Comment by ruby_roo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ruby_roo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Anti-aging/life-extension stuff is all very interesting, but I fail to see how such technology would ever become accessible to the public at large. For that to happen, I'd think that there would have to be a significant economic benefit.

As it stands now, we have an overpopulation problem. We also live in a world where, whether we like it or not, segments of the population can be considered either a drag on society or a benefit. Who decides?

I have little doubt that someone will crack the code to indefinite lifespans within my lifetime, whether or not this breakthrough is publicized. But do we have any reason to believe that life-extension technology, even adding 10-15 years to the average lifespan, would be accessible to anyone but the super rich?

I just don't see how regular joes would be allowed to have this, but I'd like to be convinced otherwise.

ALSO: If you're going to downmod me, can you please explain why? This is a serious question, and people seem to want to shy away from it whenever it is brought up.

Depending on the rate of globalization and how sustainable our use of natural resources are by then, we may indeed be facing a population decline by the time life extension comes out. This seems incredible, but rich countries have much lower birthrates than poor countries. So if globalization turns poor countries into rich countries, it will solve the overpopulation problem and move the world below replacement rate.

The economic benefit to life extension is that you can work longer. If life extension works the way we think it will (by reducing the aging process), then it will also extend physical youth, giving us more productive years without the loss of productivity over time that comes with age (but with the gain in productivity over time that comes with experience and wisdom!)

Finally, it won't mean immortality, because it'll only fix old age. People will still die from suicide, homicide, and accident. Since there is a non-zero probability of these things happening to someone, the life expectancy will be more of an expected value than an expiration date, with some people dying at 1, some at 100, and some at 1000. It'll still be possible for people to have kids.

This will probably lead people to adopt an extremely risk-averse culture, and things like casual sex and automobiles will be the first to go. (The risk of dying in childbirth may be high enough to reduce birth rate in such a culture.) That, combined with a slower rate of generational replacement, will cause a very conservative culture in total.

Hah. "Casual sex will be the first to go." Have you ever met a person?

> I just don't see how regular joes would be allowed to have this

I don't think it is a question of 'allowed'. Governments have tried to stop people taking certain harmful drugs without much success. So how do you think they will be able to stop people from from taking drugs that keep them alive? Even if a nation could ban it effectively other nations would allow it for a fee. How many intelligent people would stay in a nation that tried to enforce their death?

Initially the cost of any really effective life-extension technology is likely to be high. But the costs should rapidly fall like most other technologies. The ongoing costs of living for the 'immortals' would of course have to be self funded.

It's a reasonable question and I haven't downmodded you. I think you're right that whenever the solutions become available they will be expensive. However, I also think these solutions are so sought after that they will likely be quickly copied, not necessarily legitimately, and widespread access will be possible/inevitable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com