Every single time the possibility of curing aging comes up, we get those misanthropes who demand loudly that It's Very Important That You Must Die, for The Greater Good, or something. And every time I say the same thing: say the situation were reversed: everyone is living forever, and it starts (arguably) causing those problems you have in mind. Your solution to those problems is to kill everyone over a certain age!?
I made a comment a few days ago in the context of increasing complexity of a lot of things in our lives, in which I mentioned
> The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before.
This is one thing where aging slower could be very important for us. Increasing complexity alone requires more time for developing, planning, handling and maintaining a lot of our devices and infrastructure. Experience gained over long periods is worth much more. It also requires a higher up-front "penalty" in the form of more education before we can even get started with being productive in many interesting and worthwhile projects. For example, compare starting with Linux kernel programming in the 1990s vs. now, or building a house many decades ago vs. now.
On the other hand, our capacity to place the anto-aging benefits with the right people are questionable. We can only hope that higher-level processes, not controlled by us, will still lead us to good outcomes overall. Similar with a lot of stuff already going on which we hardly have any direct control over, even in cases where "in theory" (meaning a theory that does things like "if we all just..", disregarding that coordination and information are physical and cost time and energy and a working algorithm) we could. So adding one more thing for the universe to sort out for us may not make much of a difference anyway, and having the moneyed classes go first, probably for a long time because the anti-aging solution probably won't be a simple pill, but a complex ongoing long-term process, might still work out. For humanity as a whole, if not for the (less lucky) individuals. It probably widens the gaps even more, in wealth and in education and in opportunities. Might still be worth a shot.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how it would radically alter human existence and civilization in ways we can hardly fathom.
That said, death is rather terrible so I am in favor of curing aging to the extent that we can, while working hard to ensure things don’t go into the shitter in the process.
Do you have a better solution though? I don't see why you dismiss this, it's a real enough problem. If people lived centuries, it would just be eternal tyranny of the old and decrepit over the young and beautiful. It would be a stagnant and ugly world. We already have gerontocracy, even with regular lifespans.
One, all those in favor of living forever will out live the detractors.
Two, enshrine the right to die before making everybody live forever. Our bodies break down, parts stop working. Sure you might cure death, but what happens to those that will forever suffer due to some ailment that isn't curable? Do you let masses of people endlessly suffer just because someone can't fathom letting go?
Your theoretical scenario is equally concerning. In a world where the status quo is "everyone dies after a certain age", then a drug that cures aging is a drastic change to the equilibrium and we should proceed with caution so that this change doesn't disrupt the equilibrium enough to lead to eventual extinction of the population.
In a world where the status quo is "nobody ages", then having everyone die after a certain age is also a drastic change to the already proven equilibrium.
In both cases, it's a drastic change, so in both cases we should proceed with caution.
(Related) I seem to recall an example of wolves and rabbits in equilibrium, with the wolves controlling the rabbit population. Take away the wolves and the rabbit population increases to the point where they eat all the vegetation and eventually all starve.
(I'm not sure where I remember this from, or if it's even true)
I wouldn't qualify those in favor of death as misanthropes, they have a very valid point, even if some have it for the wrong reasons. Humanity is not ready for the wealthy to live forever. They say science advances one funeral at a time, and that is true for all of humanity.
Political, legal, and economical systems would have to be prepared before that, otherwise countries would stagnate as undying parasites embed themselves in society for centuries. As they won't want competition, the most effective antiaging treatments would be priced out of the commoners forever. In some countries like USA people struggle to pay for insulin, much less antiaging treatments.
Edit: regarding your question, if people lived naturally forever, and it became a problem just recently, I think they're already adapted to living forever, and the problems come from something new. Anyway, let's suppose the problems are caused by overpopulation, then the solution would be to limit reproduction, and let the population fall down a bit as accidents/murders happen naturally.
If you look around, you can pretty readily see what people in power do: consolidate power, consolidate wealth. I mean, seriously, look at the U.S.: rich country, but so many struggling in the middle or below. Even though we live an age of information, we are easily controlled by those who have the money and influence.
Now, imagine them living forever. You could almost guarantee how crummy the world would become, with an elite few running everything.
On top of that, if you believe that adding new people is important, eventually you run out of room/resources/etc.
So, for these reasons, death as part of our life cycle is a good thing. Fortunately, we didn't have to invent it.
Whilst a lot of comments focus on death, I think it's important to also think about the benefits of treating the diseases of aging, such a cognitive decline.
I'm sure most people have seen their parents or grand-parents decline cognitively. This is sad for the individual, the family and also effects society by draining resources. Any research that can mitigate this is worthwhile in my opinion.
There's also economics to consider. In the US spending on social security and healthcare for the elderly are two of the largest spending categories. Imagine reversing aging and cutting both of those out of the budget. Not only would we bring back a ton of experienced workers but we would also cut federal spending by ~30%.
You say this as if people aren't working on finding a cure for baldness. Of course they are, the profit motive is certainly there. The demand for such a cure is incredibly high.
> inhibiting insulin signalling can delay ageing and extend lifespan in many animals
Does this mean that the newer diet medications like Semaglutide could be accelerating aging since they increase the secretion of insulin from the beta cells?
Unclear, but some really preliminary research suggests it might actually neuroprotective [1] and cardioprotective [2]. A lot more research needs to be done though, it seems.
Interesting because pol II drives RNA transcription so not involved in replicating the DNA itself. Does pol II have a direct negative effect on DNA then or is it indirect or both?
I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever.
Death provides an opportunity for change. Often in the form of upheaval to political structures but more frequently in opening up social opportunities.
Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted.
What's the point of living a longer life if there aren't enough working age people to pay into a safety net for the elderly? - The U.S has largely avoided that problem due to maintaining the middle part of the population age pyramid. But Europe and Japan aren't going to do well as their population ages and there aren't enough young workers to pay into it.
Wouldn't worry; reversing ageing implies the elderly won't need a safety net, and we'll all have longer to start families. Who knows, perhaps the second part will increase fertility rates back up to replacement levels…
And that's ignoring any of the economic transformation that AI will bring even without any genuinely novel breakthroughs.
Right now the issue is we can people alive but can't slow down aging. If we kept people alive by slowing down aging you wouldn't have to retire as early.
Living longer doesn't just extend the tail end of life, it extends the retirement age as well. Humans spend 20 years learning & work for 40. Imagine if we could work for 80 instead!!
I wonder what immortality would do to fertility and demographics ... people dying often "gives" a place so someone new can fill the old place. But if everybody is immortal then the number of people on earth would just keep adding up, even with the demographic stagnation in developed countries.
"Ageing seems to affect cellular processes in the same way across five very different kinds of life — humans, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms — according to a study published in Nature on 12 April. The findings could help to explain what drives ageing and offer suggestions for how to reverse it..."
Well, given that ageing seems to affect cellular process across five very different kinds of life, the most obvious conclusion is that defeating the process has some unavoidable, bad tradeoffs. I mean, I'm 55 years old and not looking forward to dying, but let's be realistic here: we're not going to "reverse" ageing. Evolution has had billions of years to do it, and for whatever reason the conclusion is that either it's not possible, or the cost is not worth it. I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
Yikes - hopefully one of the mutant insects doesn’t escape. Having an insect live 20% longer as a species could significantly increase their dominance.
It depends on if you have a more communal or individualistic outlook. We are always roughly the same age, but the individuals in the group have to age and die.
We're "solving" longevity right as the climate crisis gets really bad and we really start feeling the crunch of nonrenewable resources. Not keen on living until I'm 200 if the best I can get past 2050 is preindustrial squalor.
> we really start feeling the crunch of nonrenewable resources
This really just feels Malthusian. Many of the elements that are currently 'scarce' are not actually scarce, just not found in extremely high concentrations elsewhere. There's essentially a maximum price that these resources will reach (often not much higher than they currently are), before other methods/locations of extraction become viable. To suggest we'll revert to preindustrial squalor is absurd.
On the other hand, if the older folks in positions of power cared about what the world would be like in 100 years we might actually start doing something about global warming et al.
I would happily give up gasoline, meat, etc. to live significantly longer. I think if everyone had to give it up, we'd see an even bigger push for good alternatives as well.
Also solving aging leads to a necessary choice. Mass famine and civilization collapse, or draconian population control. That will get messy fast, and I can see us choosing the former because of people deluding themselves into thinking such a choice need not be made at all.
[+] [-] feoren|3 years ago|reply
https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon
[+] [-] nosianu|3 years ago|reply
> The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35470905#35477122
This is one thing where aging slower could be very important for us. Increasing complexity alone requires more time for developing, planning, handling and maintaining a lot of our devices and infrastructure. Experience gained over long periods is worth much more. It also requires a higher up-front "penalty" in the form of more education before we can even get started with being productive in many interesting and worthwhile projects. For example, compare starting with Linux kernel programming in the 1990s vs. now, or building a house many decades ago vs. now.
On the other hand, our capacity to place the anto-aging benefits with the right people are questionable. We can only hope that higher-level processes, not controlled by us, will still lead us to good outcomes overall. Similar with a lot of stuff already going on which we hardly have any direct control over, even in cases where "in theory" (meaning a theory that does things like "if we all just..", disregarding that coordination and information are physical and cost time and energy and a working algorithm) we could. So adding one more thing for the universe to sort out for us may not make much of a difference anyway, and having the moneyed classes go first, probably for a long time because the anti-aging solution probably won't be a simple pill, but a complex ongoing long-term process, might still work out. For humanity as a whole, if not for the (less lucky) individuals. It probably widens the gaps even more, in wealth and in education and in opportunities. Might still be worth a shot.
[+] [-] dwaltrip|3 years ago|reply
That said, death is rather terrible so I am in favor of curing aging to the extent that we can, while working hard to ensure things don’t go into the shitter in the process.
[+] [-] voldacar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asciimov|3 years ago|reply
One, all those in favor of living forever will out live the detractors.
Two, enshrine the right to die before making everybody live forever. Our bodies break down, parts stop working. Sure you might cure death, but what happens to those that will forever suffer due to some ailment that isn't curable? Do you let masses of people endlessly suffer just because someone can't fathom letting go?
[+] [-] arcastroe|2 years ago|reply
In a world where the status quo is "nobody ages", then having everyone die after a certain age is also a drastic change to the already proven equilibrium.
In both cases, it's a drastic change, so in both cases we should proceed with caution.
(Related) I seem to recall an example of wolves and rabbits in equilibrium, with the wolves controlling the rabbit population. Take away the wolves and the rabbit population increases to the point where they eat all the vegetation and eventually all starve. (I'm not sure where I remember this from, or if it's even true)
[+] [-] pbae|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abdullahkhalids|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ASalazarMX|2 years ago|reply
Political, legal, and economical systems would have to be prepared before that, otherwise countries would stagnate as undying parasites embed themselves in society for centuries. As they won't want competition, the most effective antiaging treatments would be priced out of the commoners forever. In some countries like USA people struggle to pay for insulin, much less antiaging treatments.
Edit: regarding your question, if people lived naturally forever, and it became a problem just recently, I think they're already adapted to living forever, and the problems come from something new. Anyway, let's suppose the problems are caused by overpopulation, then the solution would be to limit reproduction, and let the population fall down a bit as accidents/murders happen naturally.
[+] [-] srcreigh|3 years ago|reply
It’s more of a question of whether somebody would want to stay in this world forever vs go elsewhere after death.
[+] [-] Upvoter33|3 years ago|reply
Now, imagine them living forever. You could almost guarantee how crummy the world would become, with an elite few running everything.
On top of that, if you believe that adding new people is important, eventually you run out of room/resources/etc.
So, for these reasons, death as part of our life cycle is a good thing. Fortunately, we didn't have to invent it.
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kieranmaine|3 years ago|reply
I'm sure most people have seen their parents or grand-parents decline cognitively. This is sad for the individual, the family and also effects society by draining resources. Any research that can mitigate this is worthwhile in my opinion.
[+] [-] ALittleLight|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marstall|3 years ago|reply
Wonder why nucleosomes become less frequent as we age ... I know cancer mitigation can sometimes be the reason for these kinds of dimunitions.
[+] [-] mdp2021|3 years ago|reply
I am not sure why the title is written as «reverse decline»: I have not read that in the article. (Did I miss something?)
[+] [-] yodsanklai|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crims0n|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] null0pointer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dennis_jeeves1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamgordonbell|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aantix|3 years ago|reply
Does this mean that the newer diet medications like Semaglutide could be accelerating aging since they increase the secretion of insulin from the beta cells?
[+] [-] tempsy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6177c40f|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36191807/
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36515811/
[+] [-] rybosworld|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammyhavoc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JPLeRouzic|3 years ago|reply
Does this mean that this statement would not be true for cells that reproduce very slowly (fat, skeleton) or not at all (lens cells, neurons)?
[+] [-] theGnuMe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jochim|3 years ago|reply
Death provides an opportunity for change. Often in the form of upheaval to political structures but more frequently in opening up social opportunities.
Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted.
[+] [-] nirav72|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben_w|3 years ago|reply
And that's ignoring any of the economic transformation that AI will bring even without any genuinely novel breakthroughs.
[+] [-] JamesBarney|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dumpHero2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UncleOxidant|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] examplary_cable|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JPLeRouzic|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rossdavidh|3 years ago|reply
Well, given that ageing seems to affect cellular process across five very different kinds of life, the most obvious conclusion is that defeating the process has some unavoidable, bad tradeoffs. I mean, I'm 55 years old and not looking forward to dying, but let's be realistic here: we're not going to "reverse" ageing. Evolution has had billions of years to do it, and for whatever reason the conclusion is that either it's not possible, or the cost is not worth it. I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
[+] [-] robbywashere_|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gautamdivgi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JPLeRouzic|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neets|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChatGTP|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlecSchueler|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdp2021|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] missingdays|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CatWChainsaw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mholm|3 years ago|reply
This really just feels Malthusian. Many of the elements that are currently 'scarce' are not actually scarce, just not found in extremely high concentrations elsewhere. There's essentially a maximum price that these resources will reach (often not much higher than they currently are), before other methods/locations of extraction become viable. To suggest we'll revert to preindustrial squalor is absurd.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fallingknife|3 years ago|reply