47 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 64.9 ms ] thread
So a question to the experts here: What's the catch?
At the time of this writing, the link does not work.

504 Gateway Time-out nginx/1.18.0 (Ubuntu)

This is one of these scientific endeavours I cannot get behind. Sure, in theory, it would be amazing to live a thousand years -- but it reeks so strongly of the genie's bottle, I don't think we should pursue it.

It would likely only be the uber-wealthy and powerful who would have access to this technology. Picture a world where a slew of today's despots (including the current American president) get to live for two, or three human lifespans.

If that doesn't cool your jets, let's say the treatment is so cheap it can be widely available to everyone. Now you have prisoners, slaves, exploited labourers who live for centuries. It's madness. I don't think we've evolved enough, ethically speaking, as a species to wrestle with such long lifespans.

Maybe after this we can figure out how to reverse entropy.

Edit: The Last Question reference seems to have not hit. My bad.

I'd love the current generation of POSs in power to die off naturally before those advancements will be applied, thank you.
So the only way to get rid of humans will be to kill them?
I'm annoyed to have been born early enough for biological life extension to not be available, but late enough to actually consider it a possibility.
Eternal life would be disastrous for humanity. Imagine all the elderly autocrats got to rule forever, utterly bored, with no hope in sight.
If you had asked me how I reckoned they reversed aging in Monkeys, I honestly would have said "stem cells". But then again, my answer to a lot of questions these days is "stem cells".
If Larry Ellison outlives me so help me god
Interesting. Appears that we'll sooner solve ageing than ageing of societies.

If this ever goes mainstream, I'll head off to live on Mars - provided that is solved beforehand.

I'm not clear why they didn't continue the treatment to see if it prevented the monkeys from dying at all?
Maybe someone with more of a bio background can comment on the actual paper. When I look through the figures, I don't see a strong an evidence as they are claiming in the text.

E.g. figure 1G... naive image analysis (to me) does not match the claimed statistics. And the statistics are all on n<10, which also adds a lot of uncertainty.

Darn why couldn't I be a monkey?
No thanks, I've seen enough already. I'm ready to go.
Not every problem must be solved. Death is essential.