Hacker News Reader

Comment by Andrex | Hacker News Reader

"Trivial" might be underselling it.

Increasing a dog's lifespan by 5 years is massively noticeable. I've never seen a 20-year old dog.

Adding 5 to a human's health is beneficial but isn't nearly as noticeable.

This is ignoring the magnitude of differences between dogs and humans. They're mammals, sure...

I can't recall just how many "successful trial on rats" stories have we gotten on HN that have to be tempered by reality in the comments.

Edit- As a dog owner myself, I'm also hoping the OP succeeds of course! Nearly every day I have a "memento mori" thought about my pet, and it's extremely depressing.

View on HN

Adding 5 years to human life would be worth a trillion dollars. There are 1 billion people that would pay at least 1k for thst.

I'm curious about why the parent was downvoted.

Maybe for dismissing a trillion dollar product and extending human life.

> I've never seen a 20-year old dog.

Little dogs can live to 20.

I met a woman in the park who said she had a dog like mine that lived to 20, then drowned in a swimming pool. I didn't know whether to offer congratulations or commiserations.

pardon me but 5 years of my life doesn't seem un-noticeable or less noticable at all, and I would certainly notice it much more than for dogs (much as I love them)

I don't think you actually would. A large portion (probably the majority) of American adults could extend their lifespan by 5 years by making simple lifestyle changes. They opt not to.

The second and third sentence of this do not support the first.

It's true that a lot of people (all over the world) make lifestyle choices which probably shorten their lifespan. Although I think you're understating the simplicity of losing significant weight / quitting smoking / drinking less, all of which are things which are notoriously difficult.

It does not follow that those people wouldn't notice an additional five years of lifespan. Of course they would, it's five years!

If someone was selling pills you could take twice a day to add five years of lifespan, the number of people who would take them is broadly limited by the number who could afford to.

It is also important to note 'where' you are adding the five years. An additional five years of infirmity at the end of life? Pass. An additional five years of relatively healthy mid-60s? Sign me up.

Extending lifespan is less useful than extending the healthy/active part of the lifespan. Like reading the fine print on the side of the packaging or the bottom of the contract, you need to pay attention to the details. This is why lifestyle changes tend to be more important than pills which treat conditions that used to kill our parents or grandparents, the former usually increase the odds you will still be walking around and taking care of yourself in your late 80s while the latter might just mean that you add five years to the amount of time that some nursing home will drain your estate while you are bed-ridden in some warehouse for the elderly.

I still disagree. I spent a lot of time in nursing homes when I was a teenager and am quite confident that adding five years of elderly life would not only not be noticed by many people who are just whiling away their later years, a lot of them wouldn’t even want it. You’re assuming that a magic pill adding five years of longevity would either distribute those years equally or primarily extend youthful years, but it’s not at all clear that that’s the case.

My dog lived 19 years. A corgi. The best pupper ever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com