Hacker News Reader

Comment by yodon | Hacker News Reader

Anti-aging is an economics problem more than a medical one. If you radically extend lifetimes, those who have been alive the longest have had the most time accumulate capital. There's very little chance for someone 200-300 years younger to have any way to match the economic means of their seniors, resulting in a highly destabilizing permanent economic hierarchy.

If you think gen z are pissed at boomers, slip another 200 years of differential in and things start to look really bad.

View on HN

I wouldn't say it's more of an economics problem...it's still a medical impossibility as far as we know.

Everyone develops cancer given a long enough timeline. If we can somehow defeat that, or give everyone robot bodies after their biological one fails, we still have a wide array of brain diseases to defeat.

fwiw, robot body with human brain would almost certainly be severely immunocompromised. Organs are important.

I do believe that economics itself will take into account increased lifespans, UBI and other measures of normality...

Here's a take, if people get to live so much longer, then money is not the variable to be optimised for humanity in general...

Also, rates of labour, skill, energy expenditure and so many variables will undergo a change in definitions.

I would like to see everyone make it... I believe so would everyone else, if increased lifespans are on the line.

economy is downstream from technology, economy adapts

But more importanly, this isn't necessarily about extending lifetimes but making them worth it (and possibly productive until the last minute)

Yup, while societies do have momentous occasions of revolution, they are rather rare. It's more so people of a generation dying off allowing newer blood to come in. I have no doubt that societies would eventually stagnate if such anti-aging mechanisms become widely available enough. And they will only be available to the rich and in-power at first, mind you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com