Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Grey___Goo_MH t1_j4aqxku wrote

Please no let the billionaires die off naturally

143

saiyaniam t1_j4b5bir wrote

One way to think of it, is the general public would have a lot less worry about their family getting old and dying, the freedom of mind that would give can not be overstated.

And most people get more knowledgeable with age, that can only help our current situation.

The billionaires or "elite" won't go away even without no death. It's always been this way, and nothing has changed in 100's of thousands of years. It's always been like this. We're apes we have hierarchy.

​

Living longer could change society for the better. A massive ammount of our issues stem from our short lives where you only get a small chance to get things right.

21

HeavensCriedBlood t1_j4b8b13 wrote

That’s assuming the general public would get access to this, which I’m not at all convinced that will be the case.

28

yowzees t1_j4bi4ff wrote

Companies want to make money, making this accessible to everyone will make them more of it

7

whiskers256 t1_j4ca6jk wrote

And not having their workforce be constantly sick would make Delta and Southwest a bunch of money, you don't see them lobbying AGAINST the plague, tho

7

[deleted] t1_j4ci7n7 wrote

[deleted]

−2

AriChow t1_j4dawm9 wrote

with an analysis like that, your username certainly checks out

1

hunterseeker1 t1_j4d6tj5 wrote

Excellent point. Testosterone therapy can cost thousands a month and that’s just one super basic example. We can’t even price insulin in a way that makes it accessible to everyone, why on earth would anyone think a youth drug would cost lest than a few hundred thousand dollars per treatment?

2

BoxEngine t1_j4bs948 wrote

Also the potential to cause exponential population growth 😬

11

saiyaniam t1_j4bu4hy wrote

Yeah. Thats an issue.

I do think it's an issue that could be worked out before it becomes a problem tho.

Most of the population problem is resource management rather than space or waste. I think we're on the edge of sorting out a lot of the waste issues with renewable energy development and waste processing.

3

WaxMyButt t1_j4dhcsw wrote

Before it becomes a problem? The population is already a problem at current numbers.

1

Commotion t1_j4e3no4 wrote

It really isn’t. We have enough resources to sustain the population. They just aren’t distributed equitably.

1

Grey___Goo_MH t1_j4b85uf wrote

Ah yes all the better to get to 10 billion humans just too eat everything and pollute the world that much faster

Human immortality sounds peachy as the world burns

What a joke

9

saiyaniam t1_j4bbki6 wrote

And the other option is we carry on as normal making the same mistakes generation after generation. The only way we are getting out of our current ditch is with some radical change.

One of the main reasons governments pollute is because the population lets them. Old people often vote more. Unfortunately they are ofcourse old, so they vote like old people, rather than healthy people with a 100 years or more life experience

−1

Grey___Goo_MH t1_j4bcn72 wrote

What a joke

−8

saiyaniam t1_j4bd0bv wrote

It's not a joke, old people literally vote more than younger people. Thats why Young people often get fucked. Young people are too busy living in their youth to vote for their future.

This is not my opinion, it's what actually happens.

You get older people who are physically Young, then you shift the voting power.

4

Grey___Goo_MH t1_j4be364 wrote

So immortal old people will sway the vote too stop pollution

What a joke

Your high

−5

saiyaniam t1_j4bfk0o wrote

Yes, because it's now in their lifetime, it's now in their best interests.

The reason old people vote conservative or mostly for their own security is because they are weak and frail. They vote in their best interests.

If they were 20 physically again they would vote for ideas and concepts that align with their physicality. They would no longer vote like a scared old frail person.

That brings the voting numbers more inline with people who are active in life, and actually have a future even if they were 100.

3

Grey___Goo_MH t1_j4bg6rq wrote

You believe some truly stupid hopium

Conservatives care about their wealth

In your vision of society no one dies and all these old people consume forever what absolute nonsense thinking they would realize the error of their ways and vote for a sustainable future… immortal old people is not sustainable

No they will vote in favor of money as all conservatives do pulling the ladder up on newer generations

Again what a massive joke

2

saiyaniam t1_j4bhbab wrote

They care about wealth because they have little health.

1

Rosieforthewin t1_j4c794k wrote

People don't accumulate massive weather holdings just to save up for later medical expenses or act responsibly. Not every single elderly person is frail. Look at the makeup of our own government, most of them are over 80. Humans hoard wealth because it is a lifelong obsession rooted in our basest instincts.

1

saiyaniam t1_j4ca9gq wrote

They acually do.

The drive to gain financial wealth for the majority is to compensate for age.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about a mass of people.

1

conscsness t1_j4dlpc3 wrote

Please do your self a favour and read. Claiming that it has been like that and nothing has changed in 100’s of thousands of years is a very wrong claim.

Not all hunter gatherers expressed their social structure through hierarchy. Anarchy existed and was possible for thousands of years.

3

sperris t1_j4ebw8j wrote

How much slower would social change happen? If we still had much of the population from the 1800s. We’d possibly still have segregated schools. There would still be laws against miscegenation. Women voting? Not so sure.

Older people may be knowledgeable. But they bring an awful lot of baggage with them.

3

Snibes1 t1_j4efio0 wrote

This is something I hadn’t thought of. I was still trying to internalize the terror I felt when I thought of rich, powerful people getting early access to this stuff far before anyone else can afford to get it.

2

psychotronic_mess t1_j4em0ai wrote

It was a lot easier to “respect your elders” when they used to do the respectable thing and die at the age of 50.

2

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j4auh3q wrote

The money would just go to their heirs wouldn’t it?

16

[deleted] t1_j4cioya wrote

[deleted]

13

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j4ckoue wrote

Maybe, but this doesn’t seem to really matter much in practice tho. I think most people would agree on that neither Musk nor Trump have the business acumen of their father. But when you’re born that rich, you tend to fall upwards I guess.

6

ContinuousZ t1_j4dr421 wrote

>Musk nor Trump have the business acumen of their father.

you think the richest man alive has worst business acumen than his father who went broke in the 90s?

>But when you’re born that rich, you tend to fall upwards I guess.

Elon was born in a wealthy family but not even close to ultra rich that he can fall upwards like trump.

"In 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri founded Zip2.[49][50] Errol Musk provided them with $28,000 in funding. Compaq acquired Zip2 for $307 million in cash in February 1999,[56][57] and Musk received $22 million for his 7-percent share."

28,000 is not that much, can easily find an investor to fill that. I know parents who buy their highschool kids $50,000 cars and that's not even an investment it's depreciating asset. If Elon musk's dad was ultra rich, Elon would have way more than 7 percent share. You only give up shares for investors or to compensate employees when you lack funding/cash which his dad couldn't provide because he wasn't ultra rich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Zip2

2

an-invisible-hand t1_j4ioa3k wrote

Tbh it depends on how little the father started with. 28k isn’t much but compared to starting from 0 it’s practically an infinity apart.

1

Helasri t1_j4b2gbx wrote

And tax I guess ( not all countries of course )

5

milkman1218 t1_j4bpc5d wrote

Gates kids won't receive anything but I'm sure other rich people aren't like Bill

−1

Coolhandhansen t1_j4eyoh9 wrote

Can always count on at least one snarky redditor to vent their frustrations about money and politics through 'low-key' comments like this lol.

0

Badtrainwreck t1_j4bct4c wrote

Trickle down economics, as everyone knows, is the perfect economic system 👀, but if billionaires never die the trickling will end.

−2

Grey___Goo_MH t1_j4bdx0o wrote

Another

What a joke response

What trickle? It aint raining no money

2

nicknameSerialNumber t1_j4bzdr4 wrote

Wishing death on rich people, reddit's favourite pastime!

−6

esran7 t1_j4cj35e wrote

I'd usually agree with you, but people aging slower would definitely mess with processes that we rely on currently. Even just take a company structure. How do you employ new people, get fresh ideas, promote people if people suddenly don't retire as much.

2

Grey___Goo_MH t1_j4c06ga wrote

Death is a natural process

So yeah they should die eventually of natural causes just like everyone else

1

octorine t1_j4ciemi wrote

Dying of polio is also a natural process. I'm glad we didn't just let that run its course.

4

nicknameSerialNumber t1_j4c6gsi wrote

No one "should" die, tho people should have an option tho. IMO inaction and action are morally equivalent, witholding treatment is still basically killing people. Loads of natural things are bad, including deah

−2

[deleted] t1_j4bedmt wrote

[removed]

−7

yowzees t1_j4biiue wrote

Almost like it's a big fucking problem that people care about

4

GhostofDownvotes t1_j4bj0o9 wrote

Only stupid people though. 😘

−10

yowzees t1_j4bl53x wrote

Na man, the only stupid people are the ones with their head in the sand pretending that the growing inequality in the world isn't a huge fucking problem.

6

asraniel t1_j4akx1j wrote

did they ever test this on mice that were not aged artificially? i should probably read the paper, but i always read about this in the context of artificially aged mice. my question is if the artificial aging is really equivalent to real aging and thus if the reversing works on both the same.

67

Deathbeddit t1_j4argko wrote

(Only from article, not paper) They used artificially aged mice. Much salt from me, too.

34

retrohGamr t1_j4co3p9 wrote

okay but what is artificially aged mice?

i agree, they should just use AGED mice, but i feel artificially aged when going through stressful and traumatizing events. if they're inducing aging in a similar fashion i still think it's conducive to their goal as curing the wear and tear that comes from stress and environment could be a huge market.

13

johnwayne2413 OP t1_j4auwmu wrote

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/10al6z7/-/j455c7w

"All living things experience an increase in entropy, manifested as a loss of genetic and epigenetic information. In yeast, epigenetic information is lost over time due to the relocalization of chromatin-modifying proteins to DNA breaks, causing cells to lose their identity, a hallmark of yeast aging. Using a system called “ICE” (inducible changes to the epigenome), we find that the act of faithful DNA repair advances aging at physiological, cognitive, and molecular levels, including erosion of the epigenetic landscape, cellular exdifferentiation, senescence, and advancement of the DNA methylation clock, which can be reversed by OSK-mediated rejuvenation. These data are consistent with the information theory of aging, which states that a loss of epigenetic information is a reversible cause of aging."

The paper is more detailed.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01570-7

32

Bupod t1_j4elihp wrote

Ok but how can I be stupid and do this on myself in my garage with a double digit IQ and the scientific skill of a squirrel?

14

Much_Highlight_1309 t1_j4cw8wg wrote

I understood that they reversed eye sickness in aged mice. I didn't read that as them being artificially aged mice but I would need to read the original publication to confirm my understanding.

5

Deathbeddit t1_j4arcin wrote

To start, I’d like an explanation on:

  • If using mice, why not use old mice, it’s not like they live forever? “Accelerating aging” in mice and then reversing effects seems roundabout and to not be testing what they say they’re interested in.

  • if the modification is essentially dedifferentiation: “instructions guided the cells to restart the epigenetic changes that defined their identity as, for example, kidney and skin cells” what is to stop the cells from uncontrolled growth (cancer)?

43

yaosio t1_j4dmzhi wrote

Because they need to control everything that happens to the mice. If you start with old mice a lot could have happened in their short lives. Even if they lived in a lab records could be neglected.

15

pittaxx t1_j4fncvi wrote

Mouse lifespan is 6 months to 2 years (wild vs perfect conditions). If you are doing research like this, you could age them up naturally yourself and have full records. Heck, you could even do most experiments on artificially aged mice and then use a smaller group of naturally and mice to confirm the results.

2

HauschkasFoot t1_j4cli72 wrote

Very good questions that I’m also curious about myself. Like why not get some mice, let them age, and then do the tests? Because it takes too much time? Seems like drugs like this take several years to develop/test so that wouldn’t make sense.

Because they’re more prone to developing complicating conditions (unrelated to “aging”) that could disrupt what they are testing for? Gives them a more consistent baseline/control group. But even then they can easily get enough mice to eliminate those anomalous mice as they present themselves, and have enough remaining for the experiment.

As to the cancer point, I’d imagine that just by purely numbers they would inherently be at a higher risk of developing cancer relative to an unmedicated person their age.

6

RichardPlaysPogo t1_j4antla wrote

I was sceptical when I read the title. Not surprised when the quack Sinclair was the author.

16

Coral_ t1_j4d3sul wrote

oh great, now elon musk gets to live forever while the rest of us shovel shit in this capitalist hellscape

5

obsidianstark t1_j4bmuel wrote

Ahhh …..hence the depopulation agenda

3

L0stlnTranslation t1_j4dag7f wrote

What makes you think that? The government is banning abortion in order to have more future slaves and consumers. You can’t keep increasing profits by decreasing the population.

1

[deleted] t1_j4d7rfe wrote

This is the biggest pipe dream all time.

3

Intelligent-Brick850 t1_j4c775l wrote

IMO either our generation will die or we may get Anti-Age Vaccine

2

ABobby077 t1_j4c8hhp wrote

Does this mean they are able to extend or lengthen their telemeres??

2

[deleted] t1_j4ch6zh wrote

Oh god. Let me just die before the rich all live forever.

1

Snibes1 t1_j4eg1hk wrote

I think… that’s what’s going to happen? The rich will get it, the peasants won’t.

2

rubrochure t1_j4cnpd1 wrote

They just want us to work longer

1

Faustt_Thee_Artist t1_j4d00yh wrote

Be trapped in a job even longer! The sweet release of death promised by the Christian god has been revoked!

1

ryeshoes t1_j4dakth wrote

My #1 wish in life is to be a wage slave for all time. This is great news!

1

Aliceinsludge t1_j4dbzk6 wrote

Go ahead technophiles, you may learn how to reverse aging of body and DNA but you can’t reverse aging of mind. Try living thousands of years and break your human mind designed for 100 years of life tops.

1

pickleer t1_j4f9d6j wrote

"... For Those Who Can Afford it"

And thus inequality grows. Bravo.

1

Ssider69 t1_j4cm9eg wrote

Well, guess if I can work another 80 years I might have enough to retire.

0

sethendal t1_j4dvd3u wrote

Given insulin costs 4900% more than it costs to make simply because it's vital, good luck to anyone ever affording this.

0

StoopidIdietMoran t1_j4d92op wrote

Unfortunately everything (especially pharmaceutical) is for profit, so something that actually prevented aging would cost an ungodly amount and take us into some next level capitalism as people would remain rich and powerful for waaaayyy too long. Distribution of something like this would only be acceptable if it was earned by being a great person overall who contributes to society or through some form of periodic community voting. Like hey, thanks for always being a kind person and for volunteering to help school children cross the street…here is some enough anti aging stuff to give you another year of life.

−1

MoekaXCharru t1_j4evxj3 wrote

This is literal scientific taboo. And should be made illegal to even research. You are meant to grow old and die. There is nothing you can do about it. Just because the opportunity arises to live forever. Doesnt mean you take it. It would be a living hell. Till you get killed.youll see old friends go. Wives and children ahead pass in front of your very eyes. Why would you wanna live on such a shit planet for such an extended period? You ppl are nut cases. idk if its a fear of nothingness coming after. But I have faith. How is it the one person most versed in fiction rather then reality understands reality better then ppl who work everyday? Haha thats sounds like a sick joke doesnt it? Well get used to that sick joke being all too real.

−2

AbolishDisney t1_j4f7p76 wrote

> This is literal scientific taboo. And should be made illegal to even research.

Why?

> You are meant to grow old and die.

Says who?

> There is nothing you can do about it.

And if there is?

> Just because the opportunity arises to live forever. Doesnt mean you take it. It would be a living hell. Till you get killed.youll see old friends go. Wives and children ahead pass in front of your very eyes.

Why wouldn't they be immortal as well? If you're referring to people dying of non-natural causes, that's not really any different than the way things are now.

> Why would you wanna live on such a shit planet for such an extended period?

I'd like to see the planet become less shit.

4

MoekaXCharru t1_j4fapzc wrote

First off... your probably one of the three stooges right? Lol you have to be. Cmon. Secondly. The why. Is quite obvious. Its in front of your face think a little harder. There is reasoning for us not being able to live on this crummy little rock forever. Particularly for the reasoning that our sun implode on itself. And every second we live makes the world worse on its own so far. Havent you seen histories effects? this is literally something that is a fact. No matter how much you deny it. Its not going away. End of. The second question. since you probably wont accept a higher being and probably dont believe in it. Lets just say me, every ledgeable philosopher ever and the earth itself as well as nature. Third. This is the dumbest one yet. this is the nature of our discussion isnt it? The whole reasoning you presented this farce to me? Fourth if they were youd be forcing it on them. which by all rights is wrong as well. fifth The planet gets old too stupid. now thats something you can plain do nothing about. Your farce done with now pls?

−1

AbolishDisney t1_j4irjr2 wrote

> First off... your probably one of the three stooges right? Lol you have to be. Cmon.

Soitenly!

> Secondly. The why. Is quite obvious. Its in front of your face think a little harder. There is reasoning for us not being able to live on this crummy little rock forever. Particularly for the reasoning that our sun implode on itself.

I don't expect Earth to last forever.

> And every second we live makes the world worse on its own so far. Havent you seen histories effects? this is literally something that is a fact. No matter how much you deny it. Its not going away. End of.

Most of us aren't making the world worse, though. Our biggest problems come from a small number of billionaires that ruin the planet because they know they won't be alive in a century to deal with the consequences.

> The second question. since you probably wont accept a higher being and probably dont believe in it.

You don't know what I believe.

> Lets just say me, every ledgeable philosopher ever and the earth itself as well as nature.

Nature doesn't have medicine, corrective lenses, or indoor heating. Should we get rid of those things as well?

> Third. This is the dumbest one yet. this is the nature of our discussion isnt it? The whole reasoning you presented this farce to me?

My point is that if you believe that lifespan extension isn't possible to begin with, it doesn't make sense to say researching it should be illegal.

> Fourth if they were youd be forcing it on them. which by all rights is wrong as well.

Why couldn't they choose to extend their lifespans as well?

> fifth The planet gets old too stupid. now thats something you can plain do nothing about. Your farce done with now pls?

Longer lifespans would make space travel a more realistic possibility in the event of Earth's demise.

1

gotsum411 t1_j4b5hdp wrote

L mys are so d

−3

iGothereLate78 t1_j4aq201 wrote

This shit is never happening Lmao. Now downvote me ya rubes.

−6

DividedState t1_j4an5s4 wrote

I am a biochemist and I say this is a very very bad idea. very bad. Imagine climate change, but much more violent kind of bad.

−8

GhostofDownvotes t1_j4besxm wrote

Okay, don’t take it. Thanks for your sacrifice and rest in peperoni.

4

DividedState t1_j4bgy44 wrote

Oh, thanks for downvotes, but I am afraid people miss the whole picture.

It will be distopian nightmare. Distribution of wealth is already a problem now, imagine what happened if it never gets redistributed, except for let's say when "accidents" happen. Society had much less issues leading up to the French revolution. Also Imagine a stagnant society of grandparents except you can't tell them apart from their younger grandchildren, if those grandchildren can actually afford the treatment. You could tell them apart by their conservative state of mind. You thought tech support for your grandparents sucks now, wait until you have an undying conservative Supreme Court made up out of weird racist uncles. Emphasis is on undying. You want to study today? Here goes your prospects of ever making it to something that hasn't been claimed for eternity yet.... A nightmare.

4

GhostofDownvotes t1_j4bhelm wrote

Oh noes… whatever will we do with fewer taxes. Will someone think of the Redditors!

Thanks, I’m good. You can go and do the natural thing. Nobody is forcing you.

Edit: loooool Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, bro! 👏👏

4

DividedState t1_j4biig4 wrote

Sorry, I have corona at the moment and I don't have the energy to entertainment trolls atm. Bye.

Edit: and Blocked.

−2

[deleted] t1_j4cp53k wrote

a nightmare if you don't believe in the pace of ai growing at any rate at all. ASI will come faster than you think as well as the singularity, if wealth is never redistributed then nothing would happen in a post scarcity world.

1

[deleted] t1_j4an764 wrote

I don’t know who would have the greed to live more than the normal human lifespan.

−21

[deleted] t1_j4aq80z wrote

Just about anyone?

24

[deleted] t1_j4ard9e wrote

Wait until you are 80 and tell me again if you want to live more.

80 years is a lot of time, the problem is that you spend 40% of your years in an office cubicle. You could live 250 years, if you were miserable for 180 years you'd still be unhappy and you'd still want more.

We should work more on quality and less on quantity, what do you say?

−15

gurenkagurenda t1_j4azjh6 wrote

You’re arguing this point from so many directions, I don’t know where to start. I’ll just say this: I have a to do list of projects that I absolutely adore working through, and it just keeps growing, with no end in sight. Every time I push into new territory, it opens up new possibilities, and I think of new things to try. Meanwhile, I can earn plenty of money without being miserable. When I’m 80, I will still have plenty left to do and learn, but my body and mind may no longer be up to it. If we can actually reverse aging, that will no longer be the case.

So I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe your life isn’t interesting enough to enjoy for more than 80 years, but mine sure as hell is.

18

[deleted] t1_j4cpj97 wrote

??? lmao. that's funny. that you think humans are gonna be WORKING by 2050. that's hilarious. as if AI didn't just replace all the god damn artists in the world and caused an uproar online. the world is going to be taken over by ASI given any rate of progress, and you're obviously not ready for that. the fact you think the singularity won't happen at all, even by 2100, shows how inept you are when it comes to technology. even the smartest scientists at Google believe sentient ai is on the way, see laMDA.

1

[deleted] t1_j4cpyz2 wrote

Dude you probably didn't finish high-school, pipe down the armchair futurology.

0

[deleted] t1_j4crmgd wrote

I don't need a PhD to know that by 2100 the world's gonna look completely different. we can have differing opinions about whether it goes the nuclear route or the futurism cyberpunk route but the fact you think desk jobs will still exist by then is just a joke. pretty sure people today in their middle age didn't even know what a damn computer was back in their day.

3

cargocultist94 t1_j4brogu wrote

Me?

Working forty, taking ten, and retraining in uni sounds sweet if I can do it a few times in the body of a 20 year old.

Hell you yourself. I guarantee that if I put the eternal youth injection in front of you you'd take it.

7

FRYETIME t1_j4f43ex wrote

Damn right I would. I wouldn’t mind working a few extra years (decades even) if it meant I could stay young indefinitely. I could invest the whole way and eventually have a fun and adventurous retirement with a young body.

2

GhostofDownvotes t1_j4beoct wrote

Raises paw. Thank you very much. You’re more than welcome to go and do whatever it is you do on your mental illness r/AntiNatalism cope subreddit.

5

[deleted] t1_j4bewsw wrote

[deleted]

−1

GhostofDownvotes t1_j4bfazu wrote

I’m very content with the human condition. Especially the one that makes the human condition of the past less shit. Go ride a goat, you luddite.

7