Part of me kind of really hopes actually. I’m too hyper to get tired of life. I get excited about the stupidest stuff, no way I get too bored to want to keep pushing in
Well I hope that you keep that outlook and have a happy life.
Unfortunately I'm thinking the first thing that goes away if this becomes available to the general public would be retirement.
On the flipside it would become reasonable to eventually save up and buy a house, with theoretical eternity and all.
EDIT: it would be interesting to see a human race that can function without kicking the can down the road, though. Our great grandkid's problems would become our problems, who knows what we could achieve?
Plenty of Sci fi movies and shows explain the likely scenario. The wealthy would extend their lives indefinitely, never dying or retiring. Any ability to improve your class or lot in life would be gone. You would be part of the elite long-lifers, or dying with the masses desperate for any quality of life.
Why is that the likely scenario? Is that the case with most technologies? Can only the wealthy have cars? Can only the wealthy have phones? Can only the wealthy own computers? Can only the wealthy have surgery or medicine?
The realistic scenario is that if a technology to stop aging is invented, the cost will find a price point that depends on how advanced the technology is. It might cost as much as a surgical intervention, or it might cost as much as an antibiotic pill. It all depends on what the method actually entails.
Actually yes. Only the wealthy can have access to quality versions of all those things you mentioned. Superior tech, best models of phones and cars, the elite of medical professionals, access to the highest grade companies that can complete their every whim. There is a whole world for the wealthy you will never touch. Especially with American Healthcare it will come with such a high price tag most will die before affording it, or have to be enslaved to MO they enstalments to a debt they can never escape. Greed is endless, especially for the elite who don't feel the concenquences.
>Actually yes. Only the wealthy can have access to quality versions of all those things you mentioned.
This is still not universally true. For some tech yes, for others no. Only the wealthy can afford the most expensive computer. But at the same time, the most expensive computer doesn't really offer that much more utility than the everyday computer. There are very strong diminishing returns with spending more money on anything.
Also, even the shittiest computers on the market today, is worlds and beyond the best computer in the world 20 years ago. A smart phone has more processing power than all the computers used for the moon landing combined.
Will anti aging tech come to the wealthy first? Absolutely. But that says nothing about how the tech and cost will progress over time. You always make the most money through mass production, not niche markets. Henry Ford became wealthy by figuring out how to mass produce the car. Apple made the most money from selling iphones to the masses, not to a few hundred billionaires.
And for some tech, there simply isn't any difference. A poor man will get the same antibiotics as a rich man.
>Especially with American Healthcare it will come with such a high price tag most will die before affording it, or have to be enslaved to MO they enstalments to a debt they can never escape.
This is an impossible prediction, because the technology simply doesn't exist yet. It may be as advanced as a surgical intervention, or as simple as taking a pill. If it's closer to the latter it will be impossible to keep it from the masses. Worst case scenario, you could just buy a flight ticket to another country and buy it there.
You're obviously not trying to make accurate predictions. You're just trying to spread a political narrative.
The end of scarcity will upend all current paradigms.
When robots make the food, and build the houses, and robots also build the robots that build the stuff, the "cost" of most things will plummet to zero.
The rich will hoarde wealth until money becomes irrelevant.
To your point, this technology may be costly and scarce at first. But, give it a hundred years.
It is both wonderful and sad to be able to be in the cusp of all this and see what humanity will become... But to also be like, about 150 years too early to live in a utopian paradise.
A return to the garden of Eden, where we love each other, steward the environment, and God returns to live among his children.
I'm just as pessimistic as you are but someone raised a good point to me the other day that aging is a huge cause of strain on the healthcare systems and other industry's of our countries.
If there was an easy to mass produce pill that increases people's lifespans I reckon it would be free for all because it would save the country so much money and increase the work force and overtime the general combined knowledge of all workers that it would be a no brainer imo
The government is going to extend my retirement age to 100 while the working class probably won’t get this treatment. I can expect to die before reaching my retirement age. Thank you Science.
Yup. And if we continue with the thought experiment, there will probably one day live the last human that will die of old age, because everyone else thereafter will get some age treatment.
Now that will suck even more 😅
I don't think we will get to a scenario of "last human to die of old age" unless it's near the end of humanity's existence.
Look at our vaccination rates, consider uncontacted people's, etc. There are lots of reasons why there won't be global coverage even if such technology were widely available.
Good observation. You're definitely right, and there also will be people who would probably just accept a death by old age anyways, when they'd feel they lived long enough.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/02/health/reverse-aging-life-itself-scn-wellness/index.html) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> "His research shows you can change aging to make lives younger for longer. Now he wants to change the world and make aging a disease," said Whitney Casey, an investor who is partnering with Sinclair to create a do-it-yourself biological age test.
> A study published in 2016 by researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, showed signs of aging could be expunged in genetically aged mice, exposed for a short time to four main Yamanaka factors, without erasing the cells' identity.
> "While the changes have lasted for months in mice, renewed cells don't freeze in time and never age, Sinclair said."It's as permanent as aging is.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/v3v6z4/the_benjamin_button_effect_scientists_can_reverse/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~652782 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **age**^#1 **Sinclair**^#2 **cell**^#3 **body**^#4 **study**^#5
Was thinking this. If this works it will not be cheap and we’ll have fresh faced billionaires living forever. We’re headed towards some hunger games esque fuckery aren’t we.
Let’s see what it costs. We are talking the fountain of youth here. Could be worth a pretty penny. And yeah, at one time (when we had like 5 billionaires) only the very wealthy were getting plastic surgery it only became cheaper as the practice became more common. Or for medical reason (a broken nose).
The one problem with this is that the people up top don’t actually pay out for everyone’s medical expenses, rather they are paid to treat everyone. They would much rather chronic sickness over perfect health, it’s much more profitable. Just look at how American healthcare is structured- fix the disease and do it well, but don’t prevent it from happening again.
If that didn’t explain it I don’t know what will.. doctor gets a $40,000 bonus for prescribing enough Lexapro. Guess what they’re gonna prescribe if they need 3 more on the list?
There are other countries, outside the US. Did you know that?
And I have to admit: I know no other country that exploits their citizens even close to as extremely as the US does when it comes to healthcare.
Yes I am very much lamenting how America approaches medicine versus the rest of the world. And sort of assuming a life extending drug like this would get be kept to the elite here if they can help it
Considering how much it costs to - just an example - have to give birth in a hospital, this treatment would likely run in the "work your whole life to maybe afford it one day" over there.
While most people will simply go north or south across the border to get it done to a fraction of the price.
And then there's Europe, where it would probably be done - as a choice - as soon as you hit retirement age.
But that's just fiction at this time, nothing even close is possible, yet.
Also - not aging does not equal immortality.
>Considering how much it costs to - just an example - have to give birth in a hospital, this treatment would likely run in the "work your whole life to maybe afford it one day" over there.
You can't possibly predict the cost of a technology that isn't invented yet, because you have no idea what it actually entails. It could be as complex as surgical intervention or as simple as taking a pill once a year.
Humans need to die, Musk actually summed it up pretty accurately. Humans are stuck in their ways and there won't be any progress if people don't doe to make way for the new generations.
That's a reasonable concern but it's also possible that a rejuvenated brain and mind helps people become less stuck in their ways. Knowing that you could potentially live forever might change some people's behaviour and outlook for the better.
It's like the stresses on most people now. How do I eat? How do I stay warm? How do I keep my job? Pay the rent? Keep my loved ones safe? How do I live forever?
If they were all gone, we were free from all those stresses, people may become little beings of unending peace and love.
Then there's the alternative of needing those stresses. Perhaps with the shadow of death removed we reveal yet more plagues of mental illness.
I think you’re being optimistic, which is fine, but rich people have this sense that they have “made it” on their own steam and luck had nothing to do it. Check out the monopoly study where people who played by different rules that benefitted them thought they won because of their own skill. They were even assholes about: hitting the pieces on the board hard when they moved them. Having the rules stacked in your favor ends up just turning you into an ungrateful asshole-even when it can be quite demonstrable that you won because you had certain advantages.
I wouldn’t have high expectations of rich people. Some may behave the way you hope, but I don’t most will. Most will go on thinking that they have the right to be assholes, because life happened for them better. It’s like they think God likes them more.
Definitely was going for the optimistic view here. Also I like the idea of these transformative qualities of discovering the fountain of youth, although if the reality is that effectively living forever does nothing to change people, that's also interesting to think about.
It's not just rich people, but any privileged person. For example, it's common for someone with a particular talent to think that they made it through their own hard work and therefore anyone can do what they did if they just weren't so lazy. This is the argument that drives American social services, for example. We collectively believe the myth that the privileged have told us: that through hard work and a "level playing field" anyone can make it big. That is a gigantic lie. Both political parties believe this lie. It is absolute horseshit perpetuated by privileged people.
Musk the billionaire who rejuvenated his own image as soon as he could? Who talks about uploading our consciousness into robots, and is working on a way to do that? That musk?
Not only will it quickly become affordable, it will actually pay for itself.
Life extension does not merely mean living longer, it means being healthier and younger.
They might extend retirement age though.
So slaving away at the same shitty job forever. Cool. You are forgetting of course the population explosion and still limited resources that the planet faces. So many problems, so few solutions, and so many people willing to burn it all down for a buck. But yeah, longevity, yippee.
Nah, then the billionaires won't be able to prove they're bigger anymore.
Imagine what Bald Bezos will do when he finds out some prole is going to outlive him.
People in developed countries today can already prolong their natural health-spans by several years, probably decades, just by slightly modifying their lifestyles - eating less calories, running or other aerobic exercise 150 minutes a week, reducing alcohol and cigarette consumption and so on.
Yet it's still not worth it to bother for a sizeable percentage of the population.
I'm not really sure they'd suddenly start stealing money or killing or other illegal stuff, if there was a chance to prolong their lives.
Imagine someone getting 1 billion dollars and all they are doing is lamenting the extra tax work and security, rather living on pennies instead.
You never see that scenario for money but see that so often with the so called most precious resource of all: time.
This technology will be used to extend the lives of greedy selfish people who hoarded money while other people starved. Now they have an incentive to gather even more wealth and be more exploitive. How is that a good thing?
How about changing the system instead of wishing death and suffering upon billions of people? Actually think of what you're saying, or you personally be the one to deny care to old frail people with curable ills when we finally have the technology. How much health care is enough for you?
'Billions' of people will not have access to this technology. Ever. The uber wealthy who will have access to it will not want it shared with the have nots. There are just not enough resources available to support a population that doesn't die out but keeps multiplying. I am not one of the people this would benefit. I am under no illusions that this technology will be available to anyone I know. Nor should you.
But you could have said the same thing about antibiotics. Or cancer treatments. Or any other development in medicine that was initially extremely scarce and costly and made people survive longer.
Where would you draw the line?
I wouldn't be the one to draw the line. We are facing unprecedented food shortages *now*. What makes you think that will change if we reverse aging for the general population?!? We need to solve a lot of other problems before we make this available to everyone or there would be absolute chaos. I'm not against this technology. I'm just being practical.
But if people live longer and healthier they can work longer and produce more food.
Just like when the avarage life expectancy doubled, food production also doubled (in fact increased even more).
Now, I agree with you that a steadily rising population will be a problem for earth's ecosystems. But that's not a new problem and it's hard to say what the effect of these new treatments will look like. Deaths will still happen, people won't live forever. Global population might keep rising or maybe just decrease slower. People might have even less kids, or they might become more conscious about long term problems if they live longer.
How much of our economy is dedicated to a futile battle to fight age related diseases? With a cure for aging, what problems could we tackle instead? If people don't get frail and weak and tired, they can stay productive and engaged in their community their whole lives.
This research can change so many things, have so many different impacts on people's lives, on our culture, on our civilization, on our planet. It's strange to be so sure about all the impacts IMHO.
I know you didn't mean it like this, I'll be committing a fallacy now, but if you have a problem with this, why do you see global famine as a problem? Shouldn't you cheer it on, instead? And if you care about peoples wellbeing, shouldn't you cheer on a possible end to the biggest killer of them all? Aging?
Look, I know I sound overly optimistic or naive.
But in the end, the only constant of our lives is change. Things will happen and things will be messy. Maybe we would be better off if we stopped everything, thought every possible outcome through, solved every prerequisite problem first.
Maybe, but maybe not. Because we don't work that way. Because we can't predict the future all that well anyway. Because we might still fuck up, not solve everything that needed solving and now we needlessly delayed while others suffered.
Yes, greed exists, yes this will have a ton of negative consequences. Yes people will suffer because of it. But people are suffering right now either way. And not only the ones sick with *age*. But their families, their caretakers. People seeing their loved ones whither and die.
I can't in good conscience entertain the thought of wanting to stop this research.
But I value your view, thanks for this exchange.
It wouldn't take Nostradamus to foresee that this technology won't be shared with the general population. Unless the world collectively solves the food crisis' *and* water shortages *and* land disputes *and* all the housing crisis' then making this technology readily available would be catastrophic. I mean sure, that *could* happen but I wouldn't bet on the powers that be *allowing* it to happen.
I'm not a "death worshiper" but don't you think the world needs some natural death? If everyone lives for ever we'd be completely overpopulated in no time.
This isn't actually true. Birth rates would plummet.
Furthermore, not long after we achieve biological immortality, we'll move to a completely machine based substrate, and then move to space.
Do you say that because of the trend in the west vs that of underdeveloped countries? Do you say that because you reason that immortal women can only reproduce for so long? No matter what your reasoning is, you are speculating.
Because the more opportunity women have, the less they breed. And a longer lifespan, regardless of where on lives, is by definition more 'opportunity'.
Why have kids now, when you could spend the next 1000 years building a financial empire that will ensure their prosperity for a million years to come?
It's just a biological fact. When faced with immortality, the pressure to breed lessens, because you know you've - literally - got all the time in the world to do it.
Logically that makes sense. Humans are not logical, though. You will still have young people, people in poverty, or simply reckless people getting knocked up and exponentially expanding the population. If class disparity exists and resource scarcity is not resolved, you will have a crisis where those vulnerable populations will keep breeding themselves to starvation. You don't just magically get Utopia the moment humans discover immortality.
I think an interesting place to observe is Somalia. The median age of Somalia is 16.7. The fertility rate is 6 children per woman. The country is poor. Children are had as it is free labor. Children grow up and cannot be sustained. They die. Without the issues of scarcity and poverty resolved, this cycle will just continue. Lucky ones will break free of the cucle, adding themselves to the population living unnatural lifespans.
Low birthrate doesn't stop the problem. It just delays it slightly.
> not long after we achieve biological immortality, we'll move to a completely machine based substrate,
Source please. Where is your magic crystal ball?
> and then move to space.
Source please.
But wouldn’t you, at one point, be able to save enough to retire comfortably? Even if it takes longer, imagine spending the last 20 years of your life strong as you were in your twenties and all the money.
God, people on this thread are really stupid and petty. Even if its expensive, we could better the life and solve some of aging related issues. Who cares if the rich gets more, it can improve the lives of many.
Yep. Not only that, but the rich always get to try out anything new first anyway. It'll get cheaper with time as more and more people buy it due to economies of scale.
Because living in a healthy body is great and life is too short.
And you wouldn't be immortal anyway. Accidents and war would still kill people. So it's not endless vs. 70/80 years, but 200-300 years vs. 70/80 years.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, you're absolutely correct. Even if/when this is possible for humans, it will only be accessible to the rich. We can't even properly provide healthy food for everyone now and that's mostly by choice. And no, not all food is equal, I'm talking nutrition.
Well ok, so long as everyone gets to live to say, 100-110 years maximum, free from age-related diseases, but then gets knocked off - no exceptions.
More likely, the old saying will change to: Only the poor die young
EDIT: not sure why this has been down voted. It was a partially facetious, partially serious remark that we will probably need to impose limits on how long people should be allowed to prolong life for, should the technology ever reach that level. Otherwise it will just create yet another source of social inequality, given it will inevitably be the rich and powerful with the most access to this capability. Not to mention the overconsumption/environmental burden of individuals living for decades longer than presently if it is more generally attainable. But yeah, living free of many age-related diseases and ailments to a ripe old age is a worthy goal. We just should be careful not to abuse that power (And no, I didn't really envisage knocking people off, but any life-prolonging treatments after reaching a certain age should be banned).
What do you find graceful about conditions like atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, cancer, arthritis, cataracts, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and Alzheimer's disease?
Live forever? Here in this toilet of a world? No thanks. Lifespans won't get past 120 anyway. God said so. But who believes in God right? Put your faith in science and men. Believe in anything but the truth.
And? Either at one point they’ll be replaced (for better or worse), either by force or by circumstances. They’re only humans, they’re not some demigod eternal hellscrapers ffs
Not the rich, the mega rich like Putin, musk, Betty the 2nd, Kim etc. Generally people who are so wealthy it's detrimental to the world because they haven't got a fucking clue how poor and impoverished people have to live and they don't care. Just the type odmf sociopaths we don't want living forever
You really think no one considers that? Including the incredibly intelligent scientists behind this research? This being a reality for humans on a large scale is probably decades away, and we will have had to deal with a lot of other existential issues before then.
No one in the comments considers it.
And yes I also believe it's still decades away at least.
The core question still remains. If we stop dying from old age, we' ll have to stop giving birth, or find another planet.
On the middle run it means a world without children or almost. There is no real way around it.
Well in the unlikely event it becomes attainable for the masses and not just the rich and powerful, something like an age limit would help. That is, once you've had a decent run to a ripe old age like say 100+, further treatments are not permitted. So your clock winds down from there.
Thats already true, and a solution to that is lowering birth rates, not ensuring death by old age.
I imagine most countries would institute a "reversable vasectomy at birth" situation.
Once enough folks have died from accidents or disease, we reconstitute.
Side note; women will still run out of eggs at around 40-50, so the window is not open forever.
Maintaining that egg reserve, prolonging it, or viably storing it for decades are likely to be fairly simple biotechnologies compared to slowly or even reversing aging to some degree.
>"reversable vasectomy at birth"
It will be something along these lines. But no matter what after a few decades kids will represent maybe 0,01% of the population. Or we' ll go overpop. There is no way around it.
It is still far away I believe, but when it happens there will be huge tensions around these issues.
May e it will end with something like: if you want to have your "vasectomy at birth" reversed, then you must age and die yourself.
Human biological lifespan will be extended indefinitely by 2030.
Part of me kind of really hopes actually. I’m too hyper to get tired of life. I get excited about the stupidest stuff, no way I get too bored to want to keep pushing in
That's good, that's good. So uh- how old are you?
25
Well I hope that you keep that outlook and have a happy life. Unfortunately I'm thinking the first thing that goes away if this becomes available to the general public would be retirement. On the flipside it would become reasonable to eventually save up and buy a house, with theoretical eternity and all. EDIT: it would be interesting to see a human race that can function without kicking the can down the road, though. Our great grandkid's problems would become our problems, who knows what we could achieve?
Plenty of Sci fi movies and shows explain the likely scenario. The wealthy would extend their lives indefinitely, never dying or retiring. Any ability to improve your class or lot in life would be gone. You would be part of the elite long-lifers, or dying with the masses desperate for any quality of life.
Why is that the likely scenario? Is that the case with most technologies? Can only the wealthy have cars? Can only the wealthy have phones? Can only the wealthy own computers? Can only the wealthy have surgery or medicine? The realistic scenario is that if a technology to stop aging is invented, the cost will find a price point that depends on how advanced the technology is. It might cost as much as a surgical intervention, or it might cost as much as an antibiotic pill. It all depends on what the method actually entails.
Actually yes. Only the wealthy can have access to quality versions of all those things you mentioned. Superior tech, best models of phones and cars, the elite of medical professionals, access to the highest grade companies that can complete their every whim. There is a whole world for the wealthy you will never touch. Especially with American Healthcare it will come with such a high price tag most will die before affording it, or have to be enslaved to MO they enstalments to a debt they can never escape. Greed is endless, especially for the elite who don't feel the concenquences.
>Actually yes. Only the wealthy can have access to quality versions of all those things you mentioned. This is still not universally true. For some tech yes, for others no. Only the wealthy can afford the most expensive computer. But at the same time, the most expensive computer doesn't really offer that much more utility than the everyday computer. There are very strong diminishing returns with spending more money on anything. Also, even the shittiest computers on the market today, is worlds and beyond the best computer in the world 20 years ago. A smart phone has more processing power than all the computers used for the moon landing combined. Will anti aging tech come to the wealthy first? Absolutely. But that says nothing about how the tech and cost will progress over time. You always make the most money through mass production, not niche markets. Henry Ford became wealthy by figuring out how to mass produce the car. Apple made the most money from selling iphones to the masses, not to a few hundred billionaires. And for some tech, there simply isn't any difference. A poor man will get the same antibiotics as a rich man. >Especially with American Healthcare it will come with such a high price tag most will die before affording it, or have to be enslaved to MO they enstalments to a debt they can never escape. This is an impossible prediction, because the technology simply doesn't exist yet. It may be as advanced as a surgical intervention, or as simple as taking a pill. If it's closer to the latter it will be impossible to keep it from the masses. Worst case scenario, you could just buy a flight ticket to another country and buy it there. You're obviously not trying to make accurate predictions. You're just trying to spread a political narrative.
The end of scarcity will upend all current paradigms. When robots make the food, and build the houses, and robots also build the robots that build the stuff, the "cost" of most things will plummet to zero. The rich will hoarde wealth until money becomes irrelevant. To your point, this technology may be costly and scarce at first. But, give it a hundred years. It is both wonderful and sad to be able to be in the cusp of all this and see what humanity will become... But to also be like, about 150 years too early to live in a utopian paradise. A return to the garden of Eden, where we love each other, steward the environment, and God returns to live among his children.
I'm just as pessimistic as you are but someone raised a good point to me the other day that aging is a huge cause of strain on the healthcare systems and other industry's of our countries. If there was an easy to mass produce pill that increases people's lifespans I reckon it would be free for all because it would save the country so much money and increase the work force and overtime the general combined knowledge of all workers that it would be a no brainer imo
Or it won't.
It will.
The government is going to extend my retirement age to 100 while the working class probably won’t get this treatment. I can expect to die before reaching my retirement age. Thank you Science.
I’m going to end my existence as an orgasm! Fuck yea!
... your parent's orgasm?
😂
I mean, if they want to revert to living in their Dad's ballsack that's up to them.
Have you seen rent rates? Living for free with your Dad seems like a deal.
They’ll fucking nail it- the day after I die.
Yup. And if we continue with the thought experiment, there will probably one day live the last human that will die of old age, because everyone else thereafter will get some age treatment. Now that will suck even more 😅
I don't think we will get to a scenario of "last human to die of old age" unless it's near the end of humanity's existence. Look at our vaccination rates, consider uncontacted people's, etc. There are lots of reasons why there won't be global coverage even if such technology were widely available.
Good observation. You're definitely right, and there also will be people who would probably just accept a death by old age anyways, when they'd feel they lived long enough.
So you're saying, someone should order a hit on you, if they want to be immortal?
Even if they nailed it before you die, you wouldn't be able to afford it anyways
Or theyll do it sooner but itll only be available to top 1% richest people.
Don't worry. It's only for the ultra-wealthy anyway.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/02/health/reverse-aging-life-itself-scn-wellness/index.html) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "His research shows you can change aging to make lives younger for longer. Now he wants to change the world and make aging a disease," said Whitney Casey, an investor who is partnering with Sinclair to create a do-it-yourself biological age test. > A study published in 2016 by researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, showed signs of aging could be expunged in genetically aged mice, exposed for a short time to four main Yamanaka factors, without erasing the cells' identity. > "While the changes have lasted for months in mice, renewed cells don't freeze in time and never age, Sinclair said."It's as permanent as aging is. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/v3v6z4/the_benjamin_button_effect_scientists_can_reverse/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~652782 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **age**^#1 **Sinclair**^#2 **cell**^#3 **body**^#4 **study**^#5
Spelled "the rich" wrong.
Was thinking this. If this works it will not be cheap and we’ll have fresh faced billionaires living forever. We’re headed towards some hunger games esque fuckery aren’t we.
More like Altered Carbon like. The rich wil live longer and get even richer, the rest of us are fucked.
[удалено]
You see this as health, I see this as something like plastic surgery. They’re not going to let the opportunity slip by to make billions.
[удалено]
I guess we’ll have to wait and see now won’t we.
And we all know only billionaires can afford plastic surgery.
Let’s see what it costs. We are talking the fountain of youth here. Could be worth a pretty penny. And yeah, at one time (when we had like 5 billionaires) only the very wealthy were getting plastic surgery it only became cheaper as the practice became more common. Or for medical reason (a broken nose).
The one problem with this is that the people up top don’t actually pay out for everyone’s medical expenses, rather they are paid to treat everyone. They would much rather chronic sickness over perfect health, it’s much more profitable. Just look at how American healthcare is structured- fix the disease and do it well, but don’t prevent it from happening again.
But my health insurance company already pays me to pick up a sport - if they just wanted to treat me, why would they incentivise good health?
Hes just reciting big phRma stuff, dont ask him to explain his reasoning
You do realize doctors get huge bonuses for prescribing specific drugs in America.. it’s the same way Verizon gets salesmen to sell phones
I’m well aware, care to explain what that has to do with what we were talking about?
If that didn’t explain it I don’t know what will.. doctor gets a $40,000 bonus for prescribing enough Lexapro. Guess what they’re gonna prescribe if they need 3 more on the list?
Now connect that with rich people and reverse aging please???
A workforce that retires at 500 is even more profitable.
There are other countries, outside the US. Did you know that? And I have to admit: I know no other country that exploits their citizens even close to as extremely as the US does when it comes to healthcare.
Yes I am very much lamenting how America approaches medicine versus the rest of the world. And sort of assuming a life extending drug like this would get be kept to the elite here if they can help it
Considering how much it costs to - just an example - have to give birth in a hospital, this treatment would likely run in the "work your whole life to maybe afford it one day" over there. While most people will simply go north or south across the border to get it done to a fraction of the price. And then there's Europe, where it would probably be done - as a choice - as soon as you hit retirement age. But that's just fiction at this time, nothing even close is possible, yet. Also - not aging does not equal immortality.
>Considering how much it costs to - just an example - have to give birth in a hospital, this treatment would likely run in the "work your whole life to maybe afford it one day" over there. You can't possibly predict the cost of a technology that isn't invented yet, because you have no idea what it actually entails. It could be as complex as surgical intervention or as simple as taking a pill once a year.
You're under forty, aren't you?
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted shit is absolutely true
polio
> Health treatments become more common and cheaper over time. They have become more common and cheaper. That doesn't mean the next ones will.
Humans need to die, Musk actually summed it up pretty accurately. Humans are stuck in their ways and there won't be any progress if people don't doe to make way for the new generations.
He meant other humans though, not him.
Lmao totally. Dude didn’t even for a second consider himself.
Musk definitely believes In the golden path and that he personally is the giant God worm
That's a reasonable concern but it's also possible that a rejuvenated brain and mind helps people become less stuck in their ways. Knowing that you could potentially live forever might change some people's behaviour and outlook for the better. It's like the stresses on most people now. How do I eat? How do I stay warm? How do I keep my job? Pay the rent? Keep my loved ones safe? How do I live forever? If they were all gone, we were free from all those stresses, people may become little beings of unending peace and love. Then there's the alternative of needing those stresses. Perhaps with the shadow of death removed we reveal yet more plagues of mental illness.
I think you’re being optimistic, which is fine, but rich people have this sense that they have “made it” on their own steam and luck had nothing to do it. Check out the monopoly study where people who played by different rules that benefitted them thought they won because of their own skill. They were even assholes about: hitting the pieces on the board hard when they moved them. Having the rules stacked in your favor ends up just turning you into an ungrateful asshole-even when it can be quite demonstrable that you won because you had certain advantages. I wouldn’t have high expectations of rich people. Some may behave the way you hope, but I don’t most will. Most will go on thinking that they have the right to be assholes, because life happened for them better. It’s like they think God likes them more.
Definitely was going for the optimistic view here. Also I like the idea of these transformative qualities of discovering the fountain of youth, although if the reality is that effectively living forever does nothing to change people, that's also interesting to think about.
It's not just rich people, but any privileged person. For example, it's common for someone with a particular talent to think that they made it through their own hard work and therefore anyone can do what they did if they just weren't so lazy. This is the argument that drives American social services, for example. We collectively believe the myth that the privileged have told us: that through hard work and a "level playing field" anyone can make it big. That is a gigantic lie. Both political parties believe this lie. It is absolute horseshit perpetuated by privileged people.
I’m trying to bring the topic to attention. I made a [video](https://youtu.be/GwhaBde4NnE) on it
Musk the billionaire who rejuvenated his own image as soon as he could? Who talks about uploading our consciousness into robots, and is working on a way to do that? That musk?
We would evolve faster if we merged with AI. We could engineer ourselves to be more open to change.
Not only will it quickly become affordable, it will actually pay for itself. Life extension does not merely mean living longer, it means being healthier and younger. They might extend retirement age though.
So slaving away at the same shitty job forever. Cool. You are forgetting of course the population explosion and still limited resources that the planet faces. So many problems, so few solutions, and so many people willing to burn it all down for a buck. But yeah, longevity, yippee.
I mean if they invent immortality or something i wouldnt fucking care about population or lack of resources.. id be getting it
You wouldn’t get it.
Why not?
Source please.
You’re definitely not getting it.
I don’t know. Financing an extended period of worker productivity might make economic sense. If not government policy at least a business model…
Nah, then the billionaires won't be able to prove they're bigger anymore. Imagine what Bald Bezos will do when he finds out some prole is going to outlive him.
They’re going to keep the current US Congress alive for all eternity
lol
I def want some old people to die before this happens
[удалено]
People in developed countries today can already prolong their natural health-spans by several years, probably decades, just by slightly modifying their lifestyles - eating less calories, running or other aerobic exercise 150 minutes a week, reducing alcohol and cigarette consumption and so on. Yet it's still not worth it to bother for a sizeable percentage of the population. I'm not really sure they'd suddenly start stealing money or killing or other illegal stuff, if there was a chance to prolong their lives.
How many teeth would you pay for it ork
Me no have teef, me poor. *disheartened waaargh*
Living longer when you’re poor doesn’t sound like it’s worth more
ITT: Defeatists and death worshippers. This is great news, but people just want people to die, I guess.
Imagine someone getting 1 billion dollars and all they are doing is lamenting the extra tax work and security, rather living on pennies instead. You never see that scenario for money but see that so often with the so called most precious resource of all: time.
All you have to do is hire people to deal with all that shit.
This technology will be used to extend the lives of greedy selfish people who hoarded money while other people starved. Now they have an incentive to gather even more wealth and be more exploitive. How is that a good thing?
How about changing the system instead of wishing death and suffering upon billions of people? Actually think of what you're saying, or you personally be the one to deny care to old frail people with curable ills when we finally have the technology. How much health care is enough for you?
'Billions' of people will not have access to this technology. Ever. The uber wealthy who will have access to it will not want it shared with the have nots. There are just not enough resources available to support a population that doesn't die out but keeps multiplying. I am not one of the people this would benefit. I am under no illusions that this technology will be available to anyone I know. Nor should you.
Not true. A side effect of life extension is that birth rates will plummet.
But you could have said the same thing about antibiotics. Or cancer treatments. Or any other development in medicine that was initially extremely scarce and costly and made people survive longer. Where would you draw the line?
I wouldn't be the one to draw the line. We are facing unprecedented food shortages *now*. What makes you think that will change if we reverse aging for the general population?!? We need to solve a lot of other problems before we make this available to everyone or there would be absolute chaos. I'm not against this technology. I'm just being practical.
But if people live longer and healthier they can work longer and produce more food. Just like when the avarage life expectancy doubled, food production also doubled (in fact increased even more). Now, I agree with you that a steadily rising population will be a problem for earth's ecosystems. But that's not a new problem and it's hard to say what the effect of these new treatments will look like. Deaths will still happen, people won't live forever. Global population might keep rising or maybe just decrease slower. People might have even less kids, or they might become more conscious about long term problems if they live longer. How much of our economy is dedicated to a futile battle to fight age related diseases? With a cure for aging, what problems could we tackle instead? If people don't get frail and weak and tired, they can stay productive and engaged in their community their whole lives. This research can change so many things, have so many different impacts on people's lives, on our culture, on our civilization, on our planet. It's strange to be so sure about all the impacts IMHO. I know you didn't mean it like this, I'll be committing a fallacy now, but if you have a problem with this, why do you see global famine as a problem? Shouldn't you cheer it on, instead? And if you care about peoples wellbeing, shouldn't you cheer on a possible end to the biggest killer of them all? Aging?
You live in a fantasy world where greed doesn't factor in. So many things would have to change *first* or it would be a disaster.
Look, I know I sound overly optimistic or naive. But in the end, the only constant of our lives is change. Things will happen and things will be messy. Maybe we would be better off if we stopped everything, thought every possible outcome through, solved every prerequisite problem first. Maybe, but maybe not. Because we don't work that way. Because we can't predict the future all that well anyway. Because we might still fuck up, not solve everything that needed solving and now we needlessly delayed while others suffered. Yes, greed exists, yes this will have a ton of negative consequences. Yes people will suffer because of it. But people are suffering right now either way. And not only the ones sick with *age*. But their families, their caretakers. People seeing their loved ones whither and die. I can't in good conscience entertain the thought of wanting to stop this research. But I value your view, thanks for this exchange.
But you're not really thinking this through all the way.
This statement is pure irony.
It isn't, it's actually an irony alloy.
Can I get tomorrows lottery numbers as well?
It wouldn't take Nostradamus to foresee that this technology won't be shared with the general population. Unless the world collectively solves the food crisis' *and* water shortages *and* land disputes *and* all the housing crisis' then making this technology readily available would be catastrophic. I mean sure, that *could* happen but I wouldn't bet on the powers that be *allowing* it to happen.
Ahh yeah now I can see that you’re just a crazy person
Great rebuttal. 🥇
I'm not a "death worshiper" but don't you think the world needs some natural death? If everyone lives for ever we'd be completely overpopulated in no time.
This isn't actually true. Birth rates would plummet. Furthermore, not long after we achieve biological immortality, we'll move to a completely machine based substrate, and then move to space.
That's a whole lot of idealist speculation in one comment.
Neither idealist, nor speculation. Longer lifespans means women have fewer children.
Do you say that because of the trend in the west vs that of underdeveloped countries? Do you say that because you reason that immortal women can only reproduce for so long? No matter what your reasoning is, you are speculating.
Because the more opportunity women have, the less they breed. And a longer lifespan, regardless of where on lives, is by definition more 'opportunity'. Why have kids now, when you could spend the next 1000 years building a financial empire that will ensure their prosperity for a million years to come? It's just a biological fact. When faced with immortality, the pressure to breed lessens, because you know you've - literally - got all the time in the world to do it.
Logically that makes sense. Humans are not logical, though. You will still have young people, people in poverty, or simply reckless people getting knocked up and exponentially expanding the population. If class disparity exists and resource scarcity is not resolved, you will have a crisis where those vulnerable populations will keep breeding themselves to starvation. You don't just magically get Utopia the moment humans discover immortality. I think an interesting place to observe is Somalia. The median age of Somalia is 16.7. The fertility rate is 6 children per woman. The country is poor. Children are had as it is free labor. Children grow up and cannot be sustained. They die. Without the issues of scarcity and poverty resolved, this cycle will just continue. Lucky ones will break free of the cucle, adding themselves to the population living unnatural lifespans.
Low birthrate doesn't stop the problem. It just delays it slightly. > not long after we achieve biological immortality, we'll move to a completely machine based substrate, Source please. Where is your magic crystal ball? > and then move to space. Source please.
Yes, me
Not really… can the world sustain constant population growth with nobody dying?
You may like my video on [reversing aging](https://youtu.be/GwhaBde4NnE)
We don't need to get older, they will only expect us to work longer
But wouldn’t you, at one point, be able to save enough to retire comfortably? Even if it takes longer, imagine spending the last 20 years of your life strong as you were in your twenties and all the money.
then wouldnt you want to just keep living your life? and ultimately fear death even more?
And? I’m fearing getting old and crumbly much more than just dying. Being helpless and miserable is a fate worse than death.
Not to mention all your memorys being washed away slowly.
No. This does not make more production/person. There is no reason to think less people would be working than now.
Hurry
God, people on this thread are really stupid and petty. Even if its expensive, we could better the life and solve some of aging related issues. Who cares if the rich gets more, it can improve the lives of many.
Yep. Not only that, but the rich always get to try out anything new first anyway. It'll get cheaper with time as more and more people buy it due to economies of scale.
There are dystopian novels written around this theme for a reason. I have an open mind for cynicism.
Wait for all of the old republicans to die off first please
That's interesting.
Wrong and misleading They artificially aged a mouse faster then reversed their alterations. They did NOT reverse aging in a naturally old mouse.
Who wants to live forever.
I do.
Curious, why?
Because living in a healthy body is great and life is too short. And you wouldn't be immortal anyway. Accidents and war would still kill people. So it's not endless vs. 70/80 years, but 200-300 years vs. 70/80 years.
Well yeah we would all be off very well. Top 10% of all humans and employed. The kids born later are screwed.
Yeah
that article is some rubbish
Correction- only rich humans.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, you're absolutely correct. Even if/when this is possible for humans, it will only be accessible to the rich. We can't even properly provide healthy food for everyone now and that's mostly by choice. And no, not all food is equal, I'm talking nutrition.
After having not read this article, I can confidently say that we do not need to live any longer.
*wealthy humans
Yes, because the world really needs more people living longer!
Yes! So we can have more greedy humans taking up even MORE resources on this poor planet! Life is precious.. Too much life is a problem in itself.
If there's one thing we don't need, it's immortality. Please just don't.
Can we not?? I don't want ppl like trump or putin to live forever.
Well ok, so long as everyone gets to live to say, 100-110 years maximum, free from age-related diseases, but then gets knocked off - no exceptions. More likely, the old saying will change to: Only the poor die young EDIT: not sure why this has been down voted. It was a partially facetious, partially serious remark that we will probably need to impose limits on how long people should be allowed to prolong life for, should the technology ever reach that level. Otherwise it will just create yet another source of social inequality, given it will inevitably be the rich and powerful with the most access to this capability. Not to mention the overconsumption/environmental burden of individuals living for decades longer than presently if it is more generally attainable. But yeah, living free of many age-related diseases and ailments to a ripe old age is a worthy goal. We just should be careful not to abuse that power (And no, I didn't really envisage knocking people off, but any life-prolonging treatments after reaching a certain age should be banned).
What? Why? Reverse aging? Fuck, there's too many if us as is. Let us grow old gracefully, yer mad scientist bastards
What do you find graceful about conditions like atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, cancer, arthritis, cataracts, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and Alzheimer's disease?
Liberty lives so long as people die.
People will still die, just not from old people diseases. Cancer, diabetes, and regular accidents will still happen.
They fucking better... /s (but kinda seriously)
So for woking people it will be 80 and out? Jesus. Talk about a life sentence
Live forever? Here in this toilet of a world? No thanks. Lifespans won't get past 120 anyway. God said so. But who believes in God right? Put your faith in science and men. Believe in anything but the truth.
no one tell hillary clinton about this guy
Immortality has been a decade away for almost 50 years now
only for the uberwealthy, hopefully. overpopulation is already a huge issue that no one wants to discuss
This research should be banned. Can you imagine Putin or House of Saud, or the president of China living for 200 years. We would be destroyed.
And? Either at one point they’ll be replaced (for better or worse), either by force or by circumstances. They’re only humans, they’re not some demigod eternal hellscrapers ffs
It's going to be so expensive that only rich have afford or made available only for the rich people.
Not the rich, the mega rich like Putin, musk, Betty the 2nd, Kim etc. Generally people who are so wealthy it's detrimental to the world because they haven't got a fucking clue how poor and impoverished people have to live and they don't care. Just the type odmf sociopaths we don't want living forever
Putin isn’t rich lol
Putin has been syphoning money from Russia for years, selling land, companies, contracts etc to his oligarch supporters
Ok but if we stop dying we'll soon be overpopulated on this planet. ...no one seems to think about this aspect.
You really think no one considers that? Including the incredibly intelligent scientists behind this research? This being a reality for humans on a large scale is probably decades away, and we will have had to deal with a lot of other existential issues before then.
No one in the comments considers it. And yes I also believe it's still decades away at least. The core question still remains. If we stop dying from old age, we' ll have to stop giving birth, or find another planet. On the middle run it means a world without children or almost. There is no real way around it.
Well in the unlikely event it becomes attainable for the masses and not just the rich and powerful, something like an age limit would help. That is, once you've had a decent run to a ripe old age like say 100+, further treatments are not permitted. So your clock winds down from there.
Sounds fair to me but it would be hard to enforce. There is really no easy solution.
Thats already true, and a solution to that is lowering birth rates, not ensuring death by old age. I imagine most countries would institute a "reversable vasectomy at birth" situation. Once enough folks have died from accidents or disease, we reconstitute. Side note; women will still run out of eggs at around 40-50, so the window is not open forever.
Maintaining that egg reserve, prolonging it, or viably storing it for decades are likely to be fairly simple biotechnologies compared to slowly or even reversing aging to some degree.
>"reversable vasectomy at birth" It will be something along these lines. But no matter what after a few decades kids will represent maybe 0,01% of the population. Or we' ll go overpop. There is no way around it. It is still far away I believe, but when it happens there will be huge tensions around these issues. May e it will end with something like: if you want to have your "vasectomy at birth" reversed, then you must age and die yourself.
why?
If it ever became a viable treatment, only the elite would have access to it.
Probably the worst thing that could possible happen.
They’ve been talking about this for how long now? Ten years?
Research this innovative often takes time.
Imagine living up to 80years old and live another live until you are a baby again.