Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix.

Submitted by Desperate_Food7354 t3_107agjz in singularity

We evolved to heal in a way in which is very quick, in the wild if you got a cut and didn’t heal it quickly you would die of infection, so scar tissue developed as a way of a quick fix while having limited ability and function, if we lived forever these scars over time would become a problem and kill us over many millennia but we were never expected to live long enough for that to matter, scar tissue in the heart and lungs today are considered a disease for instance fibromyalgia and we attempt to treat that yet the scar tissue is a natural process. We evolved to age as we weren’t expected to live long enough in the wild for it to matter, so it would of been a waste of resources and energy to care about such atomic damages.

62

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

apart112358 t1_j3lbdg6 wrote

Yes, aging is finally being recognized as a disease.

People will continue to die.

Diseases, accidents, violence and many things will still kill people. But it doesn't just happen anymore .So everyone can decide for themselves* whether they want to live longer.

*For me it's okay if you want to continue living or if you want to die.

Only one thing isn't ok: If you try to dictate it to others. No life- or deathsharia.

Nobody has to live, nobody has to die, the choice is yours.

37

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3ld248 wrote

I like your reasoning here!

I tried arguing about the declaration of aging as a disease with my private circle. EVERY single person said they are against immortality and EVERY single one said the reason for that was that „life would become boring at some point when one is immortal“.

How do people even know that? None of them has tried it out.

I am very sure that I will have possibilities to learn new abilities and do new research forever if I had the chance. The universe is so big and fascinating…

Yet even my close friends, very rebellious and humanist people I hand-picked personally, making sure no feudalist or regressionist mindset would be allowed around me, would vote against declaring death and ageing as disease. No matter if they harm OTHERS, like you and me, by that.

10

Ortus14 t1_j3lhmuv wrote

Those people are forgetting that our brain naturally forgets things. So a million years from now you can re-watch a show you already saw and still be entertained. Hell, a million years from now you could date the same man/woman and you'll both have completely forgotten and think you're dating for the first time.

We could augment our brain so it doesn't forget as much but that would be a choice, and for those who don't want to get bored, forgetting is wonderous.

On the other point, it doesn't matter what your friends think, the world health organization and other organizations who's opinions allow anti-aging funding, have classified aging as a disease.

11

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3lp5rv wrote

Thank you! Yes, forgetting is important for us even to learn properly! Very good argument.

3

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ldiwh wrote

It’s cognitive dissonance, understand their perspective from a neurological perspective. In the presence of a threat to our own lives we have 3 responses: Fight, Flight, or Freeze. If we cannot fight death we try to run away from it, if we cannot run away from it we freeze and accept it. Their limbic systems see death as a threat that they cannot fight or run away from so they activate the freeze response in which the cortex or logical part of their brains rationalize it in a way in which they can accept it. However if the cure for aging was in front of them I almost guarantee all of them would take it in an instant.

8

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3lp2fs wrote

Thank you! Your explanation helps. Despite psychology being my trade, I have sadly close to no inborn “natural” empathy. What you said makes a lot of sense.

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3o3jzp wrote

That's cringe. Some people don't wanna live forever, no need for all the psycho babble nonsense with no actual meaning or thought within it past your shallow consideration of you think sounds sexy to spout. Ugh imagine saying not wanting to live forever is because of a freeze response to existential dread of death. Perhaps it is, but the way you say it with such certainty is so cringe, giving psycho analysis onto people you don't know. You're certainly not as smart as you think you might be to give such my friend. Lol

−5

rushmc1 t1_j3nw3c3 wrote

The lack of imagination many people have is staggering. All they can conceive of is their current life, forever.

2

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3oashi wrote

Very true. The sad thing is that they often try to force others to give up hope and creativity too (luckily here my friends in real life don’t make this mistake). The modern approach to society propagated by mainstream solidifies this and helps the victims to stay victims while they think they are winning… Thank you 🙏

2

Icy-FROG t1_j3o3q7z wrote

Well yes human existence and experience doesn't give much towards imagination of things past our scope. I doubt you're all that imaginative yourself.

−3

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3oadv9 wrote

I have seen you post here twice, so I decided the topic must be important for you (hence making you one of those with a chance of using their inferior meat machines in their skulls). Then I tried to feel some pity for you, was somewhat successful and looked into your other posts.

Have seen you like Warhammer 40k. Is it a source of inspiration for your imagination?

If yes, I suggest “Gaunt’s Ghosts” series if you haven’t read it already. It could give you back some hope in humanity and help you overcome your depression and anger issues.

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3pvj99 wrote

My god the way you speak is so cringe. You clearly have a bit of intelligence, but play into it so much so as to sound so much smarter. "Hence making you one of those with a chance of using their inferior meat machines in their skulls", absolute cringe.

And no i possess no anger issues nor depression in regards to you nor anyother. I only cringe at the elevated sense of self many who frequent this sub seem to have.

I believe in humanity just as much as i am disgusted by it. I believe in my self just as i am also disgusted by my self, life isn't a line of single mono emotional states or perspectives. I cringe and i laugh. Hohoho

0

Icy-FROG t1_j3o2x0f wrote

Cringe. You not your friends. "Very rebellious and humanist people i hand picked personally, making sure no feudalist or regressionist mindset would be allowed around me" So what now buddy, your beautiful friends don't agree with you, what now, gonna whine about it and find others that will agree with you to have new friends? The way you talk about your friends is cringe.

−1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3o95oa wrote

The philosophy of “cringe” is what allows them to brainwash you. But since you spend your time cringing, you probably don’t have time to realise it. Here some popular science that can help you get rid of your fears:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-scientific-underpinnings-and-impacts-of-shame/

My friends are allowed to disagree with me and know how I think of them and their ideas, I am very into open discussion.

Doesn’t seem that you give your friends the same chance. Try reading up on the philosophy of shame, on discourse and on the way those in power keep you leashed. Michel Foucault is a philosopher I would advise you to read but you are probably still in high school (“cringe” being kid speak of today) so it might be a bit too difficult. But here is an easy start:

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/shaming-culture-as-neoliberal-governmentality/

I don’t hate you, just in case you wonder. If I cared about you personally and had more emotions (and f^cks) to spare, I would feel pity, I guess. But I don’t want other young people to be influenced by your destructive way of thought and it’s for them that I post this information.

Have a good day, little one.

P.S. Praise the Omnissiah.

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3pvvpz wrote

Looooooool. All my meager meat computer can allow me to do is cringe in this case. Absolute cringe. Hohohohoho

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3q7gy7 wrote

I have done everything I was able to help you. If you are still mistaking my attempts to reach out to you and help as „an elevation of self“, you could as well try talking to a mirror instead of being on Reddit. Using it as an echo chamber is a waste of time. But oh well - I hope you read up on Foucault to free yourself from what the rich have done to you. Good luck with your cute trolling 😁 (and thank you for being very amusing! „Hohoho“ is hella cute 🎅)

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3vkx3z wrote

Nope no trolling just saying what i see. Don't know who these "rich" are but they Better have my money. Glad you appreciate the laugh. Good day, sir.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j3p4duk wrote

Pretty sure longevity would be incredibly expensive, causing only the hyper rich to get it. Why do people think this will be given for free? The peasants will die and the rich will live 1000 years laughing at us. It would be the most intense oppression. Im glad people die. Imagine Putin, Stalin, hitler, or any other oppressive person living forever. Oh also I’m a Christian and believe there is an after life.

I think they should push for the research, I love advancement. But if it ever did happen, it definitely wouldn’t be handed out, nor could you buy it at your local drug store. There wouldn’t be a financial incentive to sell it, they have a better chance of gain hoarding it for themselves

−1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3p9jv9 wrote

I think at some point it will be profitable to have people not going into pension and continue contributing for longer. Also Big Pharma will want to sell longevity to many people instead of a chosen few and hence the interests of super rich might conflict at this point.

You do have a point of course. I suspect longevity will be sold to the rich at first, just like it already is (there is age-fighting technology available to some part already, as well as better medical care than the usual human gets, but it’s not this big a difference yet). It will be a long process for it to be distributed somewhat more evenly, especially if we want the change to be global (many „first world country“ citizens living on welfare are already the super rich globally, I mean they HAVE welfare in the first place).

Not being Christian (Asatru is my way), I still accept the idea of afterlife, even of possible reincarnation. But I would prefer to learn and contribute more before I die, and if I could I would want to continue learning and contributing forever. Isn’t that what Christians are actually promised for good deeds and being believers in Christ, the immortal and happy life of mutual benevolence and love after the arrival of Judgement day? Maybe this very day is not far away now, just in a different, less metaphysical way?

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j3y120u wrote

With humans there will always be problems. Greater technology has never made evil go away, no reason to believe it will in the future. Also, christianity isnt about good deeds, at least not my version. Good deeds are a side effect of accepting jesus as your savior and following him. Living longer to commit more good deeds does not increase your chanses of heaven.

Contributing longer wouldnt matter, people are replaced by their children. No incentive to keep people alive. Reproducing populations are much easier to control as well. Think about how the public thinking has changed in just 10 years. This is 90% only with young people. If the founding fathers were still alive do you think there would be gun control, communistic ideas, transgenderism or any of the ideas gaining ground?

If I am a mega rich person, wanting control over the nation, giving me eternal life and everyone else limited lives would be the way to go.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3y8x51 wrote

Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

sigh You might have misunderstood your Saviour. It’s exactly about the deeds and not about following him as a ruler blindly.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j46nnyo wrote

What you just quoted me is about doing exactly what he says, it doesn't say anything about doing good deeds. Doing exactly as someone says and calling them lord is following them blindly. Which as Christians we are supposed to do. Walk by faith not by sight

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j476fvb wrote

Do you read the Scripture? 🤨 Because Christ outlines pretty well what exactly humans should do. I mean, I am not Christian myself but I like the Bible, especially the New Testament, and actually read it. It’s a good behavioral code.

What you say shines kinda a bad light on Christianity.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j4eveu7 wrote

My point is not everyone who does good deeds is saved. You must accept jesus as your lord and savior and good deeds follow. If good deeds dont follow then you havent committed yourself. Thats why the bible calls them fruits. They are not the tree, or the foundation. Jesus is. Regardless, It's good that you use the bible as a sort of code, i think its fantastic. But your missing out on the depth of what it truly is about.

I disagree, service of a greater good and moving the outlook away from self is exactly what everyone needs. Even if Jesus was some santa figure, it would still be preferable to the humanist view and trying to be good for the sake of doing good things. As the bible also says, if you build your house on sand then when a storm comes it wont last. Your good deeds do nothing when things really hit the fan.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j4fajv3 wrote

>If good deeds dont follow then you havent committed yourself.

If you rephrase it like that it’s much better. In this case I would see you as having understood his teachings.

My point was not that you don’t need to believe in him as a Christian, but that merely believing but not doing what he says considering good deeds is not what he expects of his followers.

I am relieved to see that you were not trolling to give the Christians a bad image. Like I said, I have a different religion but I like Christians and their cool Son of God and don’t want anyone to shine a bad light on them.

Thank you for discussing it with me 👍🏻

Edit: to the „I disagree“ part of your post - what are you disagreeing with here? I don’t quite understand it. Probably with the Bible being „only“ a behavioral code? Well for Christians of course it is more! 😉

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j4h6h4y wrote

Maybe I phrased it weird at first, but I appreciate that.

And I disagreed to the part that it was shining a bad light on Christians, but we've got that cleared up now.

Happy new year! If its not too late to say that lol

2

PhysicalChange100 t1_j3ln2xc wrote

Agreed, I'm pro immortalist technology and pro euthanasia.

I don't want a government that forces someone to live forever and I also don't want want a government that forces someone to die at a certain age.

4

apart112358 t1_j3lvl3h wrote

If you take the term euthanasia in its original meaning: a "good death," "nice death," or "good dying" from the point of view of the dying person and their loved ones, then that's okay for me.

Should someone want the treatment (even if only in old age) I would never refuse it. For me it would be like refusing a cancer therapy to a prisoner. For me, that would be unethical.

And yeah, no gov or a person or a ngo should force someone to take the treatment.

If we fight the disease via cell regeneration, it could be that our cells will eventually start to get sick again and treatment will be needed on an ongoing basis. This would mean that one can decide again and again.

1

The_Real_RM t1_j3lw58t wrote

I mean I doubt they'll kill you when your number is up, the insurance policy will simply not renew your immortality prescription once it surpassed a certain cost... depending on what policy you decide to buy...

1

SoylentRox t1_j3p4pzb wrote

>pro euthanasia

If you had a treatment for aging, most physical diseases and effective treatments for most psychiatric conditions, how can you allow euthanasia?

Any problem a person has - whether they feel they don't want to live anymore, or have a currently incurable condition - can be fixed. Maybe not now but since there's no aging they can wait however long it will take for a cure. And if they feel they don't want to live any more, you can connect up nanowires to deep inside their brain and or sensors, and there is probably a problem you will be able to detect with this level of technology.

Do you then just kill them, knowing their impulse to die is coming from broken circuitry in your brain you can fix? (or again, wait for a future cure).

Do you not even do the testing and just accept their wish to die without inserting the probes? You know there is probably a problem with their brain.

0

PhysicalChange100 t1_j3q1lvw wrote

Or maybe people are just different than you.

Doesn't mean there's something wrong with the CirCuitRy in their brain.

People have different desires and different perspectives, and philosophies in life. And they should have the freedom to pursue those things without an authoritarian telling them what to do.

3

SoylentRox t1_j3q1rto wrote

I am saying we keep em alive until we can check first. If there is nothing wrong with their brain sure, suicide away.

1

SoylentRox t1_j3p47dh wrote

>Only one thing isn't ok: If you try to dictate it to others. No life- or deathsharia.

Umm I'm sorry but it's stronger than that. If you run a country that prohibits your citizens from accessing aging medication, launching a lighting strike that slaughters your entire government - and any survivors we're going to hold a trial and execute for mass murder - is a perfectly reasonable moral tradeoff. It's perfectly fine to murder 100k people to save millions.

Once you have a treatment, every person with white hair we'll see like we saw concentration camp victims.

1

StringNut t1_j3mkede wrote

You want your body to continue to evolve as it exists, rather than having to generate an entirely new human each time you want innovation.

The change you want is a change of reproductive function of the species.

5

jdmcnair t1_j3lwmxj wrote

The word disease, in the most literal way, just means dis-ease. So, like anything that constitutes a lack of ease, which could subjectively be a lot of things. So if aging is a dis-ease to you, you're welcome to call it that.

However, I think there are still great arguments to be made that it's just proper biological function. It's very important for the propagation of genes that we have our time on Earth and then get out of the way of our progeny. And, to your point, yes, that could change over time, but it just hasn't yet. Extreme life extension before we have a population-based framework for dealing with it would itself be a major social dis-ease. So the time may come when we can consider aging a proper disease, but I don't think we're there yet.

3

Sea-Cake7470 t1_j3m3vdh wrote

What if reproduction cease to exist...i mean is it important...??? Well yes in the present limitation of death and so that the species continues to live...but what if this limitation of death is solved ?? Do we still require reproduction??? I guess not....

1

Hotchillipeppa t1_j3pxcep wrote

If a rule was you had to be sterilized to receive anti aging treatment that would be a price I would pay.

2

jdmcnair t1_j3myp5m wrote

Right. Like I'm saying, things can and probably will change, but as of the current state of things I don't think it's a disease; it's a necessity.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3msf2m wrote

Sexual Reproduction was only necessary for evolution as a changing environment called for having variable offspring, but if the environment never changed we would duplicate instead. We are no longer under natural selection.

1

jdmcnair t1_j3mz8kx wrote

Sure. But we'll need to somehow restrict reproduction to be able to say that it's socially viable to live for a longer lifespan, lest we face uncontrollable population explosion.

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3n8um7 wrote

That doesn’t necessarily seem like a problem of extreme difficulty, especially with the advent of AGI

2

Plus-Recording-8370 t1_j3oqiya wrote

Sounds like the appeal to nature fallacy.

3

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3or1qv wrote

Appears to be the opposite to me, inciting the nature fallacy as hypocritical pick and choose.

1

Plus-Recording-8370 t1_j3ovhm8 wrote

Well, at the end i see it as surrendering to the natural ways because 'natural = good and the way it should be'. And i disagree with that view. Although im not sure if that's what you think here so i dont want to put words in your mouth.

But aside of that, it's not the full picture that you're stating here. We are still evolving, and there's no reason why we can not evolve to become immortals naturally. There are plenty of existing mechanisms to exploit that could help us get older and older. All that's needed is some natural selection and a culture of keeping having babies up to your latest years to spread the genes.

So if 100000 years from now. A naturally evolved humanity that can reach ages far over 5000 years old looks back to our times. You know there's no way they'd think our short lives were the way it was actually meant to be. Just like we aren't romanticizing smaller brains and shorter lifespans.

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3p810l wrote

No. I am saying that natural does not = good, i’m saying it’s hypocritical to call some natural conditions diseases and others not, per us saying the natural healing process of scars in our hearts being a disease yet the natural process of aging not being a disease. Anyways, I think it essentially impossible to evolve for biological immortality as the mechanisms are so primal you’d essentially have to go back into the ocean and evolve again, not just from a mammal or reptile standpoint.

1

Plus-Recording-8370 t1_j3uu8ic wrote

Ok, i see your point and i agree. It's clearly different from actual disease that are destroying the proper function of our body. it's more of an unwanted by product of evolution. But i wouldn't be surprised that one day we will still call something like,say, a low IQ, a neurological disease. Who knows.

Regarding evolving immortality: I do think that even with our imperfect baggage, there's still a lot of ways for us to optimize by tinkering with what we have.

1

SFTExP t1_j3o32x7 wrote

How would society restructure to compensate for an outgrowth of NIMBYs, trust funds, and entitled behavior?

1

onyxengine t1_j3pbq7i wrote

I don’t think its a disease, I think its a preconfigured setting for the replacement of individual members of a species. Women grow brand new organisms with clock set to zero all the time, it seems if we knew what we were doing we could induce phases that rejuvenated the individual indefinitely.

1

sheerun t1_j3ph60p wrote

Death in nature originally served as a way to remove individuals from a population who are not able to successfully reproduce or contribute to the survival of their species. It would be nice if humans jumped over this evolutionary legacy, and offloaded evolution to organization level, instead of human level. Some would say it would be a way to accumulate wealth for these who use such therapies, buy we have the same issue with people inheriting and multiplying wealth of their parents. No death would change a little in the matter of wealth accumulation: no death = no inheritance. Overpopulation at worst can be controlled by law, but honestly when time comes we figure out how to not die, we'll hopefully also be in need of populating other planets. e.g. we could incentivize inter-planetary migrations to colonies on Europa (Moon of Jupiter) or Mars. Actually Earth-bored 200-old hyper-rich will be probably willing to go just for fun, while young low class will go for money, adventure, quick colonization. With possibility to go back of course ;) Also from what I know prolonging life is the best we can count on, as death is due to accumulation of "mistakes" our bodies make, so fixing them all will take like 1000 years even for AI. In conclusion I would not count on living forever, but I can easily imagine currently living humans to live extremely long, like 300 years.

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3po4tx wrote

“1000 years for even an ai” little peeve there but that is a completely random number, for all you know it could take 1 week after reaching human level intellect as 6 days after it could be super intelligence and could solve problems in seconds, but even that is a theory, i’m just saying a 1000 years seems extremely doable without even using agi.

1

sheerun t1_j3pqtqz wrote

Most likely research pace will be limited by rather long human lifespan and number of "test subjects". Also ethical issues and law will stand in way

1

Shamwowz21 t1_j3t3bqy wrote

Passage of time doesn’t = disease. Aging = disease, because aging is the replication of cells that do not copy themselves perfectly. Any example of ailment due to aging is simply a symptom of said disease. ‘Natural process’ is no excuse not to intervene. Everything that ever happened, ever, is a natural process.

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3t3sdu wrote

We are not talking about chronological aging but biological aging, I don’t even know how it’s possible for you to get the two mixed up in the context of the conservation, it’s not like we are trying to prevent time from passing in the universe? lmao. Biological aging can be measured with dna methylation.

1

Shamwowz21 t1_j3u2aeu wrote

I have no clue where you got that from, as I’m also arguing there are other ways to measure aging other than the passage of time (damage to cells, senescent cells, toxic byproducts, etc.). The very process of this is aging, and the damage is a symptom of said disease. You can experience 500 years without ‘aging’ as one can simply become older, without proof of change in their body (damage i.e aging) due to tech preventing it, and restoring all marks of aging (scarification).

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3u2j87 wrote

I literally just told you, biological aging…

1

Shamwowz21 t1_j3u43by wrote

I don’t believe you read what I wrote, because I am speaking of biological aging.

1

footurist t1_j3mq6hi wrote

To the people here arguing with personal contacts about this I suggest carefulness.

The reason many people ( especially older ) argue with things like "boring" or "necessary" might be of protective nature. They might have constructed a well working coping mechanism, in which case good arguments for aging being solved eventually might hurt them!

So if you don't know that person is especially equanimous it'd be well advised to think hard before going down that route...

As for aging as a disease, I don't think disease fits the bill exactly here.

If you think about what some things we call disease do in the body, which is mainly carrying out processes that aren't intended in a normal "biological machine" ( as per normal version of genetics or normal state of functioning ) , then aging is different. It's more like the wear and tear of a car, where you can restore original functionality through maintenance or through changing the car in a way that doesn't cause wear and tear. So it's more like taking care of or lifting respectively fundamental limitations.

Fixable, yes, disease, no, I'd say.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3mtkw8 wrote

If it was never labeled as a disease nobody dare fix it, but then again neither is scar tissue, if we are going to call natural processes that eventually lead to our death not a “disease” then we shouldn’t be selective on which one’s. Leave scar tissue in the heart and lungs alone, it’s natural.

3

footurist t1_j3nc2l5 wrote

This notion is similar to Richard Dawkins intentionally being an atheist despite acknowledging that agnosticism is actually closer to the truth for utilitarian reasons.

I take issue with this general approach, since I think it would be better to work on the root cause ( nobody taking action if it's not wrongfully called a disease ), but in this case I'm way more willing to let that imperfection go than in Dawkins's case.

2

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_j3o5ts3 wrote

Wouldn't it make sense to simply call it entropy? I mean, we fight entropy every day, so it makes sense to fight the entropy of our body. Doesn't have to be a disease, which is an abnormal condition.

Entropy is quite normal, but that doesn't mean you have to do nothing about it.

Now, a big part of the anti aging fight will be about fighting diseases that increasingly occur with age and degradation

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3oa21b wrote

Life only exists because it goes against entropy. Yes aging is a form of entropy that our body doesn’t fight against because it’s a waste of energy to do in the wild when you’re just going to die of infection or predation anyways. Calling aging not a disease because it’s entropy is like saying autophagy of the brain isn’t a disease either because destruction of your memory and functionality is just entropy. All diseases are entropy when you have that frame of reference are they not? A heart not working, lungs, all just going against natural function, so call it entropy and not disease, labeling it as a disease is the only way we get the FDA to approve of treatments for it.

2

TheTomatoBoy9 t1_j3ob6tu wrote

Mmh, not sure I agree. A cancer that grows due to the increase of cancerous cells isn't them degrading. The diseases may cause entropy, but are they really entropy themselves?

When you fight a disease, you aren't just fighting the symptoms and the degradation of your body. You are fighting what went haywire.

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3oc8mj wrote

Cancer and Aging are very similar. Degradation of function and aging are the same thing, what is cancer? Degradation of proper function, aging is measured by more methyl groups being present on the epigenome, what does this mean? It means that some proteins cannot be transcribed, which in turn mess with the function of cells, for instance: aging (more methyl groups) turning off a protein that inhibits cellular replication therefore resulting in -> cancer.

1

a4mula t1_j3l9z1h wrote

But aging isn't a disease. It's just the passage of time. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you'd like to argue that telomere shortening is a disease, I could probably get behind that. Or whatever the actual mechanism that directly leads to age related disease.

But it's not age.

It's age related. Otherwise, you end up fighting a lot of symptoms while never getting at the root of it.

−10

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3la28v wrote

Lol, obviously I am referring to the process of aging and not the passage of time, did you even read the part about atomic damage?

14

a4mula t1_j3la67q wrote

That's what aging is. Aging is not a disease. It's a passage of time.

That's entirely different than internal systems that are degrading because of time.

Otherwise, a perfectly healthy 80-year-old would be considered diseased just because of their age.

Flaw in logic much?

−10

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3labyv wrote

Mental gymnastics much? Do you want me to name every biological process that increases our mortality and risk for other diseases due to the subset of issues as a result of the biological mechanisms behind the subset disease of ‘aging’ for you to understand what I am talking about without going into cognitive dissonance? Scarring isn’t just a single mechanism either, must mean scarring is just an attempt at healing the body with no underlying mechanism with that logic.

9

a4mula t1_j3lap01 wrote

It's not mental gymastics. There's clearly a difference between disease and the symptoms of disease and you're classically confusing the two.

But good luck with that. I'm sure it'll help you to come up with an appropriate solution. I hear they're looking for more Alzheimer's researchers. Sounds like you'd fit right in. Maybe you can milk it for a few more decades. Hell, it's tenure, steady white papers and hella funding. Doesn't have nearly the distaste of chasing the fountain of youth.

−10

GayHitIer t1_j3lbjjn wrote

I never get you people, always bashing people for being optimistic about something in our lifetime, the whole natural argument is pure bs, what natural things do we humans do today? Wearing clothes, glasses and going around with smartphones and wide access to the web.

You disregard people because you think it's impossible, which again is a stupid argument.

People said we would never achieve flying and look at us now..

9

a4mula t1_j3lbu5j wrote

It's not that. It's that you have a flawed approach and you're not going to be of service to anyone, let alone me, with it.

You're chasing something we already know the answer quite firmly to.

What causes aging? Time.

That's a different question than what causes age-related deterioration.

Get your perspective right and maybe you'll make progress, which I'd gladly welcome.

But you've been led to believe that we can look at symptoms and somehow magically assess the disease from that. You can't.

Learn the lessons of cancer researchers that the Alzheimer's researchers still have either not gotten, or intentionally ignore.

It's your choice. If you want to waste the next 30 years of your life, you're free to. Doesn't cost me a dime.

You're not going to cure aging. That's the dumbest fucking concept you could have.

You might cure age-related disease. But not if you keep confusing it for its symptoms.

−2

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lcdzi wrote

DNA methylation is on of the hall-markers of measuring biological aging. We are not talking about chronological aging. A 100,000 year old could theoretically have the DNA methylation of a 20 year old which would include many other health characteristics of a 20 year old versus the average biologically aged 80 year old.

4

a4mula t1_j3ld8gr wrote

Sounds like you've cured aging. Oh... that's right. People still dropping dead. Hmm. Funny, I don't recall anyone ever really dying of age.

−2

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ldmry wrote

What. I said we have a way to measure it.

6

a4mula t1_j3ldzc5 wrote

Wonderful. So that's led to the discovery of the mechanism that triggers age-related disease?

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3le7xe wrote

DNA methylation produces senescent cells in which forget their role, the epigenome is tagged with new methyl groups that causes DNA transcription in the wrong places which leads to a lot of the damage we see in aging, I am not an expert in this field but I am only here to argue the hypocrisy we have towards other natural processes that kill us and not the one we don’t currently have a solution for and affects everyone.

2

a4mula t1_j3lexln wrote

Aging does not kill us. It's never killed anyone. Ever. Not once. In our entire history, not just ours. Of all living creatures. Ever.

Nothing has ever died from aging. Contrary to lazy doctors that have no problems at all writing it on death certificates.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lf5lk wrote

Right, and nobody has died of being shot in the head by a bullet, it was merely the loss of blood and brain tissue that causes the death.

3

a4mula t1_j3lf8a5 wrote

At least in that example you have a clear cause.

What's the clear cause with aging again? Get back to me. I'll wait.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lfjh8 wrote

If aging is a slow bullet then the loss of proper tissue function and role, exponential free radical damage, build up of protein in the wrong places, cellular degradation, probably some more I’m missing.

2

a4mula t1_j3lfwgq wrote

Tell me please. What is Alzheimer's? I know it's a disease. Is it a virus? Is it an infection?

Surely this is an easy answer right. We've been searching for a cure with billions in funding for at least as long as I've been alive, and that's no short time.

Easy questions, easy answers, right?

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lg60h wrote

I’m not a biological text book, like I said I am here to argue about the hypocrisy of my original post. Everything is a cause and effect relationship so the protein buildup likely comes from some cell expressing some protein somewhere it shouldn’t be, go look it up.

2

a4mula t1_j3lgb0w wrote

I don't have to look it up. I rarely ask questions I don't already know the answers to.

Here's the answer.

Nobody fucking knows. Not a clue. So how are we searching for a cure, when we don't even know what the fucking disease is?

We attack the symptoms that's how.

Because that's sustainable.

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lgff6 wrote

Well it’s a good thing this is a singularity sub, we as humans are limited in our intelligence, silicon isn’t, our premise appears to be that AGI will solve the problems much quicker than we can. Also asking questions is the point of learning something new, if not it isn’t a question.

3

a4mula t1_j3lgt5q wrote

I really hate not responding. I do. And I suspect this even counts. But I'm just going to fucking ignore your comment. I hope you don't mind. It's not going to go well for either of us if we continue down this line, and I'd like it if we could at least part friends. I'm an asshole, but it's not for the sake of such. It's because it's really fucking tough to gently walk people through how they have their thoughts fucked up.

But this is another one. Because machines, they aren't intelligent, they behave intelligently, on their good days.

I would have thought that by now most in this sub would have spent enough time with ChatGPT to have that shit hammered into them pretty deep.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lh5ch wrote

The laws of physics allows us to exist, the smartest of us are the known minimum of intelligence that can exist, combining those two it can be hypothesized that we can create intelligence, given the nature of our biology we cannot simply add more brain, but we can add more computer to a computer. Even without adding more computer or more intelligence, an isaac newton in a computer would run 300,000x faster than his human self and have access to the entire internet. 300,000x figure coming from speed of light vs axon btw. If you don’t want to respond, farewell.

3

a4mula t1_j3lhicc wrote

Sure. Define that word you're using so loosely. Intelligence. Where does it come from?

Dunno? Guess what. It's another one that nobody fucking does. There's zero evidence that we generate it.

If we don't?

What then?

That's right, you wasted 30 fucking years because you were too fucking stupid to define the words you're using.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lhpwp wrote

Whatever intelligence is, the laws of physics allow for it, meaning it can be replicated.

2

a4mula t1_j3li21y wrote

Yeah? Where's your evidence for that?

Is your consciousness allowed by the laws of physics too? What about Qualia? What about subjective experience in general?

Just show me the evidence bro, and I'll jump full steam ahead.

Don't dig too hard. Hell I'll help you out.

https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/#:~:text=The%20hard%20problem%20of%20consciousness%20is%20the%20problem%20of%20explaining,directly%20appear%20to%20the%20subject.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lit1b wrote

I could have a kid, is that not me creating intelligence? Consciousness is a completely subjective experience, we can make definitions of what it means to be conscious but a chat bot could pull off being conscious to you if it gave the right answers, IRL you could talk to me and It would be impossible to know if there is a self aware ‘conscious’ thinker within your head as I am not inside of it, all I’ll ever know is what is inside of my own head so it’s extremely subjective and so I don’t really think it matters all that much as long as whatever we create produces results.

2

a4mula t1_j3lj6iu wrote

You could have a kid. Certainly. I'd even agree that you'd be creating a physical body that comes fully equipped with a brain.

But you're clearly not creating intelligence. Intelligence isn't a brain. It's not a body. It's the interactions of those things with information.

I can make a CPU, doesn't mean I can play favorite video game on it.

And that's just a simple analogy. After all, intelligence isn't software or a motherboard or memory or a psu either.

It's not even the video game itself. Because those are all simple concepts. Very simple concepts next to what we're talking about.

Again, Just define that word Intelligence for me. It should be easy. Fuck we've all said the word a million times. Surely we know what it is. Right?

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ljglu wrote

Defining intelligence to me is like defining consciousness to me and then trying to prove to me you’re conscious. As long as it produces results.

2

a4mula t1_j3ljt2h wrote

lol The Shut Up and Calculate method of AI. Sure. I like it. The difference is that the Copenhagen Interpretation produced results.

Funny how the concept of consciousness as a function of informational complexity has yet to.

0

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3othzr wrote

I think you are not an asshole at all, you just seem unhappy and a tad impolite. You probably lead a life in non-Reddit reality where you need to be polite all the time and are fed up. But OP is really not your enemy.

Stay safe. Btw I don’t hate you.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3osx2k wrote

It’s a disease with mutlifactorial causes. There are many diseases out there that don’t have just ONE cause.

A good and pretty common example being cardiovascular conditions which have genetic, lifestyle and traumatic factors among others contributing to their manifestation.

If you want to work on a better definition of a disease like Alzheimer’s, join these guys who are working on the definitions of this disease:

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/xwcq-7092/download

Or try and go into research of its treatment. But bashing OP for their quite knowledgeable approach isn’t polite. And shines bad light on you.

1

sumane12 t1_j3lfboz wrote

People don't die or get sick from ageing, they die and get sick from age related diseases.

A 2 year old can die from the same thing as a 90 year old, its just extremely unlikely due to their ability to recover.

The cell degradation that occurs in the elderly, happens in young people at a much slower rate, it just increases over time to the point that you are exponentially more likely to die from something you previously would have recovered from.

Ageing CAN be cured, we literally copy our cells into our children, we just need to figure out the process into ourselves. It might be impossible today, but eventually it won't be

3

a4mula t1_j3lffeb wrote

Finally, someone I can upvote. Ty good sir or good ma'am. I'm sorry for all of the mental gymnastics it took to get here, but at least someone finally had a light come on.

Edit. I lied. I didn't read all the way through lol.

Aging will never be cured. Age-related disease can be cured. I know these things are subtle. They're tough. But it's important, otherwise you're going to keep looking for ways to cure something that isn't a disease and is incapable of being cured. You were so close though. Still. High Five.

2

sumane12 t1_j3llkxu wrote

>Aging will never be cured.

The fact that you made this statement, just shows how little you understand the subject.

Apart from the fact that you made a blanket statement ignoring all the progress that has been made, in every area over the years where people have asserted something 'cannot be done', you also don't define your argument.

A good way to define your statement would be "it's impossible to avoid metabolic cellular damage within an active agent " this is a true statement because if not, it violates Newton's third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The question is not whether we can cure aging, it's about whether we can slow cellular degradation to the point that a repair can be done. We know this is possible as I mentioned earlier, we can pass on our genetic information at any age and we still get a newborn.

3

a4mula t1_j3llw4l wrote

>The fact that you made this statement, just shows how little you understand the subject.

I stopped there. Nothing you can say after this has merit.

Let me ask you a question.

Can you cure puberty?

Perhaps you say, but why in the fuck would you ever want to?

Now, you're getting it.

That's right. Puberty is a natural process that allows children to develop into adults.

But hey Mr. Smarty Pants? Isn't that also a product of aging?

So when the fuck are you going to cure it?

edit:

Fuck, that logic shit is a bitch. When are you going to understand? Aging in a natural process we must all go through. There is nothing to cure. It's not a disease.

Stop trying to cure aging you dumb fuck and instead focus on the natural biological systems that are triggered by it. Just like puberty is. Just don't cure that one.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3m4l8h wrote

Puberty doesn’t cause death, aging does. That’s why it’s called a disease. You’re not very fast are you.

3

a4mula t1_j3sby36 wrote

Fast? No, I'm a human. I take it you've not lifted those knuckles too far as one?

Tell me. You know anyone that has died from aging?

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3se15s wrote

Plenty

1

a4mula t1_j3sfa17 wrote

Do tell. This will be a story for the ages. Call the press first. Notify the world. Because you're about to tell a story that's never happened in the history of life before.

Nothing dies from aging. Things die because the natural processes that allow them to age stop functioning.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sgcff wrote

Aging allows such vulnerability to take place. A person getting stabbed and you’re so adamant in removing the knife as opposed to the murderer. Aging is not like puberty, puberty is by design and aging is part of nature’s limitation. Playing the semantic game as opposed to looking at the functional relation between objects is just stupid. Whether we categorize it as a disease or not is not important, the fact remains that people are better off without it and it’s the shortest and the most straightforward solution to longevity. You’re not very bright are you.

1

a4mula t1_j3sgtw5 wrote

Aging also allows for us to exist.

You cannot exist without aging.

It's not the problem.

The problem is that there are biological (and mechanical, teeth, broken bones, a fucking safe landing on your head) processes that tend to be activated as we age.

Solve those.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sh5jl wrote

> Aging also allows for us to exist.

Wrong

> You cannot exist without aging.

Wrong

> It's not the problem.

And wrong, nice try.

1

a4mula t1_j3shs1x wrote

At this point, I'm just going to ignore you. I'm tempted to block you as a user entirely. I've never done that in my entire history here, hell I'd have to look it up, and I'm fucking lazy. But I'm tempted to.

Because you show more willful ignorance than any human I've ever interacted with on this site, and that number has to be at least in the tens of thousands at this point. Maybe more.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sm248 wrote

Sure, I’M the one who’s willfully ignorant. Keep on living in your own bubble buddy, clearly no one agrees with you.

0

a4mula t1_j3smfw7 wrote

It's not that, you were just too quick to find the first thread you could tug on.

Your laziness and unwillingness to think for yourself got the right one though.

Because with my threads come logic, rational, and someone that can not only outthink you by large margins but has the word skills to made it obvious to all.

You can keep tugging, or maybe you should read a little more and find out just what the fuck it is I'm saying, why I'm saying it, and what happens to others if they don't take the easy route to it.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3stfka wrote

Here r/iamverysmart go back where you came from. You can throw some of your brainless pseudo-intellectual argument over there instead.

1

a4mula t1_j3stotx wrote

lol. Look around friend. This aint world news. If you're not bright, why are you here?

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sttff wrote

Oh I am, you’re just too stupid to understand.

1

a4mula t1_j3sudzv wrote

Let's start the process. Shall we. It's almost like surgery, but don't worry, I'm gifted with cutting.

You're bright? That's your claim? Because there aren't too many bright folks slumming in subs whose only goal is to mock logic and rationale.

That's not the way being bright works. So, is there anything else you've brought to the table, because bath water warm threats of exposing my intelligence?

They don't bother me.

edit: Are you that vacuous that it takes an hour to establish the merit of your claim? If so, that's alright take all the time you need. I'll pick it back up next time I'm around. That's the beauty of Reddit, it works on my time schedule.

1

sumane12 t1_j3lqgmw wrote

>Can you cure puberty

I stopped there. Nothing you can say after this has merit.

2

InUniverse t1_j3mos3n wrote

> Perhaps you say, but why in the fuck would you ever want to?

This sounds to me like a faliure of creativity on your part. "I can't think of a reason why someone would want to not go through puberty, so nobody should ever be allowed to do it!"

And if we follow through the comparison to the other side: "I can't think of a reason why people would want their bodies to not gradually break down and become unusable"? L O fucking L, that's all I can say.

2

Trick_Hawk5491 t1_j3lc9tc wrote

You sound a lot like people who were adamant about humans never achieving flight.

2

GayHitIer t1_j3lct4z wrote

What we know right now doesn't apply to what happens tomorrow or the next decade, making statements about what is possible and impossible has always been stupid, nobody 100% understands what we will achieve after we hit singularity.

1

a4mula t1_j3ld0qi wrote

Lord Kelvin. And that's not what I'm proposing even in the least. I've been a firm proponent of life extension. Since at least the 90s. But somehow this sub seems to think it's a new idea that just came up.

It's not. And from the very beginning the people that have been serious about it have understood a fundamental truth. It has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with biological processes that tend to be initiated with age.

There's an ocean of difference between those things.

−1

Ortus14 t1_j3lifcd wrote

So there's two definitions for aging currently. There's chronological aging, and biological aging.

https://www.britannica.com/science/aging-life-process

The op was referring to biological aging.

2

a4mula t1_j3liqo3 wrote

And I'm stating something that is true, regardless of your definition.

Aging isn't a disease. There are biological processes that we associate with aging that lead to the degradation of the human body.

Just fucking words right?

Mental Gymastics.

Except it's not, because read through this shit show of a thread.

There's so much confusion it makes me dizzy.

It's not the words. it's the ideas and thoughts behind them.

The understandings.

And you might say, meh... who gives a fuck.

To which I'd point you directly to billions of dollars wasted by experts, doctors, scientists, politicians, researchers, and mostly those suffering from disease.

Because they didn't understand this simple difference.

−1

GayHitIer t1_j3lc7wl wrote

What are you smoking? What I am referring to is the biological age not chronological age, it's already been proven that we can turn the biological clock back in mice by a quite big amount. Sure it will take time, but even the biggest pessimistic would say around 2050 will we reach LEV (Longievity Escape Velocity) Literally the guy with a record in guessing the future with a 86% correct gue sses said around 2030, the truth is that your statement reeks of arrogance we know nothing of what will happen in the next decade.

We will most likely hit the singularity soon which will blow all expectations.

You people will always try to use your logic in things where human logic doesn't totally apply anymore, humans are scared of biological immortality, cause we have a perverse relationship to death literally Stockholm syndrome to the concept of death.

2

a4mula t1_j3lcqgu wrote

Don't talk to me about Kurzweil. And you can go back 7 years to see that it was my ass that drug Cynthia Kenyon into this fucking sub for people to fawn over.

What's she doing lately btw? Oh yeah, that's right. Top Secret Google Stuff.

I didn't just land here. But even then we understood that there are two camps.

Dreamers that talk about aging. And researchers that understand aging isn't the disease.

0

GayHitIer t1_j3ld7a4 wrote

Aging isn't a disease??? Aging is literally your body dying of multiple diseases while itself eating itself from various cancers.

It's the literal definition of disease in my book, but sure in 20-30 years, if you don't want to stay young and healthy and rather want every imaginable disease and cancer you do you.

4

a4mula t1_j3ldk92 wrote

I won't be around in 20-30 years. It's not a concern of mine.

But you keep playing whack-a-mole with all these words you're getting confused about, because who knows. Maybe like every other Pharma Bro out there, you'll throw something against the wall that sticks. Until it doesn't.

−1

GayHitIer t1_j3le80y wrote

Again you reek of arrogance, if anyone is throwing around words they don't understand you would be a fine example.

And I didn't ask you if you would be around in 30 years, even so the Kurz might be a techno Optimist, but he hasn't been off his guess work. What happens in the next decade will be revolutionary we might eliminate biological aging as we know and live healthy and young indefinitely, but ohhhh we don't have it right now means we will never.

Enjoy being ignorant and arrogant, if you really don't care it's your choice I will enjoy being young as long as I can and be open to the future.

4

a4mula t1_j3lenrm wrote

The problem with youth? It's wasted on the young.

I am arrogant. Do you know why? Because I'm not a fucking idiot, in world of them.

You wanna separate the chaff from the wheat and find out which side of that you fall on?

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lf02w wrote

The youth is wasted on the young because there is currently no other choice, curing biological aging would allow the old and wise to have the youth they require to create and invent with the decades of knowledge they have in their new found youth.

4

GayHitIer t1_j3lf2mv wrote

You seriously have some deep seeded problems, Wasted on the young??? What does that even mean everyone should have access to things fairly, and the only smart people is people who can accept their own stupidity calling others idiots again just make you sound like a clown.

And the whole chafe from the wheat analogy, damn bro that is deep. Everyone deserves access to this nobody should be excluded it will save billions, even the rich will have no reason to keep this to themselves, which is how science should be distributed.

3

a4mula t1_j3lfacq wrote

No, it means that people waste the best and most productive years of their lives lacking the wisdom to use them appropriately.

I was no different btw.

1

GayHitIer t1_j3lfgml wrote

If we cure as you call age related diseases people would have more lifetime to collect wisdom and become smarter, also we would have more people take responsibility for the climate and the world as of now.

Most people don't care, cause they die before reaping what they sow, with life expansion people would for once actually take accountability for their actions and we might evolve as a species.

I myself will live if possible at least a 1000 years before I would die by own means if possible.

3

a4mula t1_j3lfzcp wrote

Then do that. But stop assuming you can cure aging. That's a natural biological process we must all go through otherwise we'll never develop past a sperm and egg.

Aging isn't a disease.

1

Spreadwarnotlove t1_j3n33y9 wrote

So your entire argument boils down to semantics. Okay.

2

a4mula t1_j3sbf6w wrote

I've never claimed otherwise. But it's important because this is the framework that will set the perspective.

Again, learn from the mistakes of people much smarter than you or I.

Right now, today, this very moment. Some asshole is throwing his life away searching for a way to cure plaques in the brain because of it.

1

Spreadwarnotlove t1_j3sdpvl wrote

You have zero legs to stand on. Your argument is pointless. And you have zero idea what you are talking about.

0

a4mula t1_j3sgaht wrote

I have two legs. I can see them at least. Move them around. They come in quite handy.

I'm not making an argument. I am pointing out facts.

Aging is not a disease. It's a natural biological process.

You do not cure aging, it's not a disease.

You can attempt to find the mechanisms that cause our bodies to become less functional over time. You can call those diseases if you'd like. Though that's still a misnomer.

You can then attempt to treat those mechanisms in a way that they no longer produce the unwanted effects.

Every single thing I've stated is factual.

If you'd like to argue them. Feel free. Until that time, how about you take a giant pill of, wake the fuck up and learn what the words you use mean.

1

banuk_sickness_eater t1_j3ndypi wrote

>The problem with youth? It's wasted on the young.

Sophistic as it comes. Lmfao thanks for the laughs.

1

a4mula t1_j3sb54o wrote

>“I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” - George Bernard Shaw

Recommended reading btw.

0

Mokebe890 t1_j3lckd9 wrote

Yeah youre totally confusing chronological with biological. Chronological age have nothing important with body if your body is healing all the time and is in perfect shape of 20 y.o

1

a4mula t1_j3ldlbq wrote

No, I'm not confusing them. But here. Help me out. Why don't you give me a nice definition of each of those, just so I'm clear. Go ahead. I don't mind.

−1

Mokebe890 t1_j3lhgwe wrote

What is so hard to understand? Biological age is wear and tear of organism and chronological is just passing time we measure. You can be chronologicaly 1000 years old but biologicaly at age of 25, just becasue your organism posess such capabilities to heal itself. What passing time have to do with pluripotent cells? Or shortening telomeres you mentioned earlier?

2

a4mula t1_j3lhs9a wrote

You're talking about my failure to understand. I'll make you a deal. Swear to god, and I'm a man of my word, even if I am a supreme asshole.

Show me a single living creature that has died of aging.

Do that, one example of the countless living things in the history of this planet that just died of age.

And if you can do that. I'll let you pick a really nice way for me to understand. Pick any dry ass PhD level book you want on this topic, and I'll read every single fucking page of it until I'm ready to dig my eyes out, and then I'll read it again.

That seems fair to me.

1

Mokebe890 t1_j3ljr6b wrote

None died of old age.

Old age is status of wear of biological systems in bodies. But it is because of biological organisms being programmed to produce offsprings and then die, just because their bodies are not made to live for X time. It is not passing chronological time, but internal damage that occurs over time.

My point is that aging is a word for disease that occurs over time. Maybe state organism is could be better, but anyway it is point in which organism starts to degredate. So it is condition that is really unwanted for consciouss being and should be treated like any other disease we are treating today.

But if you want me to show you organism that died of old age then none did, as I said.

2

a4mula t1_j3lk82h wrote

>organisms being programmed to produce offsprings and then die

That's not true. There are many living creatures, including mammals that suffer no age-related death at all.

>My point is that aging is a word for disease that occurs over time

And my point is that you're talking about symptoms, instead of diseases and it's not even a good definition of the word to begin with.

1

Mokebe890 t1_j3lmm5t wrote

Sure, because its either biological immortality or reproducing, yet more choose to reproduce than to be immortal.

Symptoms that occur because biological capabilities of organisms are close to end not because 75 years passed. Youre not developing age related disease because x time passed but because something altered your biology into a point when organism cant sustain its wellbeing. Add to this degeneration overtime from the first part about producing offsprings and thats more fitting definition.

2

a4mula t1_j3ln1s6 wrote

We can talk about symptoms all day long. It's all we've been talking about, because it's all we can talk about.

It's got nothing to do with being close to the end. Naked Mole Rats age, they never get close to the end.

So why are they special? Are they immune to this age shit?

Nope. They still age.

1

Mokebe890 t1_j3lngak wrote

I know that research yet their DNA says otherwise, that they do age. And it is important to note that their mortality dont increase with age unlike most mammals.

I dont really know if this discusson is mostly semantics. By no mean I say we can stop aging, its against physic laws. But I say that we can cure aging in humans, even if that means we need to check in our doctor every year or five for treatment. But if you think I say we can defy laws of physic and stop passage of time in humans then absolutly not.

2

a4mula t1_j3lnt6i wrote

It is semantics.

But they're really fucking important ones.

Aging is not a disease. It's a natural process.

And to beat this horse a little more, it does matter. Because when you start saying things like age is a disease.

You fail to understand that you're not even talking about age for one.

After all, 80 year old healthy person, disease free.

15 year old going through puberty, disease free.

Both are experiencing aging. We all are after all. Not all of us have disease.

The only world in which it makes sense to say Aging is a Disease.

Is one in which you're confused about words. And that means you're confused about the concepts behind those words. And that you'll be confused when searching for really fucking important things. Like how to actually cure a disease.

1

banuk_sickness_eater t1_j3ndkmr wrote

>What causes aging? Time.

Lol I actually laughed out loud. Dude you're obviously out of your depth.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3orl96 wrote

Do you know that pointing out others‘ „flaws in logic“ because their ideas don’t fit your emotional reasoning is kinda impolite?

Also it’s a fallacious approach that has not much to do with logic.

Repeating over and over that ageing is not a disease because it’s time-related doesn’t explain why ageing is „time-related“ in the first place. What is even „time-related“?

Imagine you travel from Earth to Alpha Centauri through space, in a spaceship that moves faster than light speed (just imagine and assume, we are in the realm of pure logic or at the best math here, not physics that we already comprehend).

This causes time to pass differently for you and for someone NOT aboard your spaceship due time dilation. For example your partner, who has stayed on Earth.

Now is your ageing related to YOUR timeline or to that of your partner who is not aboard your spaceship?…

Let’s see how you solve this logical problem. 😁

And now add your emotions back in. Do you still want ageing not to be seen as disease and its treatment not funded if you travel to Alpha Centauri and back while your sweetheart stays on Earth?…

1

apart112358 t1_j3lwkcj wrote

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers aging to be a natural process. This makes it difficult to get FDA approval for drugs that seek to slow or reverse the biological process of aging. Instead, drugs intended to target aging must target a disease that often results from the aging process in order to demonstrate efficacy and gain approval.

But there is growing consensus and effort among scientists to convince the FDA that aging itself should be classified as a disease and an appropriate target for drug development."

source

Edit: You're right, not at the moment. But the perception is changing.

Why not? As I said before, people will (unfortunately) continue to die. Accidents, diseases, violence, natural disasters.... Everyone dies for sure. But no longer from old age. Just as we no longer die of smallpox today. It's okay that we don't die of smallpox. It will be the same if we don't die of old age. We just die of other things. The more time, the higher the probability that risks will be realized.

2

a4mula t1_j3sbow1 wrote

I'm all for life extension. But it's not an attack on Aging. It's a framework that allows us to continue to under our own control, not that of our genetics.

1

Plus-Recording-8370 t1_j3oy99b wrote

Funny thing about that is that depending on the environmental conditions, telomere shortening could've actually increased lifespan.

1

Ginkotree48 t1_j3lixbg wrote

Serious question for you anti aging people.. dont you think you would get bored? Like very very quickly ya know relative to living FOREVER?

Especially if you can literally photorealistically and haptic cerebrally experience anything you wanted?

You have 1000s of movies to watch on netflix and it takes away from how entertaining the bottom 95% of them are because you know there has to be a better one you havent picked. At least me personally, id switch hobbies and realities and all of that anything you could think of so quickly Id be willing to bet I would be ready to die in a human lifetime or less.

For me at least the entertainment ability will go up with ai but our brains gyroscopic like adaptation to conditions will ruin it. Every single experience is like a drug and the more you do the less its fun. The first time you do something the better it is.

If you say well you would just figure out how to forget to keep doing "new things" then whats the difference between that and dying? You arent actually building up an imortal collection of experiences then.

−10

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lja2v wrote

Infinity is a very large amount of possibility, experiencing infinity in 80 years is of course impossible. I wouldn’t know what to do unless I had it, but I know one thing, our lives are very short. Can you remember where you were 1 year ago? That was more than a percent of your entire existence, like that. I like how you say one life time, why not 10 years? Why not 5? What is so special about the average human life span as a number.

6

Ginkotree48 t1_j3ljo0b wrote

I know ai will not slow down and I think if someone has doubts or is skeptical about ai they simply dont get it. But I think your eyes are bigger than your stomach. Have you had life experiences yet where you suddenly get a large amount of things you thought you always wanted? Its always the same thing. The same "oh this is it". Each new experience has slightly varying rates of how long the honey moon phase lasts. But I couldnt see myself doing anything forever.

Also infinite is not possible as we live in a finite universe. With how fast ai can augment itself id say its absolutely possible we hit that finite entertainment limit most would see as "infinite" before you or I die of old age.

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ljvow wrote

I look at the journey not the destination, infinite was a figure of speech.

2

Ginkotree48 t1_j3ljz9w wrote

I get that. Thanks for the discussion. Personally I think I would not enjoy running out of things that keep me happy until I inevitability have to decide to kill myself in a semi depressed/apathetic state of existing.

Id rather not have a choice.

0

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lkoax wrote

To be fair you still have no choice in getting hit by a car/plane/meteor or just die from a random stroke, it just means you’ll retain the same quality of life at every age until death.

2

Ginkotree48 t1_j3lkpd1 wrote

Yeah and like I said I prefer that. Despite me worrying about some of those things regularly lmao

1

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lkv0n wrote

Yeah I rather remember my friends and family and know how to use a toilet and feel like a functional member of society at every age, even if we still only lived to ~80, but I have no issues with living 100,000 years if I get to contribute more as a result of my long life.

1

eazeaze t1_j3ljzwj wrote

Suicide Hotline Numbers If you or anyone you know are struggling, please, PLEASE reach out for help. You are worthy, you are loved and you will always be able to find assistance.

Argentina: +5402234930430

Australia: 131114

Austria: 017133374

Belgium: 106

Bosnia & Herzegovina: 080 05 03 05

Botswana: 3911270

Brazil: 212339191

Bulgaria: 0035 9249 17 223

Canada: 5147234000 (Montreal); 18662773553 (outside Montreal)

Croatia: 014833888

Denmark: +4570201201

Egypt: 7621602

Finland: 010 195 202

France: 0145394000

Germany: 08001810771

Hong Kong: +852 2382 0000

Hungary: 116123

Iceland: 1717

India: 8888817666

Ireland: +4408457909090

Italy: 800860022

Japan: +810352869090

Mexico: 5255102550

New Zealand: 0508828865

The Netherlands: 113

Norway: +4781533300

Philippines: 028969191

Poland: 5270000

Russia: 0078202577577

Spain: 914590050

South Africa: 0514445691

Sweden: 46317112400

Switzerland: 143

United Kingdom: 08006895652

USA: 18002738255

You are not alone. Please reach out.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.

0

Ginkotree48 t1_j3lk1rs wrote

Good bot

2

B0tRank t1_j3lk2mh wrote

Thank you, Ginkotree48, for voting on eazeaze.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)

0

PhysicalChange100 t1_j3lokaf wrote

The argument from boredom is so weak and tired, Everyone who seriously consider that the universe with infinite possibilities and come with the conclusion that its boring, must come from a person with an extremely dry perspective in life with low imaginative capabilities and incredible knowledge deficiency.

5

Ginkotree48 t1_j3lp770 wrote

The universe isnt infinite. Thats a fact so already you are just angrily venting infactually.

Also you must assume there are a lot of really cool things you arent doing or cant do whether its because of your financial situation or physical limitations. Whatever it is the grass is always greener. You can always try a strong hit of dopamine and your brain/mind will always get used to it. You are on a dopamine treadmill.

Same rule as money doesnt buy happiness.

Also wouldnt you just want the ai to give you some sort of infinite orgasm ecstasy rush you constantly exist in and never feel anything else? Why dont you guys seek that out considering its just as temporary in terms of entertaining yourselves infinitely.

1

PhysicalChange100 t1_j3lt1mc wrote

>Also wouldnt you just want the ai to give you some sort of infinite orgasm ecstasy rush you constantly exist in and never feel anything else?

Nah, I would rather be a scientist than a meth head.

1

Ginkotree48 t1_j3ltafm wrote

What would you discover when Ai has discovered everything? Or even sooner, what would you be working on when the cutting edge of science is at a point beyond human comprehension?

1

PhysicalChange100 t1_j3lu1x9 wrote

>What would you discover when Ai has discovered everything?

That's assuming that the universe or the multiverse is finite and cannot grow into infinite complexity.

>what would you be working on when the cutting edge of science is at a point beyond human comprehension?

Another assumption is that humans will never augment themselves or upload their mind to the cloud.

1

Ginkotree48 t1_j3lphn7 wrote

Actually one more bit because you called me stupid. The fact that you cant comprehend living forever in a finite universe means you would hit that wall of having done everything you'd ever want to do (or anything possible at all) means you are intellectually deficient. That one is common sense.

1

Tidezen t1_j3me52k wrote

I get bored in everyday life, but it's mostly due to not having the time and resources required to do something more "fun", so I often default to my cheaper or more accessible hobbies. Working hard in this life seems like such a waste because we have such limited time to actually make use of the rewards.

But if I had an indefinite amount of time, then that work investment makes a lot more sense. And I could go at my own pace...I think that's the worst part of the rat race, that everything's so time-pressured. Living centuries, I could slowly and more safely invest. And with the advent of AI, much of modern work can be automated, so I doubt people are going to be as work-happy as our forebears.

As for memory--you don't remember 80% of your life right now. Think about it--you don't remember what you had for lunch two weeks ago. Does that mean life's not worth living?

>Every single experience is like a drug and the more you do the less its fun. The first time you do something the better it is.

That's true for some things but not others. Gaining mastery over a discipline takes time. Things like playing an instrument get way more fun once you get good at it. And for physical activities...those only get worse with age because of the aging.

3

The_Real_RM t1_j3lwpa6 wrote

No, you're thinking in terms of experience, but even there you're not seeing the vastness of experience space. People now play tens of thousands of chess games in their careers and can't wait to play the next, it's a relatively simple, uneventful game....

Immortal life means freedom, I can be a ski bum for twenty years and not have wasted my life, then I can go to school and become a neurosurgeon for another 50 years and STILL not miss out on enjoying the frat party culture because.... I can just quit and join a frat club!!!

You don't get bored because the stuff you want to do change all the time and even if you are truly immortal and live for millions of years, working in slavery to build the pyramids is not the same as working in slavery to build Amazon warehouses and will not be the same as working in slavery to colonize Mars, your slavery will always feel novel to you

2

Ginkotree48 t1_j3m115c wrote

All of that sounds incredibly fun and I hope you and I can do those things dont get me wrong.

Dont you think being immortal would mean eventually looking back and going "wow I cant believe I did all of that... for thousands/millions of years where did the time go" and then you realize you are bored? Living forever means forever. Not millions of years of doing cool human things that we can only come up with and concieve based on what time period we were born in. It doesnt even mean experiencing trillions of years of all time periods humans lived in. Or all animals or all life or every dimension. Forever means all of that being done and reaching an "oh shit" moment imo. And that is terrifying to me personally.

1

The_Real_RM t1_j3m71a2 wrote

I'm not excluding the possibility that you'll need some therapy to deal with your immortality... But I don't think it's terrifying. In fact people don't deal with their mortality all the time now either and most people think death is a "whole life" away from now so they mostly act and feel as if immortal today. Time will just slip by, just like now, but... forever.

And don't forget, you're just one woodworking mishap away from dying anyway, immortal as you may be

2

The_Real_RM t1_j3m766k wrote

Honestly the only super scary thing about immortality is population control (avoiding overpopulation and avoiding everyone deciding to not have kids this... millennia either)...

2

Ginkotree48 t1_j3m1a4z wrote

Also through time dilation you could do all of that much sooner and have more time to be bored and convince yourself you have to un alive yourself. Which personally would never happen. Id be trapped. I cant conciously kill myself.

1

gantork t1_j3ly1rr wrote

I think I'd enjoy at least a couple hundred years in perfect health, just living peacefully and dedicating myself to hobbies, entertainment, personal projects, etc.

If on top of that we add full dive vr and other insane tech we have in the future it seems hard to get bored, and maybe we could modify the brain to keep things feeling fresh and exciting without forgetting them.

1

Spreadwarnotlove t1_j3n3v3x wrote

If I get bored I could just erase my memories and start as a baby in some virtual world. And I can do this infinite times. Maybe one lifetime I could be born in a zombie game twenty years before the apocalypse. Another life time I could be born in an Xianxia world and train for a hundred thousand years to be the god of that virtual world. And another lifetime I could be Bilbo Bagins.

There are infinite possibilities.

1