Fascinating article thank you, and I look upon the tech bro with a mix of pity and recoil. I think billionaires start realizing how many lifetimes they will need to spend all their money instead of giving it away, and feel compelled to live forever.
Sleep, clean foods, exercise, and fun. Priceless. Wish I could afford more of these, but the limiting resource is time.
That being said, I wouldn't mind living to 100 if I could still do stuff and have a sharp mind. Thanks for keeping us posted, and someone give that tech bro some Doritos already. MSG and cheese powder are too good to never eat again.
Absolutely, everything I've read about Bryan Johnson sounds like he is someone going through a mid-life crisis, and this article suggests he has a problematic past with relationships: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/biohacker-antiaging-lawsuits
One of my biggest issue with folks I derisively refer to as "tech bros" is their lack of respect for experts; they think that because they can code and disrupt businesses with apps they are the smartest people in the room and can figure anything out. Elon Musk is a prototypical example. Rockets? Electric cars? A social network? How hard could any of that really be??
As some of the articles I reference state, any serious doctor or scientist will tell you his approach is insane. Setting aside any potential safety issues, even IF his various interventions somehow work, when you are changing 8 million variables constantly, you'll never know *WHAT* was the thing that actually made a difference. Furthermore, there's no way you can extrapolate the results in one single (very non-representative) patient to the population at large. It's fundamentally bad research, and a vanity project probably fueled by mental distress and personal issues.
It is one of the great injustices of life that big dogs live for less time. I'm interested in whether this drug will maintain their quality of life, though, or just extend thei senior years with all the health issues that can entail.
Incidentally, I had an English Mastiff who lived to about 16 (she was a rescue, so never knew her exact age). Happy and healthy, until she wasn't and it was time to let her go.
That's incredible that you were able to spend 16 years with your Mastiff! ❤️ Do you happen to know if they were purebred or a mixed breed? In general, mixed breed dogs live longer, even if you cross a purebreed with a lot of problems with a different purebreed. We're hoping this is the case with our "Golden Retriever" Brooklyn (she looks the part), who is actually part Golden, Pyrenees, Chow, and Beagle
Totally agree that the name of the game is QUALITY of life, not necessarily length. Hoping this drug and others like it that are surely to follow maximize BOTH 🙏
According to the DNA test, 95% English and 5% bull mastiff. I chose to believe she was just so happy with us she didn't want to leave, ha. Fingers crossed for Brooklyn, what a beauty!
A thought provoking article at many levels, scientific and philosophic, Eric! With the astoundingly rapid progress of our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of biology, even down to the atomic level, no one should have any doubt that within the next hundred years practical and inexpensive ways to extend healthy lifespans will be discovered and the 100 pill a day effort of the entrepreneur will seem laughable (but bless him anyway-he's trying.). Most likely our not so distant descendents will be born with the necessary genetic modifications already in place. We will well on our way to achieving an ancient goal.
But this prospect raises many questions. why should we live longer? What will we do with long lives? Will we prosper or languish? Will longer lives bring greater peace or greater war? Greater wealth or greater poverty? If we haven't yet solved the problems inherent in our 100 year spans, should we expect they'll be solved by merely adding to our years?
Like AGI, this bio-engineering revolution presents risks and opportunities and it would be very prudent to advance knowledge here enthusiastically but apply it cautiously.
You raise some great issues, Michael! It reminds me of one of the questions from my PhD written prelims: "Is immortality through medicine and science theoretically possible, why or why not? Defend your answer." Since my grad work was focused on canine cancer models for breast cancer in women, I took the stance that while we can probably make great strides treating and preventing cancer and other diseases, it will eventually be a losing battle because the older we get, the more likely age-related factors are to create spontaneous tumors. Pretty much all currently known anti-cancer treatments can also increase the risk of cancer down the line (DNA damage from chemo, radiation, etc), so unless we make a step change in our understanding of biology and pharmacology, we're likely to wind up playing a game of "whack-a-mole," fixing one problem in a way that increases the risk of another in the future.
It is also interesting to think about the philosophical side you raise. I tend to think life's value comes from it being finite, and on the short side. But maybe we would find ways to adapt to the new normal if it were substantially longer. After all, I love my pets dearly and if their lifespan doubled or tripled, it wouldn't decrease that one iota.
I think more likely, whatever anti-aging progress we make is very likely to skew along class and financial means. The few who can afford these hypothetical future "wonder drugs" will live for a long time while everyone else languishes normally. That itself could be a huge source of distress: What is the point of living longer if many/most/all of your friends and family can't join you? How does it impact your risk assessment of daily living when you can indefinitely stave off death from natural causes but are still vulnerable to accidents and injury? I think the conditional immortality and associated risks would drive me mad!
Fascinating article thank you, and I look upon the tech bro with a mix of pity and recoil. I think billionaires start realizing how many lifetimes they will need to spend all their money instead of giving it away, and feel compelled to live forever.
Sleep, clean foods, exercise, and fun. Priceless. Wish I could afford more of these, but the limiting resource is time.
That being said, I wouldn't mind living to 100 if I could still do stuff and have a sharp mind. Thanks for keeping us posted, and someone give that tech bro some Doritos already. MSG and cheese powder are too good to never eat again.
Absolutely, everything I've read about Bryan Johnson sounds like he is someone going through a mid-life crisis, and this article suggests he has a problematic past with relationships: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/biohacker-antiaging-lawsuits
One of my biggest issue with folks I derisively refer to as "tech bros" is their lack of respect for experts; they think that because they can code and disrupt businesses with apps they are the smartest people in the room and can figure anything out. Elon Musk is a prototypical example. Rockets? Electric cars? A social network? How hard could any of that really be??
As some of the articles I reference state, any serious doctor or scientist will tell you his approach is insane. Setting aside any potential safety issues, even IF his various interventions somehow work, when you are changing 8 million variables constantly, you'll never know *WHAT* was the thing that actually made a difference. Furthermore, there's no way you can extrapolate the results in one single (very non-representative) patient to the population at large. It's fundamentally bad research, and a vanity project probably fueled by mental distress and personal issues.
It is one of the great injustices of life that big dogs live for less time. I'm interested in whether this drug will maintain their quality of life, though, or just extend thei senior years with all the health issues that can entail.
Incidentally, I had an English Mastiff who lived to about 16 (she was a rescue, so never knew her exact age). Happy and healthy, until she wasn't and it was time to let her go.
That's incredible that you were able to spend 16 years with your Mastiff! ❤️ Do you happen to know if they were purebred or a mixed breed? In general, mixed breed dogs live longer, even if you cross a purebreed with a lot of problems with a different purebreed. We're hoping this is the case with our "Golden Retriever" Brooklyn (she looks the part), who is actually part Golden, Pyrenees, Chow, and Beagle
Totally agree that the name of the game is QUALITY of life, not necessarily length. Hoping this drug and others like it that are surely to follow maximize BOTH 🙏
According to the DNA test, 95% English and 5% bull mastiff. I chose to believe she was just so happy with us she didn't want to leave, ha. Fingers crossed for Brooklyn, what a beauty!
A thought provoking article at many levels, scientific and philosophic, Eric! With the astoundingly rapid progress of our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of biology, even down to the atomic level, no one should have any doubt that within the next hundred years practical and inexpensive ways to extend healthy lifespans will be discovered and the 100 pill a day effort of the entrepreneur will seem laughable (but bless him anyway-he's trying.). Most likely our not so distant descendents will be born with the necessary genetic modifications already in place. We will well on our way to achieving an ancient goal.
But this prospect raises many questions. why should we live longer? What will we do with long lives? Will we prosper or languish? Will longer lives bring greater peace or greater war? Greater wealth or greater poverty? If we haven't yet solved the problems inherent in our 100 year spans, should we expect they'll be solved by merely adding to our years?
Like AGI, this bio-engineering revolution presents risks and opportunities and it would be very prudent to advance knowledge here enthusiastically but apply it cautiously.
You raise some great issues, Michael! It reminds me of one of the questions from my PhD written prelims: "Is immortality through medicine and science theoretically possible, why or why not? Defend your answer." Since my grad work was focused on canine cancer models for breast cancer in women, I took the stance that while we can probably make great strides treating and preventing cancer and other diseases, it will eventually be a losing battle because the older we get, the more likely age-related factors are to create spontaneous tumors. Pretty much all currently known anti-cancer treatments can also increase the risk of cancer down the line (DNA damage from chemo, radiation, etc), so unless we make a step change in our understanding of biology and pharmacology, we're likely to wind up playing a game of "whack-a-mole," fixing one problem in a way that increases the risk of another in the future.
It is also interesting to think about the philosophical side you raise. I tend to think life's value comes from it being finite, and on the short side. But maybe we would find ways to adapt to the new normal if it were substantially longer. After all, I love my pets dearly and if their lifespan doubled or tripled, it wouldn't decrease that one iota.
I think more likely, whatever anti-aging progress we make is very likely to skew along class and financial means. The few who can afford these hypothetical future "wonder drugs" will live for a long time while everyone else languishes normally. That itself could be a huge source of distress: What is the point of living longer if many/most/all of your friends and family can't join you? How does it impact your risk assessment of daily living when you can indefinitely stave off death from natural causes but are still vulnerable to accidents and injury? I think the conditional immortality and associated risks would drive me mad!