Comment by ALittleLight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ALittleLight | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's, in the optimistic case, both. At least from what I understand from listening to the radiolab story on it. Regardless, having the body of a 30 year old and the brain of a 90 year old is better than having the body and brain of a 90 year old.

I don't understand people who say things like "I will live with the time I'm given". Do you reject modern medicine because that's an unnatural extension of your time? If you had a fatal illness that could be cured would you refuse treatment? Hand soap, fertilizer, and modern nutrition have likely extended your expected lifespan. Do you go without those as well?

I think it can sound romantic to stick with your natural span. Especially if that span extends out for decades yet. I expect it's another matter entirely to be on death's door.

A less selfish way to think about it is to imagine an elderly loved one. If your mother could take rapamaycin and live an additional 40 years in good health, would you prefer she die at 80?

I think death is a very bad thing and having a way to put it off is very good. Fatalistic attitudes confuse the issue.

Dementia/alzheimers/etc is one of the scariest things i can imagine. I'm not sure i would want to live if i had the later stages of that, or if you can even call that living.

Body of a 90 year old mind of a 30 year old is something i would take, though.

>Dementia/alzheimers/etc is one of the scariest things i can imagine. I'm not sure i would want to live if i had the later stages of that, or if you can even call that living.

ok but it is not a 100% case that the mind of a 90 year old is the mind of an Alzheimer's patient. Michael Caine is 88 and I think he is doing relatively well mentally.

My mother and grandmother both had it. While I certainly wish to avoid that end, if I get to have the body of a 30 year old from now until 80 and then follow in their footsteps, that’s still an improvement on the gradual physical decline which preceded their mental decline.

Basically I’d take either hypothetical form of treatment. Either is better then neither.

If death is ever preferable to life you can always kill yourself. Having the option to live or die is strictly better than having no option.

My point regarding having the brain of the 90 year old is not that that would be good, but that it would be better than having the brain and body of a 90 year old. I don't want to be frail and prone to injury if I could be healthy and strong.

> If death is ever preferable to life you can always kill yourself

Not really if you have dementia / alzheimer. You're stuck in a short term loop.

You could kill yourself before it advanced that far or set a living will. You'd possibly need to move to a country that would be willing to euthanize you - but you could do it.

I think when people say things like, “I will live with the time I’m given” they often mean that they will live however long they can, with medical intervention, while the cost of that intervention and additional years it provides isn’t too high. So it’s likely they will still take advantage of the current technologies that have the potential to extend their lives, as long as the price it imposes isn’t over some cost threshold. Though, I suppose some people will simply do whatever they can to stay alive no matter the cost since they value their lives above everything else. Others will shun the life saving measures and die.

Yes people prefer to live substantially long thanks to fruits of technology and medicine but to thank God for that.

I use modern medicine and modern technology to expand my lifespan, but there is a difference between 20 years and 80-100 years.

Assuming some breakthrough that makes age a number, and I can stay as sharp and healthy as I am now, then I still have an issue with sustainability. The earth has a certain carrying capacity, and keeping everyone alive for an indefinite amount of time is not sustainable for long.

Each generation gets its chance to run its course and the world evolves from it. Imagine if 75% of people from 1860 were still around - what is their view? How do they keep up with the changing times? Did they allow the world to come as far as it has? Or did the people stay in power indefinitely and keep things the way they were?

Aging, retirement, and death provide a natural opportunity for change that wouldn’t be there if you had people with 90 years of investment and connections making decisions and you wanted to make a change. Things would be a lot bloodier.

I don’t romanticize the fact I’m going to die. But I do think memento mori provides clarity and focus to what I’m doing.

I see the individual appeal of living indefinitely and keeping those you love alive indefinitely. But that is “in today’s world that I enjoy as I know it, given my current socio-economic status”. So would people allow that to change? What if it made them worse off?

In terms of carrying capacity, I think we are far from physical limits for Earth. We need technological solutions - imagine how many humans we could have with vertical farming and fusion power. Colonizing space? Technology is something we can obtain. You imagine the masses from 1860 holding us back, but what if every scientist from 1860 on was still with us and building on a century plus of experience?

Regarding social progress - first, it is the modern social views we would be extending and entrenching, not antiquated ones. We are extending the lifespan of Trump voters, not slavers or Jim Crow enthusiasts. Perhaps you are suggesting that our social views, in a hundred years, will seem as reprehensible as those of a hundred years past seem to us. However, there is no guarantee which way social views will progress. Perhaps, without amortals from our time future societies would have worse social views.

Second, I suspect the reason the elderly tend to be more close minded is related to their circumstances. Their minds aren't as plastic, their bodies not as hale, they can't get out to work and be a part of society, etc. If, instead, their bodies were hearty and their minds agile, they might be as amenable to influence as anyone else. We may find the social views of a healthy two hundred year old advance as steadily as society's.

Regardless, I wouldn't kill people or prefer they die just because they have regressive social views. We should convince them if possible or just live with them if not.

There are certainly problems that may arise from extending lifespan. I believe we can solve them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com