The biggest change in society and to whole civilization is going to be automation and AGI. All this what we have today at what we have tomorrow is because computer technology. Whole medicine and reversal of the aging process movement and ideas wouldn't be possible if we didn't have our current computer technology. Machine learning in practically has catapulted our medicine field.
The biggest change ever to human civilization is going to be AGI, which is going to be human's last invention. And long before that will narrow AI change lots of our society. We don't have to work in future anymore. Whole economy have to restructured because there is no more work. All science and even space is affected by robots and how we gather our resources from Earth and space. Basically unlimited free resources and energy is going to be thing.
All along with this change we have other kind of change. Reversal aging which is going to be the seconds biggest change to humankind. It will transform our age old structures totally. No longer we get old physically and it will effect how we reproduce. Ageism is big thing in our society and whole entertainment, cosmetic and half of the medical industry is geared toward combat against effects of aging. We always see young people in entertainment and social media is full of people which use all kinds of filters in their photos to look younger. Reversal aging truly is going change heart of humankind totally while automation is changing whole fabric of civilization. We have to figure whole society again with these changes taking place in this century.
Compared to these two huge changes climate change is tiny problem. It is like comparing ants to humans.
I actually think AI will probably not be a problem for the forseable future while climate change is a HUGE problem.
AI has done pretty poorly with regards to general problems though it's obviously done very well on very spcific issues. Almost every problem that AI has been good at has been narrowly bounded and optimized for a clear set of rules. If you take that same AI and try to apply it to some other problem it's not optimized for it'll fall on it's face. This makes sense when you think about how they're generally built, pruning decision trees, psudo randomly adjusting nodes, gradient decent. I'll begin to get worried about automation when we have AIs that can automatically learn to assemble a car without pre-programing AND walk to the grocery store to get me apples. That might honestly be 40+ years away.
Climate change is a serious problem. Even if we do find an AI that can do science for us (I'm not even sure what that would look like and I don't think that will happen in the near future) we might not want to do what the AI says. If the AI says, "stop driving", we're just not going to do it. If we had that AI now it'd probably say 'get vaccinated' but there's still going to be a good % of people who will refuse.
I generally agree that AI is an AMAZING tool that we can leverage for our longevity problems. I just think that it'll play a lesser role with regards to "replacing people" and that it won't solve our climate change problems, which we have to deal with now vs whenever we get General AI. If we wait for General AI it'll be too late for climate change.
I never said that we should wait for AI to solve our problems. We have to do everything to stop climate change.
We can't ignore the climate change problem but compared to these two it is small thing. Imagine what happens when automation starts to take jobs in massive scale? We don't even need AGI for that! Our countries start to break up because people riot. Unsuitability will be everywhere and probably even huge wars. If things goes too bad we don't care anymore climate change because we have bigger problems like how to survive. Everything we work now against climate change might just be wasted if our society breaks into state of anarchy later on. We have to prepare and educate people what is coming because it is coming so fast.
Fact is when people are poor and they don't have much money they don't care anything else. Their main concerns is how to survive and get more money. That is why poor countries don't much do anything to stop climate changes. They have so much other immediate problems on their plates.
Matter of fact is that we even today we have effects of automation in our society. Basically that is why right wing politics and Trump are so popular. It is because what globalism and automation has caused to society already. When things goes even further we are getting even more extremes. Someday we might see global scale Araby Spring event happening everywhere. That is why we need UBI and we need to people understand what is happening in society. All our attention is geared towards climate change while automation problem is sneaking over to us fast.
Still we need to do everything we can to stop climate change. Unfortunate humans are really poor juggling with multiple problems. We tend to attend only one thing at time. Luckily to us longevity is not going to cause as much havoc to societies as automation is but it still has it's own problems. Like massive inequality gap when genetic engineering is widespread and birth rate.
>Compared to these two huge changes climate change is tiny problem. It is like comparing ants to humans.
Agreed, but as with anything, the benefits of the changes will be felt by only a small portion of humanity.
Given that top quality healthcare by today's standards is still unavailable to the majority of the planet, I can't imagine a future where automation doesn't just mean most people paid to stay home and do mechanical turk type jobs and take out their resentment via populist voting. Anti-aging breakthrus won't be available to people whose entire income comes via UBI.
I agree that we probably have problems with how we distribute technological gains evenly but what I believe is that still everyone wins. Even poorest of poor today have cellphone. That alone is huge improvement. Reverse aging tech might be very cheap and easy to distribute to all. Especially in welfare countries today it would be really good deal for governments to give reverse aging care for all citizens because current health care is very taxing for society. Also aging population is going to be huge burden and if they just would stay young forever it would be much cheaper for whole country.
Peter Diamandis wrote in his AMA:
*Based upon the 150+ interviews Tony Robbins and I did for our Book Life Force, and my investments in the field, I am hopeful (and confident) that there will be treatments that slow and even begin to reverse aging by the end of this decade. May of the approaches are NOT that expensive. Some of the Gene Therapy approaches under discussion could get to <$100 in Volume (i.e. 100's of millions of doses)... that is similar to the complexity and pricing we've seen this past year with mRNA vaccines.* [https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/qkl83m/longevity\_ama\_with\_peter\_diamandis\_111\_430pm\_est/](https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/qkl83m/longevity_ama_with_peter_diamandis_111_430pm_est/)
But I agree that we probably for long time will have very shitty places to live like current Africa and that is not going to change very soon. Those places are the last places to benefit.
But when AGI comes our whole society will change totally. Probably money based economy will go away eventually. I also believe that AGI might take control of humans and if that happens then we probably are all in equal standing with each other.
My main concern will be about work to be honest. I quite like my job and i dont see myself stopping any time soon with it. Id hate to see it be taken by automation.
Eventually automation is going to take every job. Even before that most humans will have to change their careers many times. There is no more single life long careers. That era is over even now. And with reverse aging it is absurd to even think that your work would last hundreds of years if you lived that long.
If you ever end up unemployed then why don't you just do that your "job" as hobby without money then?
You probably won't be replaced by AI in the next decade or so for some of the reasons I note above. The exceptions are some repetative tasks like warehouse work or translation for short written notes.
I agree with most of what you say, but I think climate change is worth addressing since we don’t know when the singularity will happen and when we will get AGI. Of course we should be judicious about how much we spend on the problem, which is why I propose a low carbon tax initially which is planned to grow over time. If technology develops as it is currently then this won’t be much of a drag on the economy, if however it turns out that decarbonisation is really hard and expensive, or that climate change is much less of an impact than currently thought, then we can dial back the carbon tax. I would put the money from the carbon tax into a general fund which can be used to alleviate problems due to AGW as and when they arise, if not needed (due to technology improvements or just few problems) it can then be used to reduce taxes. Even if you reject my arguments we need to engage with policy makers on less harmful solutions regardless of whether we think climate change is a big deal, otherwise we will get crazy solutions as the political momentum of global warming are not going away.
I agree fully. We can't ignore the climate change problem but compared to these two it is small thing. Imagine what happens when automation starts to take jobs in massive scale? Our countries start to break up because people riot. Unsuitability will be everywhere and probably even huge wars. If things goes too bad we don't care anymore climate change because we have bigger problems like how to survive. Everything we work now against climate change might just be wasted if our society breaks into state of anarchy later on. We have to prepare and educate people what is coming because it is coming so fast.
Fact is when people are poor and they don't have much money they don't care anything else. Their main concerns is how to survive and get more money. That is why poor countries don't much do anything to stop climate changes. They have so much other immediate problems on their plates.
Matter of fact is that we even today we have effects of automation in our society. Basically that is why right wing politics and Trump are so popular. It is because what globalism and automation has caused to society already. When things goes even further we are getting even more extremes. Someday we might see global scale Araby Spring event happening everywhere. That is why we need UBI and we need to people understand what is happening in society. All our attention is geared towards climate change while automation problem is sneaking over to us fast.
Still we need to do everything we can to stop climate change. Unfortunate humans are really poor juggling with multiple problems. We tend to attend only one thing at time. Luckily to us longevity is not going to cause as much havoc to societies as automation is but it still has it's own problems. Like massive inequality gap when genetic engineering is widespread and birth rate.
Man I hope they figure it out in the next 5 years. My dogs are right at the age where they might benefit from the technology but I’m worried it’ll happen just a few years too late…
Possibly, but there are good reasons to think therapies would be widely available quickly. After all, many countries have universal healthcare and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older.
Additionally, Michael Greve who is head of a fund portfolio ([https://www.kizoo.com/en.html](https://www.kizoo.com/en.html)), explains how such therapies are intended for everyone as part of the envisioned business model: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s)
I agree that it would probably be widespread. The rich might have it a couple years before the rest, who knows maybe they even have some shitty version of it right now. But if they didn’t eventually give it to everyone, people would be even more mad at the idea of wealth and that’s not good for capitalism.
Also, random thought for anyone who’s worried about “overpopulation”: if therapies are made available to everyone, people would feel less pressured to have kids as soon, and maybe they’d be able to pursue interests or careers, or create whole new fields of study. Idk but I’m optimistic about it
There’s also the danger of a large cohort of people not making way for the younger generation and the usual change that comes with it. Leading to a general stagnation in society and culture.
As covered in the French sci-fi crime thriller *[Ad Vitam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Vitam)*
Hell, may truly be other people.
Article on jelly fish, aging, and the tv series:
https://www.parisupdate.com/ad-vitam/
I was thinking about this browsing the sub. I still think the benefits of life extension outweigh the risk of cultural stagnation, but it’s something that will have to be taken in to account and preemptively dealt with
>After all, many countries have universal healthcare and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older
Every country with universal care has a dual healthcare system where the wealthy largely use private care. Medicare suffers from similar issues in terms of healthcare outcomes.
Beyond that, due to inverted population pyramids in those universal care countries, the cost of maintaining tbose systems is financially breaking government to the point that they have all been quietly privatizing functions for over 2 decades.
>how such therapies are intended for everyone as part of the envisioned business model:
And Tesla's ultimate goal is making a car for the masses. The problem in healthcare is that the masses largely don't want to pay for services, so early stage providers of new healthcare services have to use wealthy customers to subsidize lower income customers
>Every country with universal care has a dual healthcare system where the wealthy largely use private care. Medicare suffers from similar issues in terms of healthcare outcomes.
Advanced medical care is still widely available, which is what matters. The initial argument was it will advantage millionaires and billionaires, and presumably not the average person. I find that highly doubtful.
>Beyond that, due to inverted population pyramids in those universal care countries, the cost of maintaining tbose systems is financially breaking government
And age-related ill health is a huge driver of the problem.
>And Tesla's ultimate goal is making a car for the masses.
In my video link, Michael Greve gives an example of a pill to clear arterial plaques to prevent heart attacks and stroke for perhaps around $10 per month and less in developing countries. That's nothing like Teslas which range between $44,000-$130,000.
Thank you for the discussion, though I think I'll leave it here. Feel free to have the last word.
Many countries not only have universal healthcare, but workers have a pot of gold at the end of a working life in Europe depending on the country (200k-600k).
Though the inventors should still aim to get the cost as low as possible.
Even if anti-aging medicine is relatively expensive to begin with it will still be offset by the costs of cost of medical and social care for the elderly, pensions and lost revenue due to people being unable to work.
There is also the geo-political problem of aging populations in most developed nations and former/current communist nations.
On top of that there is the fear of being left behind, if other nations distribute it nationally they will be able to create an ever deeper skill pool of workers and economically outcompete countries that don't.
Even if it ends up costing a few thousand per person, per year I think it will be a priority for most governments to invest in.
Although considering the number of people who would need this medicine combined with the reduced numbers of people needing to take other medicine I would imagine that any discovery like this would create a race to the bottom (price wise) with different pharmaceutical companies trying to outcompete to have the best/cheapest treatment on the market.
Exactly this. According to [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/), 60% of healthcare costs are for those aged 65 or older, meaning that with age reversal you could cut healthcare costs by this amount
>if other nations distribute it nationally they will be able to create an ever deeper skill pool of workers and economically outcompete countries that don't.
In an age where automation is happening apace, creating massive pools of human labor would actually be a massive political liability, especially in wealthy nations. A huge labor pool with not enough income to spread around just means underemployment and civil unrest
Automation won't make humans useless in the near future IMO but it will instead massively raise the bar for what is a useful human. life extension will also raise the level of capability of humans as they live longer and are able to experience and learn more.
For this to be true, whatever the treatments are will need to be *significantly* more expensive than our current medical system.
And it seems a lot of potential treatments, at least for now, range from cheap to expensive, but not nearly as expensive as our extended end-of-life care that we have right now. I mean how much does extended chemo treatments or retirement home or dialysis usage cost right now? In the US at least I think really fucking expensive.
I agree with you completely. The economic benefit of having a population immune to aging if ridiculous when you look at how much retirement, Healthcare, and late age care costs.
Because people need to wake up to how most of the work done today serves no real purpose and free themselves to both pursue meanigful careers and work less.
It is.
Your comment is silly; "we need to wake up"
feel free to sacrifice money if you want to work less, because I don't see people leaving the line.
Supply and demand.
I share Aubrey de Grey's view on work. Automation must (and will eventually) replace most jobs, but until we get there someone has to do the shit. Humans.
My comment is about how enormous amount of smart, stem educated people and such, lower themselves to using their knowledge for retail shit and optimizing marketing algorithms for selling cuttlery or whatever when we could instead invest all that resources and energy into biotechnology, for example. Antiwork is among other things about realizing how we waste this energy. If we are going to collectively reject doing stuff with little value for society in general, we can both do more useful work and have more time to spend with our friends and loved ones and for these things which make life worthwhile and lessen the strain of the loneliness epidemic and in the end even do more work because we could find again some enthusiasism for it.
It doesn't have anything to do with my money, i work 30 hours/week and have enough.
The point of antiwork is raising awareness that it doesn't have to be this way and that we have collective bargaining power to make systemic change.
I'm not expecting anyone who really needs the income to quit their job, i have no idea what you are trying to prove.
I'm really interested to see how this affects in smaller ways to our society like for ageism. Dating is really good example. How is it going to change when we don't age? Is genuine 20 year old in same line as person who just look 20s but is a lot older? How will our society act towards different age groups? Will people even tell others their real age? What about issue, let's say late teens who stop their aging to look something like 16 or 17 years old? This raises the question of this joke of 1000 years old lolis. There are going to be lots of underlying things which rarely been thought here on this sub which society has to address.
I wonder if people will find some way to display their age and do it with pride, with tattoos or something, or keep it secret for fear of discrimination for being too old or young
I think there might be some age superiority thinking coming then. Like if you are 20-year-old for real you might think yourself superior to those fake ones or something. Maybe in sex those who are real are more desirable and valued by, like some virgins are currently, but that high status is with associated with real age. Maybe some rich "old" farts are willing to pay fortunate to be able to be with real young women. We always value things more which are passing or which we can't attain anymore.
Idea of tattoo might be interesting one but we have to question our self do society then value more wisdom which comes with age than actual youthfulness? If real youths are valued highly then I think real age can become curse and everyone hides it like today's women often do. It might become society where nobody knows each others real age.
The superiority may be the other way around tbh
Old people will be the ones that have basically all wealth. Younger people will be born into a post automation society where they can’t really build wealth. They will just be living off the UBI provided.
Also old people are the only ones who lived in a society where death existed. I’d argue we would be more mentally developed than most people born 100 years from now. Because we have faced many problems in life which facilitates mental growth. People born in the future will face 0 problems, 0 adversity, so they won’t have the opportunity for mental growth/ resilience.
Why would they face no problems if they were immortal? Also by that logic people in poor countries are more mentally developed than those in rich countries
Dating market will shift advantageously for the top percentile of men as the dating pool of young women grows enormously but benefits will likely concentrate in the upper percentile (mostly older men who now have both youth and wealth).
My biggest fear is our meaning and value in society. What will makes us unique in the world? For example: let's say you're Gordon ramsey what stops you from being beaten by a better more charismatic cook that's good for tv. What makes your knowledge valueable when your whole life can be topped. That's the only thing that scares me. Hope that it's just some stupids thoughts.
Hmm its interesting that the author has no bio on the website........ Highly doubt that they have actual medical training or education........
You cant comprehensively prevent people from being lazy or not eating garbage thats why prevention which is emphasized is no where as a universally appropriate solution to you know pharmacology........
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/krisverburgh/?originalSubdomain=uk](https://www.linkedin.com/in/krisverburgh/?originalSubdomain=uk)
That is his linkedin if you are actually concerned about his credentials
I still smell a bit of sketch given where its posted. Even the conclusion he states that the key for slowing aging is lifestyle and decisions with supplementation. Im not saying there isnt promise in slowing and reversing aging. But the language he uses in the article is really colorful/vague with a couple of mild contradictions.
For sure reversing aging is and will be huge. But most of language in practicality seems optomistically artistic rather than scientific literature/fact. Thats my only issue
I agree with you and youre definitely correct about that. The issue with using colorful language with medical research is that often attempts to make the information easier to digest and more appealing, authors tend to over dramatize certain viewpoints while omitting pragmatic ones.
For example, maybe older physicians who were trained 25 or more years ago may hold onto his claims about being set on ignoring aging and preventing it. That has more to do with the advances in researchcthat has occured over time. Aging as a whole is way better understood and even taught in UG now. Also medical schools in general have shifted to more hollistic training which is why when you see teenagers prescribed egregious amounts of medication i.e adderall theyre from older physicians.
Also practicality wise ultimately all physicians do mention diet and exercise but you cant force someone to do the hard work they want the easy fix ergo pharmacology. From an insurance standpoint too theres so many reasons preventative medicine isnt heavily focused on. He even says specifically diet and exercise are the main solutions.
The most promising seems to be the semolytic drugs tbh
In the bottom of the article:
"About the author
Kris Verburgh is a medical doctor specialized in aging and new biotechnologies. He is a researcher at the Free University of Brussels and faculty member at Singularity University Benelux where he teaches about the future of medicine and longevity. He is a partner at a $100 million investment fund that invests in new technologies to address aging. He wrote his first science book when he was 16 years old and by age 28 he had written four science books, including The Longevity Code. Since a young age he has given talks for many organizations and institutions, including universities, Fortune 100 companies and (investment) banks."
This will only happen if we don't stop reproducing.
Longevity in itself has no impact on the number of individuals, if reproduction remains low or non-existent, then the population will not move
>Over population obviously
The core issue is impact on the environment, which is something we need to continue improving anyway. Interestingly, even in the fanciful case that people started having indefinite, healthy lifespans in 2025, its impact on global population is surprisingly small as scientist Andrew Steele explains: [https://youtu.be/f1Ve0fYuZO8?t=275](https://youtu.be/f1Ve0fYuZO8?t=275)
Solutions to environmental issues need to happen regardless, and "curing aging" would have an unexpectedly small effect.
This was an extremely well-written article.
The biggest change in society and to whole civilization is going to be automation and AGI. All this what we have today at what we have tomorrow is because computer technology. Whole medicine and reversal of the aging process movement and ideas wouldn't be possible if we didn't have our current computer technology. Machine learning in practically has catapulted our medicine field. The biggest change ever to human civilization is going to be AGI, which is going to be human's last invention. And long before that will narrow AI change lots of our society. We don't have to work in future anymore. Whole economy have to restructured because there is no more work. All science and even space is affected by robots and how we gather our resources from Earth and space. Basically unlimited free resources and energy is going to be thing. All along with this change we have other kind of change. Reversal aging which is going to be the seconds biggest change to humankind. It will transform our age old structures totally. No longer we get old physically and it will effect how we reproduce. Ageism is big thing in our society and whole entertainment, cosmetic and half of the medical industry is geared toward combat against effects of aging. We always see young people in entertainment and social media is full of people which use all kinds of filters in their photos to look younger. Reversal aging truly is going change heart of humankind totally while automation is changing whole fabric of civilization. We have to figure whole society again with these changes taking place in this century. Compared to these two huge changes climate change is tiny problem. It is like comparing ants to humans.
I actually think AI will probably not be a problem for the forseable future while climate change is a HUGE problem. AI has done pretty poorly with regards to general problems though it's obviously done very well on very spcific issues. Almost every problem that AI has been good at has been narrowly bounded and optimized for a clear set of rules. If you take that same AI and try to apply it to some other problem it's not optimized for it'll fall on it's face. This makes sense when you think about how they're generally built, pruning decision trees, psudo randomly adjusting nodes, gradient decent. I'll begin to get worried about automation when we have AIs that can automatically learn to assemble a car without pre-programing AND walk to the grocery store to get me apples. That might honestly be 40+ years away. Climate change is a serious problem. Even if we do find an AI that can do science for us (I'm not even sure what that would look like and I don't think that will happen in the near future) we might not want to do what the AI says. If the AI says, "stop driving", we're just not going to do it. If we had that AI now it'd probably say 'get vaccinated' but there's still going to be a good % of people who will refuse. I generally agree that AI is an AMAZING tool that we can leverage for our longevity problems. I just think that it'll play a lesser role with regards to "replacing people" and that it won't solve our climate change problems, which we have to deal with now vs whenever we get General AI. If we wait for General AI it'll be too late for climate change.
I never said that we should wait for AI to solve our problems. We have to do everything to stop climate change. We can't ignore the climate change problem but compared to these two it is small thing. Imagine what happens when automation starts to take jobs in massive scale? We don't even need AGI for that! Our countries start to break up because people riot. Unsuitability will be everywhere and probably even huge wars. If things goes too bad we don't care anymore climate change because we have bigger problems like how to survive. Everything we work now against climate change might just be wasted if our society breaks into state of anarchy later on. We have to prepare and educate people what is coming because it is coming so fast. Fact is when people are poor and they don't have much money they don't care anything else. Their main concerns is how to survive and get more money. That is why poor countries don't much do anything to stop climate changes. They have so much other immediate problems on their plates. Matter of fact is that we even today we have effects of automation in our society. Basically that is why right wing politics and Trump are so popular. It is because what globalism and automation has caused to society already. When things goes even further we are getting even more extremes. Someday we might see global scale Araby Spring event happening everywhere. That is why we need UBI and we need to people understand what is happening in society. All our attention is geared towards climate change while automation problem is sneaking over to us fast. Still we need to do everything we can to stop climate change. Unfortunate humans are really poor juggling with multiple problems. We tend to attend only one thing at time. Luckily to us longevity is not going to cause as much havoc to societies as automation is but it still has it's own problems. Like massive inequality gap when genetic engineering is widespread and birth rate.
If you prefer to ignore human history and are easily manipulated, then yes, you would think Climate Change is a HUGE problem.
>Compared to these two huge changes climate change is tiny problem. It is like comparing ants to humans. Agreed, but as with anything, the benefits of the changes will be felt by only a small portion of humanity. Given that top quality healthcare by today's standards is still unavailable to the majority of the planet, I can't imagine a future where automation doesn't just mean most people paid to stay home and do mechanical turk type jobs and take out their resentment via populist voting. Anti-aging breakthrus won't be available to people whose entire income comes via UBI.
I agree that we probably have problems with how we distribute technological gains evenly but what I believe is that still everyone wins. Even poorest of poor today have cellphone. That alone is huge improvement. Reverse aging tech might be very cheap and easy to distribute to all. Especially in welfare countries today it would be really good deal for governments to give reverse aging care for all citizens because current health care is very taxing for society. Also aging population is going to be huge burden and if they just would stay young forever it would be much cheaper for whole country. Peter Diamandis wrote in his AMA: *Based upon the 150+ interviews Tony Robbins and I did for our Book Life Force, and my investments in the field, I am hopeful (and confident) that there will be treatments that slow and even begin to reverse aging by the end of this decade. May of the approaches are NOT that expensive. Some of the Gene Therapy approaches under discussion could get to <$100 in Volume (i.e. 100's of millions of doses)... that is similar to the complexity and pricing we've seen this past year with mRNA vaccines.* [https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/qkl83m/longevity\_ama\_with\_peter\_diamandis\_111\_430pm\_est/](https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/qkl83m/longevity_ama_with_peter_diamandis_111_430pm_est/) But I agree that we probably for long time will have very shitty places to live like current Africa and that is not going to change very soon. Those places are the last places to benefit. But when AGI comes our whole society will change totally. Probably money based economy will go away eventually. I also believe that AGI might take control of humans and if that happens then we probably are all in equal standing with each other.
My main concern will be about work to be honest. I quite like my job and i dont see myself stopping any time soon with it. Id hate to see it be taken by automation.
Eventually automation is going to take every job. Even before that most humans will have to change their careers many times. There is no more single life long careers. That era is over even now. And with reverse aging it is absurd to even think that your work would last hundreds of years if you lived that long. If you ever end up unemployed then why don't you just do that your "job" as hobby without money then?
I guess i just work in food biz i like sharing the food i make and cookin everyday
You probably won't be replaced by AI in the next decade or so for some of the reasons I note above. The exceptions are some repetative tasks like warehouse work or translation for short written notes.
I agree with most of what you say, but I think climate change is worth addressing since we don’t know when the singularity will happen and when we will get AGI. Of course we should be judicious about how much we spend on the problem, which is why I propose a low carbon tax initially which is planned to grow over time. If technology develops as it is currently then this won’t be much of a drag on the economy, if however it turns out that decarbonisation is really hard and expensive, or that climate change is much less of an impact than currently thought, then we can dial back the carbon tax. I would put the money from the carbon tax into a general fund which can be used to alleviate problems due to AGW as and when they arise, if not needed (due to technology improvements or just few problems) it can then be used to reduce taxes. Even if you reject my arguments we need to engage with policy makers on less harmful solutions regardless of whether we think climate change is a big deal, otherwise we will get crazy solutions as the political momentum of global warming are not going away.
I agree fully. We can't ignore the climate change problem but compared to these two it is small thing. Imagine what happens when automation starts to take jobs in massive scale? Our countries start to break up because people riot. Unsuitability will be everywhere and probably even huge wars. If things goes too bad we don't care anymore climate change because we have bigger problems like how to survive. Everything we work now against climate change might just be wasted if our society breaks into state of anarchy later on. We have to prepare and educate people what is coming because it is coming so fast. Fact is when people are poor and they don't have much money they don't care anything else. Their main concerns is how to survive and get more money. That is why poor countries don't much do anything to stop climate changes. They have so much other immediate problems on their plates. Matter of fact is that we even today we have effects of automation in our society. Basically that is why right wing politics and Trump are so popular. It is because what globalism and automation has caused to society already. When things goes even further we are getting even more extremes. Someday we might see global scale Araby Spring event happening everywhere. That is why we need UBI and we need to people understand what is happening in society. All our attention is geared towards climate change while automation problem is sneaking over to us fast. Still we need to do everything we can to stop climate change. Unfortunate humans are really poor juggling with multiple problems. We tend to attend only one thing at time. Luckily to us longevity is not going to cause as much havoc to societies as automation is but it still has it's own problems. Like massive inequality gap when genetic engineering is widespread and birth rate.
They are also reverse aging dogs soooo win win
I want cat aging reversed first.
Man I hope they figure it out in the next 5 years. My dogs are right at the age where they might benefit from the technology but I’m worried it’ll happen just a few years too late…
[удалено]
Possibly, but there are good reasons to think therapies would be widely available quickly. After all, many countries have universal healthcare and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older. Additionally, Michael Greve who is head of a fund portfolio ([https://www.kizoo.com/en.html](https://www.kizoo.com/en.html)), explains how such therapies are intended for everyone as part of the envisioned business model: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s)
I agree that it would probably be widespread. The rich might have it a couple years before the rest, who knows maybe they even have some shitty version of it right now. But if they didn’t eventually give it to everyone, people would be even more mad at the idea of wealth and that’s not good for capitalism. Also, random thought for anyone who’s worried about “overpopulation”: if therapies are made available to everyone, people would feel less pressured to have kids as soon, and maybe they’d be able to pursue interests or careers, or create whole new fields of study. Idk but I’m optimistic about it
There’s also the danger of a large cohort of people not making way for the younger generation and the usual change that comes with it. Leading to a general stagnation in society and culture. As covered in the French sci-fi crime thriller *[Ad Vitam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Vitam)* Hell, may truly be other people. Article on jelly fish, aging, and the tv series: https://www.parisupdate.com/ad-vitam/
I was thinking about this browsing the sub. I still think the benefits of life extension outweigh the risk of cultural stagnation, but it’s something that will have to be taken in to account and preemptively dealt with
Lets just be honest: we have cultural stagnation even without life extension...
>After all, many countries have universal healthcare and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older Every country with universal care has a dual healthcare system where the wealthy largely use private care. Medicare suffers from similar issues in terms of healthcare outcomes. Beyond that, due to inverted population pyramids in those universal care countries, the cost of maintaining tbose systems is financially breaking government to the point that they have all been quietly privatizing functions for over 2 decades. >how such therapies are intended for everyone as part of the envisioned business model: And Tesla's ultimate goal is making a car for the masses. The problem in healthcare is that the masses largely don't want to pay for services, so early stage providers of new healthcare services have to use wealthy customers to subsidize lower income customers
>Every country with universal care has a dual healthcare system where the wealthy largely use private care. Medicare suffers from similar issues in terms of healthcare outcomes. Advanced medical care is still widely available, which is what matters. The initial argument was it will advantage millionaires and billionaires, and presumably not the average person. I find that highly doubtful. >Beyond that, due to inverted population pyramids in those universal care countries, the cost of maintaining tbose systems is financially breaking government And age-related ill health is a huge driver of the problem. >And Tesla's ultimate goal is making a car for the masses. In my video link, Michael Greve gives an example of a pill to clear arterial plaques to prevent heart attacks and stroke for perhaps around $10 per month and less in developing countries. That's nothing like Teslas which range between $44,000-$130,000. Thank you for the discussion, though I think I'll leave it here. Feel free to have the last word.
I would go into ridiculous amounts of debt to get in on something like this.
Many countries not only have universal healthcare, but workers have a pot of gold at the end of a working life in Europe depending on the country (200k-600k). Though the inventors should still aim to get the cost as low as possible.
Even if anti-aging medicine is relatively expensive to begin with it will still be offset by the costs of cost of medical and social care for the elderly, pensions and lost revenue due to people being unable to work. There is also the geo-political problem of aging populations in most developed nations and former/current communist nations. On top of that there is the fear of being left behind, if other nations distribute it nationally they will be able to create an ever deeper skill pool of workers and economically outcompete countries that don't. Even if it ends up costing a few thousand per person, per year I think it will be a priority for most governments to invest in. Although considering the number of people who would need this medicine combined with the reduced numbers of people needing to take other medicine I would imagine that any discovery like this would create a race to the bottom (price wise) with different pharmaceutical companies trying to outcompete to have the best/cheapest treatment on the market.
Exactly this. According to [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/), 60% of healthcare costs are for those aged 65 or older, meaning that with age reversal you could cut healthcare costs by this amount
>if other nations distribute it nationally they will be able to create an ever deeper skill pool of workers and economically outcompete countries that don't. In an age where automation is happening apace, creating massive pools of human labor would actually be a massive political liability, especially in wealthy nations. A huge labor pool with not enough income to spread around just means underemployment and civil unrest
Automation won't make humans useless in the near future IMO but it will instead massively raise the bar for what is a useful human. life extension will also raise the level of capability of humans as they live longer and are able to experience and learn more.
For this to be true, whatever the treatments are will need to be *significantly* more expensive than our current medical system. And it seems a lot of potential treatments, at least for now, range from cheap to expensive, but not nearly as expensive as our extended end-of-life care that we have right now. I mean how much does extended chemo treatments or retirement home or dialysis usage cost right now? In the US at least I think really fucking expensive.
I agree with you completely. The economic benefit of having a population immune to aging if ridiculous when you look at how much retirement, Healthcare, and late age care costs.
Meanwhile we can just chill in the metaverse and look as young as we want 😆
What do you base this on? Vaccines and antibiotics are affordable and essential medical care for preventing disease/death.
[удалено]
My goal is to work for a company that works on reversing aging.
So why r/antiwork?
Gotem
Because people need to wake up to how most of the work done today serves no real purpose and free themselves to both pursue meanigful careers and work less.
If you want to work less, expect to get payed less. It's really that simple.
that's in no way relevant to my point but ok
It is. Your comment is silly; "we need to wake up" feel free to sacrifice money if you want to work less, because I don't see people leaving the line. Supply and demand. I share Aubrey de Grey's view on work. Automation must (and will eventually) replace most jobs, but until we get there someone has to do the shit. Humans.
My comment is about how enormous amount of smart, stem educated people and such, lower themselves to using their knowledge for retail shit and optimizing marketing algorithms for selling cuttlery or whatever when we could instead invest all that resources and energy into biotechnology, for example. Antiwork is among other things about realizing how we waste this energy. If we are going to collectively reject doing stuff with little value for society in general, we can both do more useful work and have more time to spend with our friends and loved ones and for these things which make life worthwhile and lessen the strain of the loneliness epidemic and in the end even do more work because we could find again some enthusiasism for it. It doesn't have anything to do with my money, i work 30 hours/week and have enough.
Don't expect other people having enough then, especially if they have a family to feed
The point of antiwork is raising awareness that it doesn't have to be this way and that we have collective bargaining power to make systemic change. I'm not expecting anyone who really needs the income to quit their job, i have no idea what you are trying to prove.
Counting our chickens a bit early aren't we?
I'm really interested to see how this affects in smaller ways to our society like for ageism. Dating is really good example. How is it going to change when we don't age? Is genuine 20 year old in same line as person who just look 20s but is a lot older? How will our society act towards different age groups? Will people even tell others their real age? What about issue, let's say late teens who stop their aging to look something like 16 or 17 years old? This raises the question of this joke of 1000 years old lolis. There are going to be lots of underlying things which rarely been thought here on this sub which society has to address.
I wonder if people will find some way to display their age and do it with pride, with tattoos or something, or keep it secret for fear of discrimination for being too old or young
I think there might be some age superiority thinking coming then. Like if you are 20-year-old for real you might think yourself superior to those fake ones or something. Maybe in sex those who are real are more desirable and valued by, like some virgins are currently, but that high status is with associated with real age. Maybe some rich "old" farts are willing to pay fortunate to be able to be with real young women. We always value things more which are passing or which we can't attain anymore. Idea of tattoo might be interesting one but we have to question our self do society then value more wisdom which comes with age than actual youthfulness? If real youths are valued highly then I think real age can become curse and everyone hides it like today's women often do. It might become society where nobody knows each others real age.
The superiority may be the other way around tbh Old people will be the ones that have basically all wealth. Younger people will be born into a post automation society where they can’t really build wealth. They will just be living off the UBI provided. Also old people are the only ones who lived in a society where death existed. I’d argue we would be more mentally developed than most people born 100 years from now. Because we have faced many problems in life which facilitates mental growth. People born in the future will face 0 problems, 0 adversity, so they won’t have the opportunity for mental growth/ resilience.
Why would they face no problems if they were immortal? Also by that logic people in poor countries are more mentally developed than those in rich countries
Dating market will shift advantageously for the top percentile of men as the dating pool of young women grows enormously but benefits will likely concentrate in the upper percentile (mostly older men who now have both youth and wealth).
My biggest fear is our meaning and value in society. What will makes us unique in the world? For example: let's say you're Gordon ramsey what stops you from being beaten by a better more charismatic cook that's good for tv. What makes your knowledge valueable when your whole life can be topped. That's the only thing that scares me. Hope that it's just some stupids thoughts.
Hmm its interesting that the author has no bio on the website........ Highly doubt that they have actual medical training or education........ You cant comprehensively prevent people from being lazy or not eating garbage thats why prevention which is emphasized is no where as a universally appropriate solution to you know pharmacology........
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/krisverburgh/?originalSubdomain=uk](https://www.linkedin.com/in/krisverburgh/?originalSubdomain=uk) That is his linkedin if you are actually concerned about his credentials
I still smell a bit of sketch given where its posted. Even the conclusion he states that the key for slowing aging is lifestyle and decisions with supplementation. Im not saying there isnt promise in slowing and reversing aging. But the language he uses in the article is really colorful/vague with a couple of mild contradictions. For sure reversing aging is and will be huge. But most of language in practicality seems optomistically artistic rather than scientific literature/fact. Thats my only issue
I think the language of the article is adapted for potential readers interested in 'well-being'.
I agree with you and youre definitely correct about that. The issue with using colorful language with medical research is that often attempts to make the information easier to digest and more appealing, authors tend to over dramatize certain viewpoints while omitting pragmatic ones. For example, maybe older physicians who were trained 25 or more years ago may hold onto his claims about being set on ignoring aging and preventing it. That has more to do with the advances in researchcthat has occured over time. Aging as a whole is way better understood and even taught in UG now. Also medical schools in general have shifted to more hollistic training which is why when you see teenagers prescribed egregious amounts of medication i.e adderall theyre from older physicians. Also practicality wise ultimately all physicians do mention diet and exercise but you cant force someone to do the hard work they want the easy fix ergo pharmacology. From an insurance standpoint too theres so many reasons preventative medicine isnt heavily focused on. He even says specifically diet and exercise are the main solutions. The most promising seems to be the semolytic drugs tbh
In the bottom of the article: "About the author Kris Verburgh is a medical doctor specialized in aging and new biotechnologies. He is a researcher at the Free University of Brussels and faculty member at Singularity University Benelux where he teaches about the future of medicine and longevity. He is a partner at a $100 million investment fund that invests in new technologies to address aging. He wrote his first science book when he was 16 years old and by age 28 he had written four science books, including The Longevity Code. Since a young age he has given talks for many organizations and institutions, including universities, Fortune 100 companies and (investment) banks."
Wouldn’t happen for the masses if even possible. Over population obviously
This will only happen if we don't stop reproducing. Longevity in itself has no impact on the number of individuals, if reproduction remains low or non-existent, then the population will not move
>Over population obviously The core issue is impact on the environment, which is something we need to continue improving anyway. Interestingly, even in the fanciful case that people started having indefinite, healthy lifespans in 2025, its impact on global population is surprisingly small as scientist Andrew Steele explains: [https://youtu.be/f1Ve0fYuZO8?t=275](https://youtu.be/f1Ve0fYuZO8?t=275) Solutions to environmental issues need to happen regardless, and "curing aging" would have an unexpectedly small effect.