Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ActuaryGlittering16 t1_iv8ukkx wrote

I dunno how long you’ve been around, but there’s been an explosion in this field in the past 3-4 years. It’s markedly different from how things were in the late 2000s thru the mid-to-late 2010s.

I’m very confident that by 2050 you’ll have some serious tools to extend your healthy lifespan.

42

CrazyWillingness3543 t1_iv9ynwk wrote

Literally says his age in the post. Answer: he's young as fuck and thinks 7 years is a long time.

17

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iva90cb wrote

Oh my gosh. No results from something I read online 7 years ago..? Altos labs will NEVER CURE AGING GUYS THE END IS NEAR WE ARE ALL GOING TO GET SUPER OLD AND GET SUPER CANCER GUYS

12

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivaekqm wrote

You will get old. You may get cancer. Death is part of the human experience. Just like the boomers you all rally against, extending life span to immortality is to steal the miracle of experience from future generations.

−19

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivafkte wrote

Ah yes, death fetishism. Let's not cure old age, for it is only natural and part of the human experience...

Anyone who accepts aging is ageist, old people are people too. If it's at all feasible to save them, I don't see why it's not worth giving it a try.

If you're against longevity research, go fuck yourself. Seriously.

21

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivag37t wrote

You dont cure suffering, you just give it to someone else. If you can not critical think to the extent to understand that the world has a population cap and every old person who lives longer takes resources from someone else, go fuck yourself. Seriously. I do not support a distopian future of forced sterilization or rationing so some greedy pathetic billionare can live for 10000 years.

−13

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivaitsg wrote

Nobody is going to keep it for the rich only. That's a fiction that you fucktards make up so you can rationalize not trying in the first place.

14

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivajhms wrote

The rich will control the resources of development, as they do currently. Why will the technology then be shared with all of society when they will all see the consequences very clearly. Again you fail to answer. How do you prevent runaway population growth? How do you prevent food shortages? Ohh the AGI will solve all that for you too? You live in a fa tasy land. But go ahead let your anger convince you that its a problem free future where we all live to a million and play paddy cake in a field of roses. Get a grip.

−5

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivakny1 wrote

Go ahead and let your anger convince you that the rich control everything and the only future for humanity is destined to be dystopian.

11

[deleted] t1_ivcpci4 wrote

> by 2050 they’ll have some serious tools to extend their healthy lifespans

FTFY.

We live in a harsh unequal system dominated by profit-seeking markets. As if access to life extension is going to be socialised.

Basic healthcare in the US is still tied to employment, and people are still commonly bankrupted

My bet: multi million dollar per year subscription models. “Eat shit and die, peasants” is the way our system treats MOST people right now, why would we expect this to be any different.

Political revolution away from a greedy capitalist system remains the most important project to improving the average persons lifespan.

Access is still a way more important and far-fetched project even than discovery.

1