Comments
Mokebe890 t1_iumwq2a wrote
You know we talk about living to 200, 500 and 1000 years? Nothing you mentioned will help us to live so long, only to theoretized 150. As an european I cant wait for life extension to kick in.
Cute-Excitement1935 t1_iuq1son wrote
They figured out how to lengthen terpenes. The richest and most powerful people in the world today have a very real possibility of living inhumanly long lives. They've found the fountain of youth. The pipe dream of every fabulously wealthy explorer since they slapped a sail on a ship has been made a reality, only to have the kinks worked out through experimentation. Elysium was a fucking documentary from the future. All the boring useless poo people will spend our lives making money for the Immortal Elite, and thank them for our payment of housing, sustenance, and medical care.
abjedhowiz t1_iurcugu wrote
Well they want to enjoy the life they worked so hard to achieve. Whereas the lower income soldiers are thankful it’s finally over. This is humanity and human nature, there is nothing to get heated about.
Cute-Excitement1935 t1_iurhxrg wrote
Wow. So, are you like, the child of a titan of industry? Or politician?
Typhpala t1_iun27r4 wrote
Inequality? the bottom 20% of US in income earn more than most europeans do, its bad choices, not lack of money. Culture is the issue, stress is just a symptom. Shit diet, badly designed cities an so forth.Life extension is the only real transformative technology since... electricity perhaps. Imagine not having old people, instead we all can be productive and enjoy life for 200 years, not having to retire and so forth. This is the holy grail for society overall, not just 'rich people'. It would be governments first priority to make this accessible to all, the amount of money saved in treating age related disease and sustaining non-productive people is absurd.im sure this will be messed up with time and we still wont get our 15h/weeks, but hey. Thats a different story, and also cultural.
I for one, cannot wait for this to be real.
The amount of people who are afraid of this citing rich people living long lives is baffling, as if the only solution to problems is waiting for people we blame for problems to die. This is absurd.
Ordinary-Scratch-478 t1_iuoxjt8 wrote
> the bottom 20% of US in income earn more than most europeans do
Psychological-Sport1 t1_iuo89ce wrote
Bring it on, I’ve been talking about this since I was in grade 11 back in 1975 social class and heard on a radio show about calorie restrictio and improved aging results etc,, I’m now 65 and we are getting so close to curing agin, I can’t wait until we have super advanced nanotechnology to get it done really cheaply !!
Phoenix5869 t1_iuss2an wrote
idk if ur bieng sarcastic or not but theyve been talking about this stuff for decades and theres been basically no progress. so when i hear ppl saying that we will cure aging by 2040 i get a little pessimistic
SainnQ t1_iune3mm wrote
It'd be nice if I could meaningfully reverse the apparent accelerated aging I'm experiencing from combined Childhood Trauma & Covid infection
Apparently that shit together has put me ahead by half a damn decade or more.
ConfusedObserver0 t1_iupl46l wrote
I think this is something lost from the early concerns of COVID and understanding causality from prenatal effects upward.
They were saying 10 years of your life were being wacked off all in one go. If that is true (hard to fully tell with thorough research) then those who died would have been dead in 10 years and then when it if we reach out old age death there could have been 10 more if not for the damage done.
If we look at the study of an orphans brain that showed a 9% (I believe, just going off memory) which is a qualitative and quantities reduction in one’s livelihood, then we can expect actions that would greatly reduce one’s life. Typically , for example, chemical dependency’s or sporadic dangerous behaviors. That all lead to shorter average lives. Sure people can turn to the outlier, but they are never good examples to go off of.
We just don’t understand as humans long term effects. Animals that in the moment versus this more evolved being that must plan for the future if we are to survive it. Nor do we care enough to reduce those risks even on ourselves.
bladerunner_35 t1_iumutrb wrote
Imagine Elon or Jeff living 200+ years. You don’t have to imagine. Someone already did and wrote a book called Altered Carbon. It’s a Netflix series too. Bad news for anyone but the ultra rich.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iumwxcs wrote
Imagine using fiction as a predictor of what's to come because it fits your r/collapse agenda.
CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iumzu2l wrote
Ah yes, because no fictional work has ever held a deeper meaning, warned of things to come, accurately predicted the future, or been the basis of inventions /s
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun2lhc wrote
>Ah yes, because no fictional work has ever held a deeper meaning, warned of things to come, accurately predicted the future, or been the basis of inventions /s
And a lot of fictional work turned out to be utter BS. That doesn't mean anything. Are you going to reject pioneering technology because you coped really well with Altered Carbon? Fiction usually tries to make people feel better about themselves - sour grapes.
Longer life (can't have it) oh it would be boring, the evil rich would only stay young (which doesn't even make sense, since the most profitable solution wouldn't be to offer age reversal to the rich only).
Rich people (can't have it) are the bad guys and the main character will save us.
CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iun3toj wrote
I’m responding to your comment and reasoning, nothing more. Of course a lot of fiction doesn’t. But your comment completely disregarded the fact that authors often will attempt to convey their thought of a potential future and are often much closer to the truth than people realize at the time. But while we’re at it, you’re suggesting it would be a better life for big corps to keep people alive so we can… work for hundreds and hundreds of years? Yeah nah I’m good at 65 or so
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun4n60 wrote
>Yeah nah I’m good at 65 or so
You don't get to decide how long others are allowed to live. Or that they must age and suffer age related diseases like dementia because "you're good at 65 or so"
It's stupid to think that offering rejuvenation therapies to rich people only will turn out to be more profitable than offering them to the masses.
That doomer movie didn't take that into account, because it's easier to give people cope.
CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iun4vgs wrote
I’m not deciding for anyone, they’re free to do whatever they want. That’s my opinion. You’re pretty hostile.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun5hcw wrote
Then what's the point of replying with I'm good at 65, nah.
No one wants to grow old, get sick and malfunction. And no real argument was made about why the rich will receive this only.
Oh but Altered Carbon!!
CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iun90mn wrote
My only point was pointing out how it was wrong to be dismissive like you were about fiction just because it’s fiction, but that (and everything else I said) clearly went sailing over your head, it seems like you still think you’re responding to the original comment. My opinion that I gave was my opinion like I pointed out, which you still seem to be having an issue wrapping your head around
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iundhpw wrote
That person above completely dismissed the field of biomedical gerontology, scientists' decades of work because he or she saw a movie ysing the sour grapes tactic. And yet you didn't reply to them
No, medical research won't stop because a gamer from reddit thinks that dementia, cancer and heart disease for everyone should be the norm in the future so that Musk and Bezos age + die as well.
CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iuo7js3 wrote
Okay you just wanna argue about that and that wasn’t what I was talking about so have a good one.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuob9lh wrote
My point is that just because it's fiction doesn't mean you should consider it the future or even likely.
The benefits of life extension outweigh the risks.
CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iup4anb wrote
and my point, for the millionth time, is that just because it’s fiction doesn’t mean you should write it off. We’re much closer in ideology than you realize, but you just want to argue with the original commenter and instead found me.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuqgewv wrote
No, as opposed to you, I replied to the original commenter and your comment because I'm not biased.
Just because it's fiction doesn't mean shit. Not a single argument was made worth taking into consideration.
"Muh Altered Carbon!"
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuo0e3n wrote
>You’re pretty hostile.
Yeah sorry about that. Tired of this subs doomers.
sertulariae t1_iun62cf wrote
We know what side of the class war you're on. Stop trying to rationalize your way out of it. We see you.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun6gp7 wrote
What is that doomer comment supposed to mean? Is there a class war? In your head maybe?
bladerunner_35 t1_iun3pg8 wrote
Name a beneficial technology that doesn’t benefit the ultra rich exponentially?
I’ve got the polio vaccine and seat belt. Although the ultra rich drives safer cars and have better health care…
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun40fx wrote
What is the point of this comment? Do the math yourself.
Everybody ages and dies. What's more profitable, sell it only to the rich or to the masses?
Simple logic.
bladerunner_35 t1_iun4d5u wrote
Wow. I would give a lot to have your optimistic view of the world.
Surely you’ve heard of Aids or Diabetes or Malaria?
AwesomeLowlander t1_iun8bh1 wrote
> optimistic view of the world.
Only necessary if you live in the states
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun51vl wrote
Surely you've heard supply and demand. Everybody ages and dies. It'll be impossible to get re-elected if you don't make sure it's affordable or even the society to function.
I don't care about how you cope with aging and death. What you're saying makes no sense.
bladerunner_35 t1_iuo9ole wrote
The richest country in the world doesn’t have universal healthcare and the average life expectancy for the US hasn’t recovered from the decline during covid. Every other first world country have both universal healthcare and a (much) higher life expectancy.
US have one of the highest number of billionaires per capita in the world.
The simple facts are against you mate.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuoboc2 wrote
High infectious disease mortality rate is a side effect of immunosenescence, to spell it out to you, aged immune system.
Trillions of dollars are wasted every year to take care of old people.
Logic is against you mate.
bladerunner_35 t1_iuoet9s wrote
You are arguing against yourself.
First you say that everyone will benefit from a technology that increases life expectancy.
Now you say that healthcare is wasted on people based on their age.
Checkmate, mate.
Incidentally, how old are you? Just curious, don’t feel like you have to answer. It just seems as something a young person would say.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuqga57 wrote
No, I'm telling you that these therapies will pay for themselves, since we waste trillions of dollars on old people.
Any government with a brain will make sure it'll be for everyone just like the covid vaccine.
You've lost and haven't even realized it.
bladerunner_35 t1_iuqkw7o wrote
You still haven’t answered my question why you think this technology will be universally distributed when we there’s still a lot of poor people dying from hunger, lack of clean water and preventable diseases?
Why is it that diabetics, in the US no less, are dying because they cannot pay for insulin?
Surely it pays more to have them pay for insulin over a lifetime rather than price gouging?
The world isn’t rational and you are deluded.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iurazq8 wrote
>we there’s still a lot of poor people dying from hunger, lack of clean water and preventable diseases?
Because it's a different kind of problem. How many tons of food the US throws away again? Do you tell cancer researchers to stop working because there is world hunger first?
bladerunner_35 t1_ius1cb2 wrote
That is no the issue we are debating.
This technology will be researched until we have achieved immortality.
bladerunner_35 t1_ius22wv wrote
That is no the issue we are debating.
This technology will be researched until we have achieved immortality.
We are debating your silly notion that it will somehow be distributed evenly amongst rich and poor alike.
“The future has already arrived. It's just not evenly distributed yet.”
- William Gibson
Cancer is a good example. With the right healthcare several cancers can already today be prevented or removed. In many cases the resources aren’t invested to help people.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_ius9eeb wrote
>Imagine Elon or Jeff living 200+ years. You don’t have to imagine. Someone already did and wrote a book called Altered Carbon. It’s a Netflix series too. Bad news for anyone but the ultra rich.
We're debating your idiotic notion that the ultra rich will be able to get this only because muh altered carbon!
bladerunner_35 t1_iutlcjs wrote
Only because you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge my many examples of present day inequalities.
You have yet to produce a single credible argument why a life prolonging technology wouldn’t benefit the ultra rich much greater and to the detriment of everyone else.
We know it is because there are no arguments - I just want to you to continue to imply it by your stumbling sputterings.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuv8hrd wrote
>You have yet to produce a single credible argument why a life prolonging technology wouldn’t benefit the ultra rich much greater and to the detriment of everyone else.
Because it's more profitable to sell it to everyone than a few select ultra rich.
Plus aging costs us trillions every year. Your non existent argument: "muh I saw a stupid movie!! I coped really well. I like to cope!"
bladerunner_35 t1_iuv8krl wrote
Sorry bud, you already said this almost verbatim.
Try again, please.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvctix wrote
Βecause I'm responding to the same comments, essentially.
bladerunner_35 t1_iuvfe42 wrote
You’re not tho.
I’ve given you several examples of healthcare inequalities if today.
You haven’t given a single example if why this technology would be different beyond that it would be cost-effective.
I’ll ask again. Why would this be universally provided when basic medicine and healthcare isn’t provided today?
Our current economical system isn’t cost-effective beyond the red line of a single corporation. Enormous resources are wasted because of this.
Come on now mate, you’re making us both look bad. You can do better. I am sure there is a point in there somewhere if you can only form it into a coherent thought.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvglux wrote
None of these examples explain why only the ultra wealthy would get this.
It makes economic sense to fund and subsidize, just like vaccines.
>We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion. Ultimately, the more progress that is made in improving how we age, the greater the value of further improvements.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0
Gummybearsurgeon t1_iunadkw wrote
I'm reminded of a quote from Charlie Chaplins "the great dictator" speech. "The hate of men will pass, and dictators die. And the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish".
I think of this when the question of extended life comes up. Of course none of us want grandma to pass. But death has always been the great equalizer of mankind. Possibly, even it's salvation.
Edit: wanted to add youtube link for the speech https://youtu.be/J7GY1Xg6X20
ElectrikDonuts t1_iup2vix wrote
Our current and past president were born before Bill Clinton, who was also president, but 3 decades ago…. I think Biden first ran in 1988
https://twitter.com/derektmuller/status/1586081695849418753?s=42&t=cYZR5s3pyVdG6gtFh9SMeA
94746382926 t1_iupwxzx wrote
Dictators don't usually die of natural causes though. Usually assassination takes them out and this isn't going anywhere even with rejuvenation medicine.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iurba2d wrote
bladerunner_35 t1_iuo9ya8 wrote
Great point and well made. At least Putin will eventually die. Imagine the world where he just keeps going.
ShredManyGnar t1_iums795 wrote
Sweet but how do i die peacefully in my sleep before the age of 60
walter10h t1_iun2bsv wrote
Idk, but if you find the answer, pass it along, because I'd love some rest.
Desperate_Health4174 t1_iuq9c7l wrote
Sounds like some of you are premeditating murder...you will go senile and shit your pants bedridden until your last breath like good life respecting people!/s
[deleted] t1_iurnto7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iunp9w0 wrote
[removed]
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iumj4yh wrote
>It may strike many as common sense that most causes of death are what we have come to understand as “age-related”: The longer we live, the more likely we are to develop, for example, heart disease, cancer, or Alzheimer’s. Therefore, a reasonable thing one can do to prevent the development of age-related diseases, is to, well, not age. It turns out that’s actually not as flippant as it sounds. So, is that possible and how do we get there?
>
>In short, all strategies for life extension revolve around a combination of three factors, all working together to fortify health and wellness for a longer haul: 1) things you should stop doing (I have a list which I mostly ignore, you?), 2) things you should start doing (honestly part of my same list), and 3) adopting the contributions of new health and wellness technologies and scientific discoveries that are helping to curb aging. All three comprise parts of a budding ecosystem that is growing into a multibillion-dollar industry on an exponential trajectory to displace everything we have come to understand as modern medicine. If just what we know today were fully embraced and actualized, the global economy could also be transformed—and with it, a renaissance of human flourishing.
>
>And we could use it. When ranking countries for life expectancy, the United States often doesn’t make the top 50—despite having the highest healthcare costs per capita in the world, by far. In other words, maybe we’re doing it wrong.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iumjtyv wrote
>Clearly, something’s got to give. Right?
None of this is lost on the investment community, which is set to plow billions into a nascent industry that is fast approaching its inflection point. Driving that inflection is a fundamental pivot from treating symptoms—the bread and butter of the rapidly collapsing medical-industrial complex—to addressing the root causes of aging and disease. It’s a shift that is ushering in a new and immensely disruptive paradigm that some analysts envision creating a global market approaching $300B by 2030. It’s likely bigger when you add in personalized skin health and beauty—not to mention food.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iumk1yj wrote
>When the experts declare the upper limits of life expectancy, we believe it like some law of the universe. When someone dies at, say, 80, we accept that they’ve lived a good long life. We’ve become conditioned to believe it, and like so many other things connected to one’s mindset, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. “Normal” cholesterol in a society where it’s “normal” to drop dead of a heart attack really should not be considered a good thing. Right? We don’t achieve more than we expect. But if we do expect more, it must begin with an understanding of what’s really going on in the body. We are starting to do that now, thanks to the biological, cellular, and genetic ground truths established by the sciences and technologies advanced by the likes of Viome, Life BioSciences, Elysium, and many other emerging players the world will soon hear about.
tkuiper t1_iun99q9 wrote
I implore all of the naysayers to such research to watch the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant
I think it's great we can all think about the consequences of such research and how to address those problems. I don't think the problems are unsolvable or justify rejection of such research.
bladerunner_35 t1_iuoa3zd wrote
And the machine gun and nuclear bomb was the end of wars.
DiceCubed1460 t1_iun2m35 wrote
For the ULTRA RICH. You better bet your ass no normal person is gonna be able to afford this shit.
AwesomeLowlander t1_iun82tr wrote
Except those of us living outside the states.
FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iunaf7b wrote
Me thinking out technology allowing me to live longer:
‘No. I don’t think I will.’
wray_nerely t1_iuncq32 wrote
So everyone in society will undergo some sort of renewal process, probably around the age of 30. Cool cool cool
FuturologyBot t1_iumn4bc wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Responsible-Hat5816:
>It may strike many as common sense that most causes of death are what we have come to understand as “age-related”: The longer we live, the more likely we are to develop, for example, heart disease, cancer, or Alzheimer’s. Therefore, a reasonable thing one can do to prevent the development of age-related diseases, is to, well, not age. It turns out that’s actually not as flippant as it sounds. So, is that possible and how do we get there?
>
>In short, all strategies for life extension revolve around a combination of three factors, all working together to fortify health and wellness for a longer haul: 1) things you should stop doing (I have a list which I mostly ignore, you?), 2) things you should start doing (honestly part of my same list), and 3) adopting the contributions of new health and wellness technologies and scientific discoveries that are helping to curb aging. All three comprise parts of a budding ecosystem that is growing into a multibillion-dollar industry on an exponential trajectory to displace everything we have come to understand as modern medicine. If just what we know today were fully embraced and actualized, the global economy could also be transformed—and with it, a renaissance of human flourishing.
>
>And we could use it. When ranking countries for life expectancy, the United States often doesn’t make the top 50—despite having the highest healthcare costs per capita in the world, by far. In other words, maybe we’re doing it wrong.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yj9b9d/want_to_live_longer_how_life_extension_industry/iumj4yh/
[deleted] t1_iumv5br wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iumz0wy wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuna9fx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iunskfx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuop8l7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuox19b wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iup187d wrote
[removed]
36-3 t1_iuqfnax wrote
That picture is apropos. It will be health and longevity for the well-to-do not the average Joe.
highr_primate t1_iupw8uc wrote
It probably will do the opposite - people will live longer but the economy will suffer because there are more unproductive people.
We don’t really need a longer lifespan at this point.
Longer healthspan and “youthfulness”span would be more helpful to us and the economy.
Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuqg3ir wrote
Νope. By reversing aging you make them productive again.
Thenaysayer23 t1_iur10hk wrote
The problem is that keepinc the elites alive is the not helping your workforce.
novelexistence t1_iunm3zf wrote
lol
we're moments away from world wide ecological collapse.
life extension will be a pointless endeavor for 99.999999999999999999% of the population. and not accessible at all outside of the wealthy elite.
HenryHorse_ t1_iuqekbm wrote
You might want to check up on that first statement.
[deleted] t1_iuqneru wrote
[removed]
HenryHorse_ t1_iuqos18 wrote
Also; why would billions be pouring into longevity tech, only to keep it for a few..
The whole statement was a cookie cutter "I'm a butthurt doomsdayer and hate rich people"
bladerunner_35 t1_ivkp77p wrote
Who doesn’t hate/eat the ultra rich?
HenryHorse_ t1_ivkyqq1 wrote
I don't. Ultra rich are responsible for creating many of the best things on the planet.
They also pay most of the taxes... why are you angry?
bladerunner_35 t1_ivkvyvt wrote
HenryHorse_ t1_ivkzssy wrote
good. Planet can take it.
pinkfootthegoose t1_iumy4kk wrote
This life extension talk has all the hallmarks of a grift or confidence trick.
Cons succeed for inducing judgment errors—chiefly, errors arising from imperfect information and cognitive biases. In popular culture and among professional con men, the human vulnerabilities that cons exploit are depicted as 'dishonesty', 'greed', and 'gullibility' of the marks. Dishonesty, often represented by the expression 'you can't cheat an honest man', refers to the willingness of marks to participate in unlawful acts, such as rigged gambling and embezzlement. Greed, the desire to 'get something for nothing', is a shorthand expression of marks' beliefs that too-good-to-be-true gains are realistic. Gullibility reflects beliefs that marks are 'suckers' and 'fools' for entering into costly voluntary exchanges. Judicial opinions occasionally echo these sentiments.
Dandibear t1_iumrldj wrote
This feels dystopian. We know what causes lowered mortality in the US: income inequality and the associated stress, lack of healthcare, stress, inability to meet basic needs, and stress. Also stress. So now the same people who could fix this and improve everyone's else's lifespans are instead trying to make their own pampered lives even longer?