a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by mk

    'Some of us could live to 150, but we won't get there without more research.'

Hyperbole. Resveratrol has effects, but biology is a symphony, and making one instrument really loud usually has unintended consequences. Using these drugs isn't similar to drinking red wine, as the effect is at least 100x more potent. I wouldn't rush to take such a pill.

Exercise, calorie restriction, and some red wine. That's what I'd stick to until enough people have been taking this to uncover any ill effects that won't show up in a short-term clinical trial.





ecib  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

They've got about 40 or so years to figure this shit out and extend my life enough to wait out the real anti-aging breakthroughs that will come after, complete with aging reversal.

Who am I kidding. We're just on the wrong side of the cusp. Darn it.

mk  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Who am I kidding. We're just on the wrong side of the cusp. Darn it.

Not as wrong as the already dead.

But I do think that we are going to be very close to the cutoff point.

thenewgreen  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The thing is, if our current society is any indication, the cutoff point is not going to be determined solely by whether or not you are still living, but by whether or not you are still living and have the resources to pay for whatever transcending the physical reality in to the digital one costs (talking immortality not 150). Chances are it will begin as a process solely for the "elite".

Better start saving!

ecib  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

This is the other point that I cannot escape when thinking on this issue. Sad but true. We will not be the ones able to afford what the bleeding edge of medicine will offer to those seeking the Holy Grail of longevity. At our very core, the free market societies that will develop these treatments are not set up to solve the problem of how to get the most life saving technology to the most people, but rather to extract the most profit from the various populations where they can.

AnSionnachRua  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

True, but advanced technologies tend to quickly become cheap enough for everyone to buy - just look at cars, computers and mobile phones in the last century. Sure, not everyone has access to items of the same quality - I tote around a cheap Samsung brick while everyone else has smartphones - but if it's something as easily reproduced as a pill then even this wouldn't be a problem.

A similar concern as the one you write about has been raised with regard to nootropics (cognitive enhancement medications) - that they'll be available only to the wealthy elite, further entrenching their financial superiority. But actually, nootropics are of more benefit to an individual the more people who have them. I'm better off if everyone has nootropics than if only I do. Perhaps the case is similar with regard to immortality drugs.

One of my largest concerns is that it is pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline who are trying to produce these pills; I imagine they'll sell them at several thousand % profit over the production cost.

mk  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Sure thing. Got to keep those job creators alive.

ecib  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Bet you $100 that we are on the wrong side of the cutoff though. I'll owe you if we live to 150.

Edit: If I die before then you have to spend it on hiring a mariachi band to wander through my funeral without telling anybody.

mk  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

For $100, that's probably going to be a pretty cheap mariachi band, especially of you live 50 more years or so.

ecib  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

They just need to wander through for 30 seconds at most. Just passing by. But let's make it $500 because I deserve it.

mk  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Deal. But if you get hit by a bus, that's cheating, and the bet is off.

ecib  ·  4317 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Ok, that's fair. Natural causes only.