Hacker News Reader

Comment by ramraj07 | Hacker News Reader

As much as I’d like to live forever, I couldn’t in good conscience monetarily support research that’s explicitly focused on extending the life span of the privileged (including me) when more resources are needed in finding how to lift up everyone else left behind today.

View on HN

It doesn't seem that life extension is going to be unreachable for the majority of the people. Look at what happened with DNA sequencing. Anyone can get their DNA sequenced today (yeah, I know some people in very poor countries can't afford it because they don't even have food but hey, you had breakfast today). Comparing with the human genome project, the target price of most drugs that are in clinical trials today is ridiculously low. And it has to be that way because investors wouldn't be interested in those companies. As a biotech/longevity company, you need a reasonable plan on how to market and sell your research. "Immortality is only for the rich" is cyberpunk science fiction.

Well you better not support cancer research either, as to at goes to the rich first long before it trickles down to public health systems.

I actually did half my PhD on cancer research and yeah I ideally want no part in it. At least the way it’s done in academia today.

Would it not be reasonable to assume that the first anti-aging therapies that are approved will go to the privleged? Then they would be commodified and provided to the less economically fortunate.

The first monoclonal antibody therapy hit markets decades ago. It still hasn’t percolated to even the middle class in countries like india.

If a drug or therapy truly does extend life span I can also see systems forming where the few want to keep it to themselves and away from the many. One way or another I can’t imagine this being the the top priority of anyone but the most vain (personal opinion) so I would not associate myself with such research is all.

Whenever we find the way to immortality, it will be exclusive to the richest of the rich at first. But equally inevitable, it will eventually trickle down to all. The business will be just to good.

There are many arguments for longevity, even if it were temporarily for the rich, or those in advanced economies.

For example, people who live much longer would probably think about the environment on longer time scales. That includes climate change, pollution, resource exhaustion, and so on. They might consider helping to improve their society, because even if it took several generations they might live to see the benefits.

People who live longer can afford to make better long term investments, instead of trying to cash in on short get rich quick schemes.

They might take better care of their health, knowing that they're not just risking the usually healthy 20s-60s range, but a 20s-200s range, when doing risky activities. Those risky activities sometimes affect others.

People may care to invest in research to cure other diseases because more people will live long enough to suffer from them.

And so on...

Do you give half your income to the top Give Well charities too?

Honestly this seems like a better use of resources than a holiday or a new TV.

I actually have not spent more than 25% of my income, yes, and have actually started researching starting my own institution. Where I hope to put the majority of my income and money made. I feel like NGOs have a cancer where CEOs are paid millions to increase fund raising with the actual “doing good” part being at best an after thought. Give well is awesome but I didn’t find a single charity I could believe in (I’d rather help orphans, victims of domestic abuse and if possible, help victims of human trafficking. Tall order but also paradoxically not in GiveWells docket apparently).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com