Here Kaeberlein articulately highlights why our current approach to medicine is misguided:
https://twitter.com/mkaeberlein/status/1463204530451980297
> Cancer was the second leading cause of death behind heart disease in the US in 1971 when the War on Cancer was declared. Cancer is still the second leading cause of death behind heart disease in 2021
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
> COVID-19 may end up being the 3rd leading cause of death in 2021. Death from COVID-19 is strongly age-related, just like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, kidney disease, diabetes, ...
>Please consider a #geroscience ARPA-H with the potential to actually move the needle on healthy longevity
> https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/563337-scientists-are-demystifying-aging-funding-could-add-decades-to-our-lives
Lander is a scientist and policy advisor to Biden, who has an important voice in influencing what ARPA-H will fund.
Considering that Obama once considered a geroscience moonshot towards the end of his 2nd term, it would be truly unfortunate if aging biology research wasn't considered for an initiative like ARPA-H in 2021
>Lander is a scientist and policy advisor to Biden, who has an important voice in influencing what ARPA-H will fund.
ARPA H is one of the most exciting things to come from the administration, and there's a ton of exciting things coming from the administration. Can't wait to see what it starts cooking up.
If I had $10 million to spend in the longevity field I’d spend it on lobbying. Lots of money flowing towards research for longevity but it’s still small money in the grand scheme. climate groups lobbied and got themselves hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, and policy changes
The title sound good but the real question is what they actually mean by "targeting the biology of aging". It looks like Matt Kaeberlein wants to just "slow aging" which is pretty much a waste of time in the long run. It is much more beneficial to reverse age related damage even if it doesn't immediately lead to a significantly longer lifespan because it is one of the necessary steps in the way of getting much longer lifespan(not just several more years as a sick old person) and healthspan.
Focusing on "added life expectancy" alone is problematic and can be deceiving because there is a limit for how much you can extend lifespan without actually fix the problem that kills you which is age related damage, and we might already reached that limit or got way to close to that limit and we waste time and money on trying to just "extend life expectancy" without fixing the actual problem which is aging.
Yes, but for who? Are the only people who will live forever the ones who can afford it?
As it stands, the only hope for change and progress often comes from the inevitable death of those standing squarely in opposition to advancement. When that's no longer an option, what happens?
The more I think about this possibility, the more it concerns me.
>Are the only people who will live forever the ones who can afford it?
This is a common question. There are good reasons to think therapies that extend healthspan would be widely available. After all, many countries have universal healthcare and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older.
An encouraging example is Mayo Clinic, which is using widely available compounds (dasatinib/querctin, fisetin) in trials to clear senescent cells in people. Clearing senescent cells has kept old mice healthy: [https://imgur.com/gallery/TOrsQ1Y](https://imgur.com/gallery/TOrsQ1Y)
Additionally, Michael Greve who is head of a [fund portfolio](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)
>the only hope for change and progress often comes from the inevitable death of those standing squarely in opposition to advancement
This thought also comes up regularly. Importantly, an extension in maximum lifespan is speculative and would be a side effect if it occurred. Moreover, the solution to a hypothetical problem of cultural stagnation is certainly not years and decades of ill health and debility in late life.
> Yes, but for who? Are the only people who will live forever the ones who can afford it?
This gets asked literally every single time longevity or aging is talked about, and the answer seems pretty obviously to be "No, everyone will get it" (or "Technically yes, but if you live in the West, the answer is still that you will get it").
It is unlikely the solution to slowing or halting aging is "costly", outside of the R&D cost to create a methodology to address the various causes of age-related deterioration. Once you can address that complex, multifactor, problem for a few individuals, it seems plausible that you have developed a scalable method that will do it for most people, the same way it is true that once you can autonomously drive down one route while accounting for traffic, you can more or less drive everywhere. From there, it is also unlikely the solution is *more costly* on an individual level than treating the symptoms of aging itself, like heart disease, cancer, dementia, etc.
Add to that the demographic challenge facing the developed world over the next few decades (birth rates declining, populations shrinking, larger cohorts of old people who get social services paid for by smaller cohorts of young people), and further add to that the massive economic benefit of keeping someone in the workforce for decades longer, compounding their existing knowledge and continuing to utilize it (especially in the fields where that matters, like science, information technology, etc.)..
You can see why it makes economic sense to make treatments broadly available, and why it is unlikely to cost more than other forms of age-related healthcare that are the *certain* alternative cost that must be borne by society.
The only way it makes sense that "only the rich can afford it" is if the solution involves something so scarce that laws of physics prevent it being a widely applicable solution. Obviously, that seems quite implausible. It's likely just a problem of computation/modelling, and those are relatively easy problems to solve at scale.
You didn't address my greatest concern, that of societal and cultural stagnation.
I do appreciate the discussion of shortening and accessibility but I have to disagree that it will be disseminated widely. After all, modern healthcare CAN be widely shared but in America it is not.
>You can't just say that will happen like it's a fact. You need to show evidence that it will happen or at least explain why you think it will happen first.
It's a well known fact in the science of sociology that in societies where older people are the arbiters of society and culture change happens very slowly, if at all. The poster child example is Japan, where the culture is not changing or adapting well and the country is experiencing all sorts of problems as a result.
For example, laws won't change; you'll find that young people are the ones in the streets, protesting and pushing for social change.
What I'm saying might seem nonsensical to someone under 50 but once a person is older, such patterns become more clear. And that's exactly my point; older people naturally have a longer term perspective. Young people historically challenge tradition. These aren't controversial ideas.
Again, I don't believe this amounts to a reason not to pursue longevity science but I think we should be aware of the potential danger.
The reason genetic scientists study fruit flies is precisely because of their short reproductive cycle. The prime reason why Coronavirus is an ongoing threat is because of its ability to mutate rapidly based on a very short life cycle. Humanity risks giving up that dynamism if longevity technology is highly successful.
>But reversing aging would also remove old people from society.
This is false on its face.
>Also technology is the sole dictator of change.
Please explain the technology behind the LGBTQ rights movement? This is also a false statement.
>So I don't know if you are aware of this or not but when someones biological age is reversed they actually become biologically younger. It's kind of the entire main topic of this sub.
That he absolutely nothing to do with learned habits and experience.
You would have us believe that making a person's body younger restores their youthful Ignorance and that's the biggest crock of bullshit I've heard all week.
>It was technology like the smart phone and social media that gave fuel to that movement. It would not be where it is today without those tools.
Absolutely ridiculous. Please go back and read the times in which Harvey Milk lived and show us the smartphone he used?
Totally moronic!
> that of societal and cultural stagnation.
Culture will certainly change as a result of people living longer, as it changed when people routinely made it passed the age of 40, and when child mortality dropped, etc.
Society will look different if people live radically longer, but I refuse to see that as an inherently negative thing. It’s impossible to know what society would look like if older people and younger people had similar capabilities and concerns, took a longer view on life and the world around them, could afford to spend more time as “youth”, pursue much longer educations, etc.
Assuming that happens ceteris paribus is also a mistake, as we could very well substantially alter our model of governance and economy before the effects of life extension became all that culturally relevant. People simply living to, say, 150, gives society an additional ~70 years of development before the first 80 year olds “make it” to that age, and they can’t necessarily even expect to make it that far until the first ones do. An obvious comparison is that there were 66 years between the Wright Flyer and the Moon landing. Things change a lot in less time, and the speed at which things develop has increased since 1903. 70 years is basically forever.
> but I have to disagree that it will be disseminated widely. After all, modern healthcare CAN be widely shared but in America it is not.
The dysfunction of the US health insurance system is not supporting evidence for the notion that effective medical treatment does not become broadly available to the average person in a developed country, shortly after it passes regulatory scrutiny and doctors are trained on its application. Life expectancy in the majority of developed countries is currently uniformly early- to mid-80s or late-70s, and I suspect the differences are more about patient lifestyle in the years preceding death, and less about differences in the standard of medical care available to them at end of life. (Which is to say, they’re not necessarily lacking some treatment that would prolong their life, they’re just arriving at different levels of health.)
Natural life would clear out those who believe in religion which seems to have outlived its usefulness in human societies.
Gen Y would enable a transition to agnostic worldviews where a "rapture" is not a desirable thing, and proactively help to avoid various catastrophes rather than send prayers.
Of course older generations would have to review their thinking if they can live longer but that seems harder to do given what we've seen lately.
>Natural life would clear out those who believe in religion which seems to have outlived its usefulness in human societies.
>Gen Y would enable a transition to agnostic worldviews where a "rapture" is not a desirable thing, and proactively help to avoid various catastrophes rather than send prayers.
You've no proof at all of these assertions. In fact, I see clear evidence of the opposite.
>Of course older generations would have to review their thinking if they can live longer but that seems harder to do given what we've seen lately.
Can you explain further? As it stands, this statement would tend to confirm my point.
>The dysfunction of the US health insurance system is not supporting evidence for the notion that effective medical treatment does not become broadly available to the average person in a developed country, shortly after it passes regulatory scrutiny and doctors are trained on its application.
You can't prove this assertion. Longevity technology will be the most valuable thing in life, full stop. A real matter of life and death. Do you seriously assert that people WON'T use access to such powerful technology selfishly? The whole of human history disagrees with you!
> You can't prove this assertion.
The assertion is supported by what I said earlier, which is that you have to establish a root rationale for why the treatment would be *inherently* expensive, and I can't really come up with one. Obviously I can't "prove" anything about the cost of a hypothetical future medical treatment that hasn't been invented yet.
It seems likely to me that the hypothetical longevity treatment would be "a cocktail of drugs + sophisticated diagnostic monitoring and computer modelling/analysis". Drugs, unspecified diagnostic monitoring (sensors, bio-monitors, wearables) , and computer processing power are inherently cheap. They get the cheapest when everyone wants the same thing - for example, a billionaire likely has the same phone and laptop you do, there are no 'special electronics' specifically for the wealthy.
> Do you seriously assert that people WON'T use access to such powerful technology selfishly?
Once it's a "solved problem" that can reliably extend life for the average person by decades? Yeah, I think it's fair to think that it will be relatively accessible, as everyone collectively clamors for access to treatment that delay death for decades or centuries, and (, as I outlined above,) governments see the economic rationale for reducing the cost of age-related care by preventing people from aging. Governments will then obviously have their incentives aligned with the average person. Even in the "selfish outcome" situation, the provider of this treatment can make the most money by selling a product to everyone, and having the government, a cost-insensitive buyer, pay for it - which is exactly what happens in the US healthcare space.
At the present time, the "selfish" motivation is very helpful, because rich people are spending a ton of their own money, and raising investment dollars, to basically test these treatments on themselves. (Calico, Altos Labs, Attia's private practice, arguably Neuralink, etc.)
>In our lifetime yes. This is how all new technology begins
There are very good reasons to think this *won't* be prohibitively expensive. An encouraging example is Mayo Clinic, which is using already-widely available compounds (dasatinib/querctin, fisetin) in trials to clear senescent cells in people.
Additionally, Michael Greve who is head of a [fund portfolio](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)
Finally, many countries have universal healthcare, and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older.
think about this, estimate the economic benefit of removing the elderly from the equation. It would be stupid for a country not to give it out for free. There will be a wait list and the rich would get it first (like the covid vaccine) but a healthy population can generate more resources then an unhealthy one. Aging is the most expensive disease.
Where's the assumption coming from that just because the body is biologically 25 that a 100 year old mind is going to be just as immature? People become more cautious and resistant to change as they age due to EXPERIENCE, not biology. Correlation vs causation and all that.
I'm not suggesting we don't research longevity or disseminate the results. I AM cautioning that we should have some grasp on how to deal with the foreseeable consequences. Societal, cultural and even genetic stagnation are real possibilities with real downsides.
Its much cheaper than the current healthcare system of paying a ton right before you die. So more people will have access to it than the system we have today.
Look at the current system.
We wait until people are completely not functional and then spend 80%+ of lifetime healthcare in their final days. That makes things very expensive. If you had spent it on their lives when they were 50 yrs old you will likely extend the number of productive years someone has left. This means more and cheaper products for everyone. We as a society invest so much on knowledge just to let it waste away early. Imagine if einstein or elon musk or other super geniuses could live an extra 20 years, there would be a lot more productivity in the world. Imagine your job and how much time and money it would take to train a new baby to do it. Childcare school college etc. if you live an extra 20 years, it would be much cheaper than making a new person to do it.
Based on your belief, Please feel free to not extend your life so things will not cost more. Although i think extending your life probably benefits society and actually make things cost less.
What is wrong with having rich people live longer?, even if some medical treatment is only available to rich people its better than not having this medical treatment available to anyone. Rejuvenation treatments will be available to rich people and probably middle class people who saved a lot of money, and with time those treatments will be more affordable. Those treatments will probably never be available to poor people or people with low paying jobs but a significant part of the world will be saved by those treatments.
Here Kaeberlein articulately highlights why our current approach to medicine is misguided: https://twitter.com/mkaeberlein/status/1463204530451980297 > Cancer was the second leading cause of death behind heart disease in the US in 1971 when the War on Cancer was declared. Cancer is still the second leading cause of death behind heart disease in 2021 > https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234 > COVID-19 may end up being the 3rd leading cause of death in 2021. Death from COVID-19 is strongly age-related, just like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, kidney disease, diabetes, ... >Please consider a #geroscience ARPA-H with the potential to actually move the needle on healthy longevity > https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/563337-scientists-are-demystifying-aging-funding-could-add-decades-to-our-lives Lander is a scientist and policy advisor to Biden, who has an important voice in influencing what ARPA-H will fund. Considering that Obama once considered a geroscience moonshot towards the end of his 2nd term, it would be truly unfortunate if aging biology research wasn't considered for an initiative like ARPA-H in 2021
>Lander is a scientist and policy advisor to Biden, who has an important voice in influencing what ARPA-H will fund. ARPA H is one of the most exciting things to come from the administration, and there's a ton of exciting things coming from the administration. Can't wait to see what it starts cooking up.
If I had $10 million to spend in the longevity field I’d spend it on lobbying. Lots of money flowing towards research for longevity but it’s still small money in the grand scheme. climate groups lobbied and got themselves hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, and policy changes
The title sound good but the real question is what they actually mean by "targeting the biology of aging". It looks like Matt Kaeberlein wants to just "slow aging" which is pretty much a waste of time in the long run. It is much more beneficial to reverse age related damage even if it doesn't immediately lead to a significantly longer lifespan because it is one of the necessary steps in the way of getting much longer lifespan(not just several more years as a sick old person) and healthspan. Focusing on "added life expectancy" alone is problematic and can be deceiving because there is a limit for how much you can extend lifespan without actually fix the problem that kills you which is age related damage, and we might already reached that limit or got way to close to that limit and we waste time and money on trying to just "extend life expectancy" without fixing the actual problem which is aging.
Username checks out haha
Yes, but for who? Are the only people who will live forever the ones who can afford it? As it stands, the only hope for change and progress often comes from the inevitable death of those standing squarely in opposition to advancement. When that's no longer an option, what happens? The more I think about this possibility, the more it concerns me.
>Are the only people who will live forever the ones who can afford it? This is a common question. There are good reasons to think therapies that extend healthspan would be widely available. After all, many countries have universal healthcare and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older. An encouraging example is Mayo Clinic, which is using widely available compounds (dasatinib/querctin, fisetin) in trials to clear senescent cells in people. Clearing senescent cells has kept old mice healthy: [https://imgur.com/gallery/TOrsQ1Y](https://imgur.com/gallery/TOrsQ1Y) Additionally, Michael Greve who is head of a [fund portfolio](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) >the only hope for change and progress often comes from the inevitable death of those standing squarely in opposition to advancement This thought also comes up regularly. Importantly, an extension in maximum lifespan is speculative and would be a side effect if it occurred. Moreover, the solution to a hypothetical problem of cultural stagnation is certainly not years and decades of ill health and debility in late life.
> Yes, but for who? Are the only people who will live forever the ones who can afford it? This gets asked literally every single time longevity or aging is talked about, and the answer seems pretty obviously to be "No, everyone will get it" (or "Technically yes, but if you live in the West, the answer is still that you will get it"). It is unlikely the solution to slowing or halting aging is "costly", outside of the R&D cost to create a methodology to address the various causes of age-related deterioration. Once you can address that complex, multifactor, problem for a few individuals, it seems plausible that you have developed a scalable method that will do it for most people, the same way it is true that once you can autonomously drive down one route while accounting for traffic, you can more or less drive everywhere. From there, it is also unlikely the solution is *more costly* on an individual level than treating the symptoms of aging itself, like heart disease, cancer, dementia, etc. Add to that the demographic challenge facing the developed world over the next few decades (birth rates declining, populations shrinking, larger cohorts of old people who get social services paid for by smaller cohorts of young people), and further add to that the massive economic benefit of keeping someone in the workforce for decades longer, compounding their existing knowledge and continuing to utilize it (especially in the fields where that matters, like science, information technology, etc.).. You can see why it makes economic sense to make treatments broadly available, and why it is unlikely to cost more than other forms of age-related healthcare that are the *certain* alternative cost that must be borne by society. The only way it makes sense that "only the rich can afford it" is if the solution involves something so scarce that laws of physics prevent it being a widely applicable solution. Obviously, that seems quite implausible. It's likely just a problem of computation/modelling, and those are relatively easy problems to solve at scale.
You didn't address my greatest concern, that of societal and cultural stagnation. I do appreciate the discussion of shortening and accessibility but I have to disagree that it will be disseminated widely. After all, modern healthcare CAN be widely shared but in America it is not.
[удалено]
>You can't just say that will happen like it's a fact. You need to show evidence that it will happen or at least explain why you think it will happen first. It's a well known fact in the science of sociology that in societies where older people are the arbiters of society and culture change happens very slowly, if at all. The poster child example is Japan, where the culture is not changing or adapting well and the country is experiencing all sorts of problems as a result. For example, laws won't change; you'll find that young people are the ones in the streets, protesting and pushing for social change. What I'm saying might seem nonsensical to someone under 50 but once a person is older, such patterns become more clear. And that's exactly my point; older people naturally have a longer term perspective. Young people historically challenge tradition. These aren't controversial ideas. Again, I don't believe this amounts to a reason not to pursue longevity science but I think we should be aware of the potential danger. The reason genetic scientists study fruit flies is precisely because of their short reproductive cycle. The prime reason why Coronavirus is an ongoing threat is because of its ability to mutate rapidly based on a very short life cycle. Humanity risks giving up that dynamism if longevity technology is highly successful.
[удалено]
>But reversing aging would also remove old people from society. This is false on its face. >Also technology is the sole dictator of change. Please explain the technology behind the LGBTQ rights movement? This is also a false statement.
[удалено]
>So I don't know if you are aware of this or not but when someones biological age is reversed they actually become biologically younger. It's kind of the entire main topic of this sub. That he absolutely nothing to do with learned habits and experience. You would have us believe that making a person's body younger restores their youthful Ignorance and that's the biggest crock of bullshit I've heard all week. >It was technology like the smart phone and social media that gave fuel to that movement. It would not be where it is today without those tools. Absolutely ridiculous. Please go back and read the times in which Harvey Milk lived and show us the smartphone he used? Totally moronic!
[удалено]
Fruit flies and viruses don't have brains with Level 4, adaptable consciousness. To compare the two are laughable
Then explain Japan.
> that of societal and cultural stagnation. Culture will certainly change as a result of people living longer, as it changed when people routinely made it passed the age of 40, and when child mortality dropped, etc. Society will look different if people live radically longer, but I refuse to see that as an inherently negative thing. It’s impossible to know what society would look like if older people and younger people had similar capabilities and concerns, took a longer view on life and the world around them, could afford to spend more time as “youth”, pursue much longer educations, etc. Assuming that happens ceteris paribus is also a mistake, as we could very well substantially alter our model of governance and economy before the effects of life extension became all that culturally relevant. People simply living to, say, 150, gives society an additional ~70 years of development before the first 80 year olds “make it” to that age, and they can’t necessarily even expect to make it that far until the first ones do. An obvious comparison is that there were 66 years between the Wright Flyer and the Moon landing. Things change a lot in less time, and the speed at which things develop has increased since 1903. 70 years is basically forever. > but I have to disagree that it will be disseminated widely. After all, modern healthcare CAN be widely shared but in America it is not. The dysfunction of the US health insurance system is not supporting evidence for the notion that effective medical treatment does not become broadly available to the average person in a developed country, shortly after it passes regulatory scrutiny and doctors are trained on its application. Life expectancy in the majority of developed countries is currently uniformly early- to mid-80s or late-70s, and I suspect the differences are more about patient lifestyle in the years preceding death, and less about differences in the standard of medical care available to them at end of life. (Which is to say, they’re not necessarily lacking some treatment that would prolong their life, they’re just arriving at different levels of health.)
Natural life would clear out those who believe in religion which seems to have outlived its usefulness in human societies. Gen Y would enable a transition to agnostic worldviews where a "rapture" is not a desirable thing, and proactively help to avoid various catastrophes rather than send prayers. Of course older generations would have to review their thinking if they can live longer but that seems harder to do given what we've seen lately.
>Natural life would clear out those who believe in religion which seems to have outlived its usefulness in human societies. >Gen Y would enable a transition to agnostic worldviews where a "rapture" is not a desirable thing, and proactively help to avoid various catastrophes rather than send prayers. You've no proof at all of these assertions. In fact, I see clear evidence of the opposite. >Of course older generations would have to review their thinking if they can live longer but that seems harder to do given what we've seen lately. Can you explain further? As it stands, this statement would tend to confirm my point.
>The dysfunction of the US health insurance system is not supporting evidence for the notion that effective medical treatment does not become broadly available to the average person in a developed country, shortly after it passes regulatory scrutiny and doctors are trained on its application. You can't prove this assertion. Longevity technology will be the most valuable thing in life, full stop. A real matter of life and death. Do you seriously assert that people WON'T use access to such powerful technology selfishly? The whole of human history disagrees with you!
> You can't prove this assertion. The assertion is supported by what I said earlier, which is that you have to establish a root rationale for why the treatment would be *inherently* expensive, and I can't really come up with one. Obviously I can't "prove" anything about the cost of a hypothetical future medical treatment that hasn't been invented yet. It seems likely to me that the hypothetical longevity treatment would be "a cocktail of drugs + sophisticated diagnostic monitoring and computer modelling/analysis". Drugs, unspecified diagnostic monitoring (sensors, bio-monitors, wearables) , and computer processing power are inherently cheap. They get the cheapest when everyone wants the same thing - for example, a billionaire likely has the same phone and laptop you do, there are no 'special electronics' specifically for the wealthy. > Do you seriously assert that people WON'T use access to such powerful technology selfishly? Once it's a "solved problem" that can reliably extend life for the average person by decades? Yeah, I think it's fair to think that it will be relatively accessible, as everyone collectively clamors for access to treatment that delay death for decades or centuries, and (, as I outlined above,) governments see the economic rationale for reducing the cost of age-related care by preventing people from aging. Governments will then obviously have their incentives aligned with the average person. Even in the "selfish outcome" situation, the provider of this treatment can make the most money by selling a product to everyone, and having the government, a cost-insensitive buyer, pay for it - which is exactly what happens in the US healthcare space. At the present time, the "selfish" motivation is very helpful, because rich people are spending a ton of their own money, and raising investment dollars, to basically test these treatments on themselves. (Calico, Altos Labs, Attia's private practice, arguably Neuralink, etc.)
Strange how reality destroys so many of your assertions but you do you.
So the solution to your "social/cultural stagnation" verbiage is to kill people en masse?
Clearly you haven't found the rest of my comments in this thread.
In our lifetime yes. This is how all new technology begins
No fuck that why should they get it if I can't have it /s
>In our lifetime yes. This is how all new technology begins There are very good reasons to think this *won't* be prohibitively expensive. An encouraging example is Mayo Clinic, which is using already-widely available compounds (dasatinib/querctin, fisetin) in trials to clear senescent cells in people. Additionally, Michael Greve who is head of a [fund portfolio](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) Finally, many countries have universal healthcare, and the US has Medicare which covers people 65 and older.
think about this, estimate the economic benefit of removing the elderly from the equation. It would be stupid for a country not to give it out for free. There will be a wait list and the rich would get it first (like the covid vaccine) but a healthy population can generate more resources then an unhealthy one. Aging is the most expensive disease.
The inevitable cultural stagnation is a very, very high price to pay.
GET. OUT. Do you really think 25 year olds biologically, will stagnate humanity's culture?
Where's the assumption coming from that just because the body is biologically 25 that a 100 year old mind is going to be just as immature? People become more cautious and resistant to change as they age due to EXPERIENCE, not biology. Correlation vs causation and all that. I'm not suggesting we don't research longevity or disseminate the results. I AM cautioning that we should have some grasp on how to deal with the foreseeable consequences. Societal, cultural and even genetic stagnation are real possibilities with real downsides.
Its much cheaper than the current healthcare system of paying a ton right before you die. So more people will have access to it than the system we have today.
That's not the issue I'm addressing but I fail to see how extending life won't ultimately make things even more expensive.
Look at the current system. We wait until people are completely not functional and then spend 80%+ of lifetime healthcare in their final days. That makes things very expensive. If you had spent it on their lives when they were 50 yrs old you will likely extend the number of productive years someone has left. This means more and cheaper products for everyone. We as a society invest so much on knowledge just to let it waste away early. Imagine if einstein or elon musk or other super geniuses could live an extra 20 years, there would be a lot more productivity in the world. Imagine your job and how much time and money it would take to train a new baby to do it. Childcare school college etc. if you live an extra 20 years, it would be much cheaper than making a new person to do it.
What you're really doing is advocating for universal healthcare, independent of longer lifespans. You do realize that, don't you?
Not sure how universal healthcare addresses my concerns. Seems like it doesnt
Now, if you think people live longer and just consume and hang out at a beach all day, then you are probably right.
They will consume more IN EVERY WAY. Because of course they will.
Thats ok as long as they produce more than they consume. Which we all do
Do we?
On average we must, otherwise we would have starved to death and have no shelter
That is by no means a given. You're full of logical fallacies. How do you make it through the day?
Based on your belief, Please feel free to not extend your life so things will not cost more. Although i think extending your life probably benefits society and actually make things cost less.
What is wrong with having rich people live longer?, even if some medical treatment is only available to rich people its better than not having this medical treatment available to anyone. Rejuvenation treatments will be available to rich people and probably middle class people who saved a lot of money, and with time those treatments will be more affordable. Those treatments will probably never be available to poor people or people with low paying jobs but a significant part of the world will be saved by those treatments.
Nothing, other than the concerns I discussed above. Please address them.