Walk me through it: in order to get dictators killed, because they defend themselves very effectively, we should put everybody on the planet under a biological death sentence, which will get the dictators too.
That's a perception. Do they, though? If so, why? "I hope I die before I get old", sang The Who. Roger Daltrey is 82. Trump (slightly younger) was one of His Generation, although I expect he probably wasn't a mod. But what I mean is, the coercive oppression visited upon you by your elders is coming from the youth of yesterday, who had it lurking in them latently, waiting to gain status and money and influence. Those things arrive gradually (if at all) along with age, and I guess they make a person complacently comfortable, but the driving cause is that the person is a coercive dogmatist with a drive to oppress inferiors, and always was in most cases, because we don't usually learn to be wronger*, only how to express our terrible attitudes. So age isn't doing this, it's just revealing it.
* Undoubtedly sometimes the spark of malevolence develops into more coherent and sophisticated badness, I have to admit, so an old person has had more time to mature into being truly terrible. But this is against the pressure of rationality.
It's a feature of every species that evolves. You can't evolve if you're striving to outcompete your offspring. You quickly game out that not having offspring is the winning chess move there. Now you're not having offspring, and thus you're not evolving. Then the environment changes and you, being unable to adapt in any way, go extinct.
Cheating senescence is kind of the ultimate adaptation. If we can crack this then I'd expect other necessary artificial adaptations to be quite tractable in the future.
and the bourgeoisie, a temporary regulation would be needed in those areas of the world to separate the upper class from the capability of the rulers
in western nations where that’s not possible, I could see national bans, but one weak link globally and everyone wealthy will get their treatment there
It turns out that if you trigger all four Yamanaka factors—yeah, turbo cancer. But if you trigger only three of the four, you can trigger a reversion to the stem cell state without the increased cancer risk.
They cannot survive the next 300 years unless we all survive the next 300 years. A dictator is motivated by having power over others, not being some lone survivalist fending for himself in nature.
I feel like AI has opened a door of plausibility to Black Mirror or Twilight Zone concepts more than any other novel technology in my lifetime.
What if living 300 years meant the entire tempo of human living changes. That we all just slow right down because having control over our aging and when it happens. To be able to decide to extend your 20s… or not. To spend decades in your 30s. How would that change what’s important to us?
I think it's much more likely that those who were first to 200-300 years old will use those years to build resources and deny them to others, especially those not yet modified. It would be a permanent over class. Less Issac Asimov, more Richard K. Morgan.
If you're listening just covered this the other day, they did a good job, worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQFE_3Mr4yQ (If you're listening is generally pretty good)
An individual pancreas cell discovering the secret to immortality is a triumph for that cell, and a real bad thing for the body. This is like that, but for the entire human population.
Even if medical science one day eliminates aging and disease, nobody is going to live forever—eventually you’ll succumb to an accident, or war, or homicide.
Incompatible browser extension or network configuration
> Temporarily disable browser extensions:
>
> 1. Go to your browser settings.
> 2. Locate your browser extensions and temporarily disable them.
> 3. Once browser extensions are disabled, refresh this page.
Because this is the worst timeline, we're getting cell reprogramming used to grow artificial brains to run AI workloads before functional aging remediation... let alone GTA VI.
It may be a dumb reason to do it, but recently I've started to focus on my health a bit more because of news like this (more exercise and healthier food).
The thinking is, if we find a way to massively extend the human lifespan/reverse aging I want to live long enough for that.
I'd be pissed if we as humanity solved aging and I die just before that, not taking any chances.
Seems like you are interested in living longer. One cool trick to doing that has always been to focus on your health. Are you saying that before recent developments the extension of life benefit wasn't worth it for you? By the way, when you die it's impossible to be "pissed".
Maybe they mean the compromises they're making didn't weigh out enough to be motivating over the thought of just a few more years, but if those few years might make the difference to catching an opportunity for double or more the years it's suddenly motivating enough.
Better stack your chips too. At this point I think there's a fair chance massive life extension will be available before I die, but I likely wont be able to afford it.
> Why? If you can live 500 years just focus 20 years on compound interest hard, then retire for 400 years?
The first version of this technology will only be available to billionaires. So if you reach 70 when it’s invented and are not a billionaire, you’ll never get to try the 500 years of compounding trick
We’re likely to see this stuff get invented in our lifetimes (I’m 38), maybe practical, but we’re def all too old to see it become widely available.
Then again, life extension will not be a singular technology. You could argue antibiotics and vaccines were the first big step and those became affordable within a few decades of invention
I reckon this would be self-correcting. If the average person could reach retirement in such a small fraction of their lifespan, then the vast majority of the population at any given time would be non-productive retirees. The economy would slow until your interest was zero and you'd be forced back to work. Eventually an equilibrium would be reached, wherein the average Joe could look forward to a rewarding and fulfilling career of, say, 450 years or so.
Or work 30 years on, 15 years off or similar. Build a career from scratch, fulfil what you want, then have a sabbatical, then return to a new career in a different field.
Crazy that we can think about immortality and singularity, but capitalism end is out of question. Humanity will probably be extincted in these scenarios and we are still talking about work. Hilarious
I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had about all the crazy, albeit possible, futures that may come. But there is such a definitive hard stop when trying to discuss a shift from capitalism. It must bind alongside their religious adherence receptors. Because it I SO damn entrenched. Like a neural block of sorts.
Except nobody was trying to discuss a shift from capitalism. We were discussing how it might adapt to such a wild shift as people suddenly living 500 years. You know, because it's a fun thought experiment. People do that.
You are the one who seemingly can't tolerate a conversation that isn't centered on your preferred economic worldview. So you came in here to...proclaim that nobody else is as open minded as you because we weren't talking about the thing you wish we were talking about? Not really sure what the point of your comment is, to be honest.
1. Is that a serious question? Your entire comment embodies that sentiment. Read it again.
2. Your "shift from capitalism". Seriously? Do you not know what you wrote?
3. Buddy, there was no "utterance". If you want someone to consider your thought experiment, it helps to actually bring it up as a topic of conversation. Instead you showed up out of the blue to whine about how nobody spontaneously started talking about it in your absence. Why the hell would we be talking about it?? You weren't here to mention it! You could have said, "hey, consider this", and had a conversation about it, but instead you came out of the gate bitching about how everyone is talking about the wrong thing because we're a bunch of narrow-minded proles. Damn bro, I can't imagine why your conversations get shut down /s
^ Precisely the kinds of folks that simply cannot even begin to begin to think about something alternative to capitalism.
Sorry, that in a thread about possible futures you got your jimmies rustled when some people mention moving away from your deity. Forgive my blasphemy. Please continue your wonderful day.
Show me one single word where anyone has objected to your topic. You are trying so hard to make this conversation about that, but you can't, because it is not your topic, but your shitty attitude that puts people off.
Refuse to acknowledge that all you want. You are doing it at your own expense.
Apersonally I can’t see doing the same thing for more than 40 years. Maybe I’d be an actor, then have a statically, then next time be a sculptor,
Or maybe dig into physics.
But I can also invest in companies? If the population keeps growing, because less people die, the economy might just keep growing. Also if you can get 500 you might want to get more kids. So it will be exponential growth. What could go possible wrong?
I doubt that we will get there in my lifetime. Science is one thing, and maybe AI will super-charge some of it. But experiments will need to be made, and that needs brick and mortar labs, and labs need money, and at least right now, the absurd amounts of investments are not going in that direction. Oh, and did I mention regulators? They are very, very slow.
There could, however, be some promising signs down the road, like more capable in-silico methods, which will make it possible to bypass some/more of the brick and mortar labs. Another sign to watch for are orders of magnitude more companies and cartels of individuals doing advanced bioengineering outside of USA.
Actually aging research is probably really well funded in comparison. Loads of billionaires are investing. So at least money is not the issue. Morals and time. Sure, and then regulators.
One big thing with aging research is though that it just needs time. No shortcuts really. You don't know it works until the first people love another few years.
Given the massive investments billionaires (maybe even that trillionaire?) have done, and continue doing, in longevity, if a working treatment was discovered I'm sure it will be obscenely expensive.
Every old person with money will want to pay as much as they can, it will be biggest return on investment of history. If even common drugs that cost cents to manufacture are sold for hundreds of dollars, an age reversal drug would be invaluable.
If what you're doing doesn't allow you to see an affordable miracle youth treatment, but it allows you to live your natural life with more quality, it's not dumb.
Sounds like the immortal jellyfish solution. We squeeze entropy out of our DNA by creating a new fresh cell (ovum) that’s very sensitive to genetic defects, meaning if it survives it’s probably good. The jellyfish just shrinks back to a single cell (presumably with some mechanism for keeping the ‘best’ cell) to reset the damage. This is doing the same thing, but piece by piece.
Edit: And wow, that abstract appears to have eaten an entire thesaurus.
Are professionals in that field looking at that abstract and thinking its a good one? My scholarly background was in Geology and I remember a lot of messaging on making the abstract as simple as possible for the reader to grok the paper from that alone. Then, if they wanted to, they could read the rest in detail, where the prose may be more complicated (where necessary)
This is an uninformed suggestion, but is it possible to take a large collection of cells from across the body and work out which ones carry the untainted DNA by statistical methods?
Well, we aren't purely stochastic machines passively subject to entropy. We also have some DNA repair mechanisms, which work better when we are younger, and maybe could be restored to their youthful function. Plus, if a cell is beyond repair, other mechanisms can simply whack it and it will later be replaced by a new cell grown from the stem cell population (of course with some limits). But that again means having a youthful stem cell population.
99 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 36.6 ms ] threadNo, I cannot endorse this.
* Undoubtedly sometimes the spark of malevolence develops into more coherent and sophisticated badness, I have to admit, so an old person has had more time to mature into being truly terrible. But this is against the pressure of rationality.
in western nations where that’s not possible, I could see national bans, but one weak link globally and everyone wealthy will get their treatment there
I'm calling it now, Qatar will be the place that allows these treatments once they're a real thing.
I have to imagine the Uber wealthy are pouring money into youthful longevity science.
https://fixvx.com/Kalshi/status/2109791302674235656?s=20
Save us all from people like this.
What if living 300 years meant the entire tempo of human living changes. That we all just slow right down because having control over our aging and when it happens. To be able to decide to extend your 20s… or not. To spend decades in your 30s. How would that change what’s important to us?
The thinking is, if we find a way to massively extend the human lifespan/reverse aging I want to live long enough for that.
I'd be pissed if we as humanity solved aging and I die just before that, not taking any chances.
The first version of this technology will only be available to billionaires. So if you reach 70 when it’s invented and are not a billionaire, you’ll never get to try the 500 years of compounding trick
We’re likely to see this stuff get invented in our lifetimes (I’m 38), maybe practical, but we’re def all too old to see it become widely available.
Then again, life extension will not be a singular technology. You could argue antibiotics and vaccines were the first big step and those became affordable within a few decades of invention
I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had about all the crazy, albeit possible, futures that may come. But there is such a definitive hard stop when trying to discuss a shift from capitalism. It must bind alongside their religious adherence receptors. Because it I SO damn entrenched. Like a neural block of sorts.
You are the one who seemingly can't tolerate a conversation that isn't centered on your preferred economic worldview. So you came in here to...proclaim that nobody else is as open minded as you because we weren't talking about the thing you wish we were talking about? Not really sure what the point of your comment is, to be honest.
2. To which "preferred topic"?
3. Sorry the very utterance of shifting from capitalism is a thought experiment that is simply untenable in your mind.
2. Your "shift from capitalism". Seriously? Do you not know what you wrote?
3. Buddy, there was no "utterance". If you want someone to consider your thought experiment, it helps to actually bring it up as a topic of conversation. Instead you showed up out of the blue to whine about how nobody spontaneously started talking about it in your absence. Why the hell would we be talking about it?? You weren't here to mention it! You could have said, "hey, consider this", and had a conversation about it, but instead you came out of the gate bitching about how everyone is talking about the wrong thing because we're a bunch of narrow-minded proles. Damn bro, I can't imagine why your conversations get shut down /s
^ Precisely the kinds of folks that simply cannot even begin to begin to think about something alternative to capitalism.
Sorry, that in a thread about possible futures you got your jimmies rustled when some people mention moving away from your deity. Forgive my blasphemy. Please continue your wonderful day.
Refuse to acknowledge that all you want. You are doing it at your own expense.
What has capitalism got to do with anything?
The economy is imploding because a tiny fraction of population is living on "compound interest" even now.
There could, however, be some promising signs down the road, like more capable in-silico methods, which will make it possible to bypass some/more of the brick and mortar labs. Another sign to watch for are orders of magnitude more companies and cartels of individuals doing advanced bioengineering outside of USA.
One big thing with aging research is though that it just needs time. No shortcuts really. You don't know it works until the first people love another few years.
Every old person with money will want to pay as much as they can, it will be biggest return on investment of history. If even common drugs that cost cents to manufacture are sold for hundreds of dollars, an age reversal drug would be invaluable.
Only something I have seen online, I cannot vouch for its validity
A healthy mind and body leads an organism to want/be able to survive and thrive. Glad to hear you're there now.
> I'd be pissed if we as humanity solved aging and I die just before that
No, you wouldn't :)
You wouldn't be pissed. You'd be dead.
Edit: And wow, that abstract appears to have eaten an entire thesaurus.