I agree that the $3B price tag is ridiculously optimistic, but...

    Personally, I would rather have an old-fashioned heart-attack. Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of diseases worth throwing $3bn at. By all means dispense with malaria, ebola, meningitis and multiple sclerosis. Anything that kills people much too young, or much too painfully, can go. But we need the diseases of old age, however much we may rail against them.

I simply cannot understand this thinking. Should we not treat or prevent stroke or heart attack in 90 year olds? Should we draw a line for medical intervention at a certain age, or prevent the implementation of extremely effective preventative medicine?

I wonder when Lewis will be ready for her heart attack.


Isherwood:

Whenever I see these fear of the future pieces, I'm always amazed at the author's in ability to think about the future in any kind of practical terms. Like, if we no longer died of old age, it wouldn't just be some switch that got flipped in everyone. It would be a long, drawn out, cost prohibitive change that would take years if not generations to trickle out. In that time, legislation would certainly be passed to deal with major issues, but minor issues would be addressed by shifting cultural norms or individual psychological changes. It's like the people who write these things claim to be imagining a world that's completely different, but it's really exactly the same except this one thing that would change everything.

On another note, I really hope Zuck doesn't run for office. The idea of the head (or former head) of facebook being any kind of public official just raises all kinds of privacy flags for me.


posted by mk: 90 days ago