Sorry, have we solved aging? My question seems well phrased: Why don't we?
You're getting at an answer, but I'm wondering why we haven't.
Adjacently sure I want to know why more people aren't working on it.
You have to really step back and consider that we live in a world where people pay rent, buy groceries, have jobs, believe in gods, and watch the news. We can do things. We do do things. We're choosing it this way. Is it so bad to wonder why not something else?
Especially when it comes to the one topic that affects us all, that we may be the only ones able to actually answer (in the entire Universe)?
But I agree that we could throw more people and resources at the problem, if aging didn't seem just natural and the idea of a defeating it didn't seem a bit crazy. But it's also true that the knowledge, tools and methods that might make it possible are only very recent acquisitions.
I don't see it as a problem to be solved at all. I see it as an important and necessary feature that allows for growth and adaptation as a species. It's a good thing.
> Since on 1 hand you got an afterlife, eternity, and what-not.
You asked about the existence of God, not the existence of an afterlife.
In any case, if there is some sort of afterlife, then eternal material life would impede us as a species because it would prevent attaining it. If there is no afterlife, then eternal material life would impede us as a species by preventing growth and adaptation.
We can get right to it after we solve deaths by mosquitoes (half of all humans born were killed by mosquitoes), deaths by automobiles, lifestyle (diabetes, cardio vascular), pollution from fossil fuels (10M deaths/year from air pollution).
> Johnson has stated the aims of the company are to reduce the biological age of his organs to that of an 18-year-old
I once read that we could in theory produce things like synthetic organs, but something like a synthetic liver would be the size of a 50,000 sqft factory requiring a full staff of chemists, would need a refinery complete with boilers, smokestacks, chemical waste facilities, and so-on for each individual person.
Think of kidney like a dialysis machine, or a heart like an advanced blood pump, lungs like aerators, muscles, bones - we can reverse-engineer most of it.
But there are still many mysteries in blood production, cellular function, digestion, hormones, genetics, and consciousness, to name a few areas.
It's humbling, we are at the very earliest stages of the biological sciences. But it's something nanotech and funding could chip away significantly at IMO in our lifetime, potentially solving many of the organ-related issues like diabetes, cirrhosis, cancer, and other things.
Dude, even setting aside the question of whether eliminating aging is a good idea (for the economy, for the species, etc), what makes you think nobody’s working on it?
And lol, easily solvable? Scientists have been trying to figure it out for well over a century (and non-scientists probably since the origin of the man race). They’ve made marginal progress so far.
I’m not following it closely, because I don’t believe that within my lifetime we’ll achieve anything that’s effective and safe; or if we do, it’ll be too late for me and more than I could possibly afford anyway.
But knowing there’s plenty of research going on (mostly in mice and in cell cultures) takes little more than reading the headlines in the HN “New” feed for a few weeks.
https://www.sciencealert.com/ultimate-limit-of-the-human-lif...
Op, consider using fewer absolutes. Many people have worked on aging science to identify how to prolong human lifetimes.
Sorry, have we solved aging? My question seems well phrased: Why don't we?
You're getting at an answer, but I'm wondering why we haven't.
Adjacently sure I want to know why more people aren't working on it.
You have to really step back and consider that we live in a world where people pay rent, buy groceries, have jobs, believe in gods, and watch the news. We can do things. We do do things. We're choosing it this way. Is it so bad to wonder why not something else?
Especially when it comes to the one topic that affects us all, that we may be the only ones able to actually answer (in the entire Universe)?
> Why don't we?
Because we have no clue of how to, yet.
But I agree that we could throw more people and resources at the problem, if aging didn't seem just natural and the idea of a defeating it didn't seem a bit crazy. But it's also true that the knowledge, tools and methods that might make it possible are only very recent acquisitions.
> if aging didn't seem just natural and the idea of a defeating it didn't seem a bit crazy
I can't imagine having this mentality
Of course aging is something we will solve - probably within the next 1000 years.
We will look back on these times like before humans wore clothes and had language.
I don't see it as a problem to be solved at all. I see it as an important and necessary feature that allows for growth and adaptation as a species. It's a good thing.
May I ask if you believe in God
In my view, the existence of God doesn't enter into it. My opinion would be the same whether God exists or not.
Interesting, it would change my opinion a lot.
Since on 1 hand you got an afterlife, eternity, and what-not.
And on the other, well, it's a bit like before you were born!
I guess to your point - why am I not interested in the problem of those who are not yet born? Hahahah
Enjoy your Sunday
> Since on 1 hand you got an afterlife, eternity, and what-not.
You asked about the existence of God, not the existence of an afterlife.
In any case, if there is some sort of afterlife, then eternal material life would impede us as a species because it would prevent attaining it. If there is no afterlife, then eternal material life would impede us as a species by preventing growth and adaptation.
Is death in old age a 'problem' to solve?
Suffering, absolutely. But I think there is more nuance to death.
That's what I keep hearing.
Idk if I'll ever get it.
Death and aging seem like very clear and basic problems to solve, like inventing a roof to get out of the rain.
We can get right to it after we solve deaths by mosquitoes (half of all humans born were killed by mosquitoes), deaths by automobiles, lifestyle (diabetes, cardio vascular), pollution from fossil fuels (10M deaths/year from air pollution).
> half of all humans born were killed by mosquitoes
This is amazing.
Yes, death prevention is a huge part of it!
And to your point - even if you solve something like consciousness, I could still be blown up and we wouldn't know how to build me back.
Humpty Dumpty out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Johnson
> Johnson has stated the aims of the company are to reduce the biological age of his organs to that of an 18-year-old
I once read that we could in theory produce things like synthetic organs, but something like a synthetic liver would be the size of a 50,000 sqft factory requiring a full staff of chemists, would need a refinery complete with boilers, smokestacks, chemical waste facilities, and so-on for each individual person.
Think of kidney like a dialysis machine, or a heart like an advanced blood pump, lungs like aerators, muscles, bones - we can reverse-engineer most of it.
But there are still many mysteries in blood production, cellular function, digestion, hormones, genetics, and consciousness, to name a few areas.
It's humbling, we are at the very earliest stages of the biological sciences. But it's something nanotech and funding could chip away significantly at IMO in our lifetime, potentially solving many of the organ-related issues like diabetes, cirrhosis, cancer, and other things.
Dude, even setting aside the question of whether eliminating aging is a good idea (for the economy, for the species, etc), what makes you think nobody’s working on it?
And lol, easily solvable? Scientists have been trying to figure it out for well over a century (and non-scientists probably since the origin of the man race). They’ve made marginal progress so far.
Go do a web search or two.
Hey dude, I did some web searches but was not able to find the answer to my question there.
Where is progress halted in your opinion?
Consciousness/mind?
Basic cellular understanding?
Senescence?
I’m not following it closely, because I don’t believe that within my lifetime we’ll achieve anything that’s effective and safe; or if we do, it’ll be too late for me and more than I could possibly afford anyway.
But knowing there’s plenty of research going on (mostly in mice and in cell cultures) takes little more than reading the headlines in the HN “New” feed for a few weeks.
[dead]