...but it doesn't need to be. There are people working on real, scientific, anti-aging technology, like the Longevity Escape Velocity (LEV) Foundation, SENS Foundation (I prefer LEVF though), and the many individuals involved, but especially Aubrey de Grey.
One of the reasons I got into software development was to try to make enough money to contribute to these causes, or to work on the problems directly in bioinformatics. Unfortunately I haven't reached the point where I would make much of a difference, but who knows what will happen in the next 10-20 years.
What got you interested in life extension? And how long would you want to live for?
I’ve never understood the philosophy behind life extension research, because to me it seems like a case of spending a lot of resources in the hope of improving something that isn’t really broken. However I love people with passion and I value freedom, so I’m glad that people get to work on it even if I feel like it’s probably a bit of a waste.
Immediately when I first heard about it I thought, wow, this is fantastic, because death is a really bad thing. I believe it was mostly reading the book Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey, although I may have heard about some related ideas on various websites before that.
> And how long would you want to live for?
Certainly at least a couple hundred years, and by that point I'd have time to think about how much longer I'd want. I don't really see a reason why I'd want less than infinite time if it were possible.
> I’ve never understood the philosophy behind life extension research, because to me it seems like a case of spending a lot of resources in the hope of improving something that isn’t really broken.
I've spent several decades working really hard, or studying. Although I hope I'll have a great time in the next several decades, I sure do want more.
Also, I have many things I want to do that I know I won't have time to do in one currently normal lifetime. There are several projects like books I'd write that I will probably not get a chance to do, because there are so many other things I want to do also.
Basically the rough outline of my schedule for the next 40-50 years is pretty packed. Obviously I'm going to prioritize and so a bunch of things will be pushed off the list, but I'd really like to do all the things on the list, plus have plenty of time for general entertainment, social life, and so on.
It's simple really. I want to exist because I exist. I exist because I want to exist. This mutually recursive loop belies the bottom of everyone's motivations for everything. All wants and urges, from an evolutionary standpoint, stem from wanting to keep existing. Wanting to exist stems from already existing, as anything which exists without wanting to will readily lose out to those that do exist and want to. That's all "point" there is at the bottom of it all.
What's the point of extending our life? The same as the point of eating and breathing. I want to keep on existing.
I think your logic makes sense, but in some cases may be wrong. The underlying assumption is that living longer personally will lead to a longer existence for your descendants, which is probably true but not always.
E.g. life extension may accelerate resource extraction to the point that your descendants die out sooner than they would have if you had died normally. Although you are living longer, your lineage isn’t.
Also, I suspect that the cycle of life and death is like a computer reboot in that it is a reset of state. Leaving it too long without a reboot might cause existential level issues.
Don’t get me wrong, I support life extension research, but I’m just skeptical of how ‘good’ it would actually be for society and the life extender themselves. Hopeful, but cautious.
> it seems like a case of spending a lot of resources in the hope of improving something that isn’t really broken
This puzzles me. Ageing is extremely expensive to society. Healthcare and care for the elderly is often >10% of total expenditure. Surely that's pretty broken?
And of course there's all the pain they're in, the things they wish to enjoy but can't (like football) and things like covid lockdowns that have to be done because the elderly are at risk (a 20 year old has a risk of death from covid under 0.005%). Lockdowns severely damaged the mental health of many people I know and being housebound due to age related infirmity causes depression in the elderly.
I meant the human life cycle wasn’t broken, because I was only thinking of this in terms of preventing death. Framing it as a reduction in suffering helped me understand, thanks!
I still have concerns that it would be used in such a way that people would live long despite intense suffering, thus increasing suffering overall. But hopefully that isn’t the case.
The leading organizer of research in the field thinks it has a 50% chance of being achieved in 15 years.
Specifically, longevity escape velocity being achieved, meaning for each year you live the technology improves fast enough that you get another year.
Whatever can be done to raise the odds is obviously preferable, because there’s also a chance it won’t happen in our lifetime and that would be really bad.
One of the reasons I got into software development was to try to make enough money to contribute to these causes, or to work on the problems directly in bioinformatics. Unfortunately I haven't reached the point where I would make much of a difference, but who knows what will happen in the next 10-20 years.