Peter Thiel Planning to Live 120 Years | Hacker News Reader

Peter Thiel Planning to Live 120 Years

bloomberg.com

43 pointsdrey51 comments

I think Mr. Thiel is overly optimistic that we'll have cancer licked in 10 years. Certainly some subtypes, but anyway... Mr. Thiel is in his 40s. In 10 years, he'll be nearly 60, which is weaker, but still a fairly healthy age. I don't think he's risking dying from falls and such quite yet.

After reading Atul Gawande's book on ageing, aside from cancer and muscle weakness, it seems that one of the biggest killers is the dissolving of your skeleton as you age. When your skeleton weakens (e.g. in osteoporosis and other conditions), that alone is dangerous from a bone snapping standpoint, but those minerals and proteins don't just disappear. The excess calcium, released toxins (e.g. previously trapped lead if you were exposed before, and just stuff that shouldn't be in your blood), bio active proteins, etc wreck havoc on your organ systems as they are released into your blood. I think he mentioned that even artheosclerosis can be caused by "hard water" in your blood.

I know there's a lot of research going on into this as well, but as a cause of morbidity, it may be relatively overlooked as only the physical aspect is usually acknowledged by the public.

I'd love to see a doctor weigh in on this. :)

He's not concerned about cancer, but he takes human growth hormone to limit risk of... bone injuries? Am I out of my mind or is this a several-orders-of-magnitude confusion of relative risks?

It's not as clear-cut as that. The risk of losing muscle leading to bone failure leading to inability to exercise leading to general decline in health leading to premature (if your goal is 120 years) death is very high, bordering on certainty. So increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades may not be quite as crazy as it seems at first blush.

[UPDATE:] Note that I'm not saying that Thiel is right, only that his position is not a self-evident "several-orders-of-magnitude confusion of relative risks".

As far as I know HGH doesn't increase the risk or cancer, but it speeds it up if there is one, it's a growth hormone after all.

This is a little fuzzy. It's likely that most organisms of a meaningful size have _some_ number of cancerous cells, so I'm not sure that distinction is as crisp as your phrasing. As for cancer risk, there is some reason to believe a connection, but as with most complex medical questions, there is only so much certainty, even in large studies, until we understand detailed mechanisms.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/52/5/52_5_571/_...

It's pretty easy to prevent muscle loss.

Exercise, with weights.

> so increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades

That reasoning only works given a bunch of conditionals which to most people including experts in the relevant fields seem pretty unlikely. Given that, it'd be great to read more about why he believes the things he does rather than what he's doing about his beliefs, as it's impossible to tell if he's got some interesting insight, or is doing something that only makes sense for him, or in fact is doing something that doesn't make sense at all without knowing more.

He has based his decision off of a cure for cancer coming sooner than aging mitigation. It is just a choice between a possibly cancerous but healthier/stronger body later in life, or a lower chance of cancer but a higher chance of death from the risks associated with losing muscle mass. Although it is really just a preference, I find predicting one's cause of death and trying to choose the optimal health choices an interesting topic.

A cure for cancer? Have we all collectively forgotten what cancer actually is?

The human body already incorporates multiple "cures" for cancer or you wouldn't go a year at the rate cells multiply. But then the nature of cancer is that eventually a random mutation will come along that can beat any given cure, just as a million monkeys will eventually type out Mozart.

I was generalizing cure to mean removal and preventative measure of cancerous cells. I don't think that most people who generalize these things to cure forget what cancer is.

Has he "come out" one way or another WRT pituitary hormone levels?

If the levels are unusually low, then medically monitored treatment to raise to normal levels appears to have no negative consequences, only positive ones, at all, at least with a short examination of wikipedia. Even boosting up to a bit on the high side of normal is probably medically sensible, if the patient has symptoms that correspond with excessively low levels.

There are bro-science uses, for weightlifting and some other things, which seem to cause significant health problems for people who overdose. Its rather like insulin, if you're chronically low you're in big trouble, but if the stuff were widely available OTC you'd have idiots overdosing on insulin all the time because if a little is good them surely an immense amount is many times better. that doesn't mean proper doctor supervised use of insulin by diabetics is inherently wrong, just because of a little bro-science that isn't relevant to an individual's medical treatment plan.

This sort of thing just screams of narcissism. When you're rich, famous, and smart, it's pretty hard to accept the fact that you're eventually going to die and you can't take any of it with you.

It also becomes a legitimate problem that a rich innovators become interested in solving. Nothing wrong with that.

I'd much prefer the venture capitalists of the world to pursue what seems to be impossible over figuring out a better way for me to share photos.

The irony is that its his funding of a photo sharing company that made it possible for him to pursue the impossible.

Well yes ... that and Paypal.

Is it narcissistic to want to avoid early death? Presumably you look both ways before crossing the street.

you're twisting it, he's not trying to avoid an early death, he trying to prolong life (creating a 'late' death), big difference

Ya well, best of luck. I hope he does it.

Unless (like so many people elderly people around today), his mind stops working decades before his body goes. Then I'm not sure what the point would be. It might be better to keep it all together and die a bit earlier as a complete person. Personal preference I guess.

I find the desire that anyone would be this obsessively preoccupied with the desire to live either forever or an extraordinarily long time unsettling, but what I don't get is why stop at 120 years? The scientific signs pointing to the idea that humanity will eventually be able to halt the aging process altogether are compelling:

First, there are species of jellyfish and lobster (among others) that do not age. The mechanism of chromosomal deterioration isn't there. There are even plankton varieties that revert to a larval state after adulthood. Additionally, there are many life forms that, whether or not they actually age, are thousands of years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organism...

In other words, aging is far more elastic and non-linear than first meets the eye.

And it's easy to understand why we evolved to age and die: Clearing out older populations leaves more resources for newer, fitter ones (in the evolutionary sense). Death became advantageous, but it's not, from a biological perspective, necessary.

So if you combine these two ideas together -- things don't really need to die but it just so happens that humans do -- does anyone really believe that technology won't find a way to beat the aging process, either by genetic modification or maybe nano-level chromosome reconstruction? At some point it'll be as "correctable" as laser eye surgery.

The implications of halting aging are staggering, earthshattering... there is not enough hyperbole in the English language to do it justice. I just know I don't want to be here when it happens.

You seem to oversimplify the processes. Laser eye surgery has its own complications. I have about 3 degrees myopia and avoid having any laser surgery.

Aging's got more to do with "telomeres" the ends of the chromosome molecules being shortened on each choromosome replication. I've read somewhere that some food such as the green tea helps with the health of the telomeres and that sounds like a more realistic way to extend life.

I'm surprised Thiel talks nothing about natural supplements and he relies only on what's called the Human Growth Hormone. As for cancer cure, it's already been found : Take a look at phkillscancer.com

The headline, here, should be:

"Founders Fund is investing in a number of biotechnology companies to extend human lifespans."

This is a useful and interesting piece of information.

Thiel's belief that's he going to buy his way out of being hit by a bus tomorrow is silly and it's really hard to not make wise-ass comments about it...

I feel like the cure to cancer is simply early detection.

Imagine some sort of device you could put in your toilet that could analyze your urine or some sort of painless blood test in your tooth brush that can let you know years before symptoms that you have cancer.

I think cheap, early and often screenings will be what revolutionize health.

Why hasn't this been done?

Presumably because we are yet to find a way to detect cancer, years earlier, in bodily fluids.

Dogs have had success detecting some forms of Cancer early:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/training-dogs-to-sn...

>Thiel said he also follows a Paleo diet, doesn’t eat sugar, drinks red wine and runs regularly.

But red wine has sugar in it...

Not all sugars are created equal. In a dry red wine, most of the fructose is gone, replaced with alcohol. Fructose is what causes most of the problems.

Moreover, people who say they don't eat sugar don't mean they'll never ever eat sugar in any amount. I don't eat sugar - but I'm okay with a desert once per month or something. I'm also willing to eat things which have minute amount of sugar on a regular basis.

Moreover, you have to eat some kind of sugar, or you'll die.

That's pretty much broscience unless substantial redefinition is made of "you" "have to" "sugar" and "die".

There's plenty of broscience to go around, I only eat roughly 1800s era quantities of sugar per year, compared to the American average being about 150 pounds/yr, so along with a bunch of people I say "zero" in general conversation but in reality its about 5-10 pounds/yr. Well under 10% the sugar consumption of "average american" so close enough to zero. But yeah I'll probably eat some kind of sugar until I die, just practically none. Last week I had a piece of family members birthday cake, how you folks eat that kind of stuff mystifies me, I practically puked it was so sickly sweet and the frosting was like a scoop of Crisco.

That's false, there are no essential sugars. You can live a completely normal life even if you manage to remove every single molecule of sugars from your diet.

Artificial sugar. Even some natural fruits are bad due to the high levels of natural sugar (e.g. kiwis)

I hear artificial sugar is made from chemicals

Which is why it said doesn't "eat" sugar and not doesn't "drink" sugar.

Sure, wine will get some sugar inside. Basically if you let the wine ferments without any intervention you will get less than 1g/l in it. Some winemakers will intervene the process end will ends up with about some amount in region of 5g per litre of sugar for red wine. This sugar content is then split to few groups of sugar, notably fructose and glucose. I am not knowledgable of Paleo diet, but I guess these non processed sugars will be ok for them.

No need to reach for red wine, paleo diets include nuts (fair amount of sugars) and fruits (full of sugar).

You can point the contradiction that a "paleo diet" doesn't allow red wine (or any kind of alcohol)

Yeah, I wouldn't bet on it.

For every guy attempting to "live forever" I see a guy scared as hell of death. That is, a person that has left the realm of the common living humans a long time ago.

Brings to mind Michael Jackson, sleeping in an oxygen chamber and doing who knows what to avoid disease et al - and then dying in his fifties. Or Howard Hughes, the list is long.

Of course death is kind of scary, but being scared of death in that way is not healthy (first and foremost psychologically). It's more important to live (fully) than it is not to die.

If the "cure for death" comes, it won't be through BS individualistic lifestyle experiments such as this, it would be as a scientific breakthrough, like the cure for various diceases.

I also dislike the "screw you, I'll outlive you with my money and my access to stuff" inherent element in this.

>Brings to mind Michael Jackson, sleeping in an oxygen chamber and doing who knows what to avoid disease et al

While Jackson was interested in the idea of getting an oxygen chamber (and was pictured inside of one) he never bought one. Instead, he released the photos to capitalize on the "Whacko Jacko" meme, keeping his name in the press that much more.

>"For every guy attempting to "live forever" I see a guy scared as hell of death. That is, a person that has left the realm of the common living humans a long time ago."

I don't quite see what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that someone that is "scared as hell of death" is someone that's "left the realm of common living humans" (whatever that may mean)? Maybe you're implying that most living humans are not afraid of death? I'd posit that you're completely way off mark there, judging from the amount of afterlife/re-incarnation fairy-tales religions have been spinning for millennia in an effort to continue to swoon the masses.

>"Of course death is kind of scary, but being scared of death in that way is not healthy (first and foremost psychologically). It's more important to live (fully) than it is not to die."

Wow, self-aggrandizing your opinions much? Bear with me here: This discussion, or comment (if you choose not to reply), was spawned as a result of conflicting opinions on what is important. He obviously values living forever/longer more than he does "living fully" as you put it. You simply stating the opposite opinion says nothing of the merits of his.

>"I also dislike the "screw you, I'll outlive you with my money and my access to stuff" inherent element in this."

I really hope this wasn't the basis for your entire post, as it sounds pretty petty at this point. Sure, he has money, lots of it. And he's using it to fund ideas he believes in, whether they eventually pan out for the betterment of mankind or not. And then you go around and criticize him for that? Are you saying he can't use his money how he wishes? Must he spend it the way you want? If so, what might that be? Some sort of grand scheme in helping people live "life fully"?

>Maybe you're implying that most living humans are not afraid of death?

No, I'm implying that most living humans are not scared shitless of death to the point of planning 24/7 of how to avoid it, and mostly go on with their lives.

>He obviously values living forever/longer more than he does "living fully" as you put it. You simply stating the opposite opinion says nothing of the merits of his.

And vice versa. Isn't it obvious?

>Are you saying he can't use his money how he wishes?

I'm even more generally saying that having money and using them as one wishes is not the be all of civilization. That is some uses of money are worse than others, and people living in the same society have every right to criticize them.

The same way I'd criticize someone blowing millions in a party with models and cocaine.

"I’m hopeful that we’ll get cancer cured in the next decade." Believe that when I see it.

Seems to me we've solved the problem of near-instantaneous global communication, but little else of the myriad of human problems has been solved by the internet revolution.

We're nowhere with world peace and not sure we're that far along with diseases. In fact, the US health system in 2014 is generally considered a debacle.

I'm all for optimism and can-do attitude, but the wand waving away of really difficult challenges that has been coming out lately.. and it's SV culture the only ones doing it.

I hope he's right, but the cavalier attitude I just find very peculiar. This is immortality we're seriously discussing?

Oh great, another article about someone who read a few studies, then basing their entire life on it. Enough of this crap already.

That's very modest. I plan to live longer to live forever. I'm not sure why people call it "fear of death". Of course, I'm scared of death, but that's not what makes me want to extend my life - it's the curiosity of how we can advance our civilization and the desire to help personally as much as I can. I want to witness us becoming an interplanetary civilization at least, maybe even interstellar. I want to see AI 50 years from now. I want to see my grand-grand-grand-grand children, and so on. So, let's not focus on the fear, please!

Have you considered that civilization might be better off if people don't live a long time? Even ignoring resource constraints, old people hold onto outdated ideas and morals while generally also holding the most power and wealth. I don't see how that can be good for future societies.

I agree. Evolution designed us to die and pass information to newer and less flawed offsprings. But my point was that we need to be able to contribute unique benefits otherwise will be nothing, but burden. Look at Stephen Hawing, for example. His brain regardless of physical condition is contributing greatly to our civilization. So, again, the filter should always be - are you worthy of living long or not. Given the fact that most of people who live today contribute nothing, but a ton of shit (literally speaking) in their lifetime, unconditional life extension looks like a terrible idea (unless we advance to the interstellar level and use more resources than what's available on our sorry planet). Unfortunately, a reasonable thing like this would be considered unethical given today's standards although our society is indeed more unethical than ever. Until we grow to a level where the benefit of the group if above the benefit of niches, we'll be confined on this planet, we'll be suffering from our broken system, which is based on dollars and not merits. I highly recommend for hackers to get familiar with The Venus Project [0] and the philosophy of Jacque Fresco [1], who many call the Leonardo da Vinci of the modern day. Although my ideas are different, we have a very common theme - the current system is terribly broken.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco

Is this what a midlife crisis looks like for a billionaire venture capitalist ?

Even death is an evolved trait. It's not a problem to be solved. It's a fact of life and a feature of our being just like intelligence.

A person who wants to live forever must believe the resources of the planet belong to them rather than future generations. It's simply narcissism and small mindedness. It's also stupid to think that being a good investor makes a person ethically or scientifically knowledgable.

On the contrary, Thiel is being taken to the cleaners by quacks...

I'm more surprised he thinks he'll only live 120 years.

He is a venture capitalist and a serial entrepreneur.

Why not 121 years? What a quitter!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com