.html#1...

BENFOTIAMINE (S-benzoylthiamine-o-monophosphate) is a lipid form of thiamine, Vit B1. A natural substance found in trace amounts in roasted garlic, onions, chives, etc. Glycation, the cross-linking of proteins by sugars, is a major cause of aging [...] Benfotiamine acting like a time-released thiamine with increased ability to get into brain and muscle cells, helps protect against the formation of AGEs by glycation

Is that a real question? The answer seems rather self evident, let me guess... still in your 20's?

Technology always brings a few unintended social consequences. But the pros often outweight the cons.

We only have to destroy ourselves once for it to matter.

Squaring an aging curve is not the same thing as extending maximum lifespan. Simply because, after substantial squaring of the aging curve, the average 100-year-old might be as healthy as -- and physically indistinguishable-from -- the average 20-year-old, does not imply that any 100-year-old will live past the age of 120. It could be the case instead that biologically youthful 100-year-olds tend, from around that age, to decline rapidly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com