Oddly I was just thinking about him yesterday for some reason. I barely know anything about him, I just remember reading about the extent he goes to try to make himself younger and finding it very...
Oddly I was just thinking about him yesterday for some reason. I barely know anything about him, I just remember reading about the extent he goes to try to make himself younger and finding it very sad, in a way. His obsession with avoiding death seems like it consumes his thoughts to a disturbing degree, he seems to eschew a lot of simple, basic pleasures and joys in his pursuit of immortality. His whole life seems to be ruled by fear.
That said, long Covid really is just terrifying. Disease ultimately spares no one.
The description of his everyday life would be misery for me. I've been on a handful of meds before, it's not something I would want to do for a long period of time.
The description of his everyday life would be misery for me. I've been on a handful of meds before, it's not something I would want to do for a long period of time.
How I see it... tech bros taking their winnings from making a payments app and using it to find the unlocks that make death a choice, rather than an inevitability, is probably one of the most...
How I see it... tech bros taking their winnings from making a payments app and using it to find the unlocks that make death a choice, rather than an inevitability, is probably one of the most noble things they can do, even if they must first suffer a lack of basic pleasures to get us there. If the job of technology is to eliminate scarcity, the ultimate scarcity in our life is... our time... then making that time abundant is a natural progression for technology to go.
Betting on a hypothetical that may be thousands of years away (if not utterly impossible), rather than like feeding the homeless dude down the street, not seem noble to me at all. Especially when...
is probably one of the most noble things they can do
Betting on a hypothetical that may be thousands of years away (if not utterly impossible), rather than like feeding the homeless dude down the street, not seem noble to me at all. Especially when you get into how grifty the wellness/longevity space is. A lot of it is just setting money on fire
You're assuming anything he's doing is scientifically sound or contributing meaningfully to life extension in any way. He seems more like a guy with an anxiety disorder trying every quack health...
You're assuming anything he's doing is scientifically sound or contributing meaningfully to life extension in any way. He seems more like a guy with an anxiety disorder trying every quack health fad he reads in pop science articles.
Considering that his infamous blood transfusions are considered pseudoscience by medical institutions, and the fact that he's testing with a sample size of one and therefore can't produce any...
Considering that his infamous blood transfusions are considered pseudoscience by medical institutions, and the fact that he's testing with a sample size of one and therefore can't produce any scientific data from what he's doing, I think it's a pretty justified assessment.
No, I'm using multiple observations of his methodology. He doesn't test on statistically significant numbers of test subjects under medically controlled conditions. Surely we can agree on that?
No, I'm using multiple observations of his methodology. He doesn't test on statistically significant numbers of test subjects under medically controlled conditions. Surely we can agree on that?
So it follows that he's not producing anything of scientific value. Even if he lives longer than average, there's no way of establishing which of his twelve treatments contributed, or if it was...
So it follows that he's not producing anything of scientific value. Even if he lives longer than average, there's no way of establishing which of his twelve treatments contributed, or if it was genetics or diet or a million other things, or if the treatments actually shortened his life. So when people tell you this is doing no good for anyone, believe them.
Private vice but public good. The reason speed has value is because time has value; the reason time has value is because human life spans are finite. If you make life spans longer, you reduce the...
Private vice but public good.
The reason speed has value is because time has value; the reason time has value is because human
life spans are finite.
If you make life spans longer, you reduce the effective cost of everything.
You assume that if immortality were developed, it would be available for everyone. I'm certain that's not the case. The advantage for personal gain through immortality is too great. I expect that...
You assume that if immortality were developed, it would be available for everyone. I'm certain that's not the case. The advantage for personal gain through immortality is too great. I expect that if immortality were ever developed, it would be available to only the most well-connected and wealthy.
Even more motivation to become well-connected and wealthy. But that aside. Throughout history, eventually all technological unlocks permeate and commoditize. You can buy tech today that richest...
Even more motivation to become well-connected and wealthy.
But that aside.
Throughout history, eventually all technological unlocks permeate and commoditize.
You can buy tech today that richest people in the world couldn't buy 100 years ago, even if they spent all their money to have it.
Yes, but the richest people 100 years ago also still lived better than then the poorest do today. Pretty sure the wealthy still had yachts. Heck, 200 years ago they could just buy people and force...
Yes, but the richest people 100 years ago also still lived better than then the poorest do today. Pretty sure the wealthy still had yachts. Heck, 200 years ago they could just buy people and force them to fight to the death for their amusement (glad that one is gone).
Just because we have more shiny baubles available now to distract us doesn't really mean that the really expensive things will trickle down.
How much money would an iPhone cost to own 100 years ago? Or full spectrum genetic screening? Has yacht ownership numbers increased or decreased in the last 100 years?
How much money would an iPhone cost to own 100 years ago? Or full spectrum genetic screening?
Has yacht ownership numbers increased or decreased in the last 100 years?
Is owning an iPhone actually fulfilling a meaningful part of your life? Or is it a shiny bauble that replaced some other thing that fulfilled the same purpose? For me at least...the smartphone has...
Is owning an iPhone actually fulfilling a meaningful part of your life? Or is it a shiny bauble that replaced some other thing that fulfilled the same purpose? For me at least...the smartphone has not the slightest improvement on the quality of my life. The stuff that I own doesn't even rank in the top 50% for providing fulfillment. It is the family and friends...technology has torn us apart as much as it has brought us together. I wouldn't need to communicate with my sister via a smartphone if we still lived within 5 miles of each other.
Does everyone in Africa, South America, and Asia have access to genetic screening, or is it mostly just The West? Does the genetic screening actually give you good odds to survive an additional 10-20 years, or merely give you one additional thing to worry about that you probably can't afford to change?
Is it actually better to have more yachts and kings? I'd contend nobody should have a personal vessel commanded by a fleet of slaves employees. And that progress that only goes to a few is not progress at all.
Is playing video games with friends really somehow intrinsically more fulfilling than playing poker with those same friends? Did people whom didn't have videogames miss having them? Of course not. But games have been around since the dawn of civilization, and probably even before that.
Are movies and TV really more fulfilling than the theater, or telling stories around a campfire? Doubtful, and again, before their invention nobody was hurting for the lack of them (also see the Notel study to see the tangible cognitive declines TV brought with it).
I say this not as a technological nay-sayer, I do enjoy these things, but to say that technological improvement over time does not make peasants into kings, nor bring more fulfillment then what came before. Especially when the gap between the haves and the 'have nots' perpetually grows wider.
And then there's the elephant in the machine: Is our quest for immortality and technological progress worth destroying the only home we have? Because the iPhone wouldn't exist without climate change.
Yes. A super computer in my pocket that allows for instant telecommunication is extremely valuable. Family is important, that is true. When my mom was in a car accident a few weeks ago, her iPhone...
Is owning an iPhone actually fulfilling a meaningful part of your life?
Yes. A super computer in my pocket that allows for instant telecommunication is extremely valuable. Family is important, that is true. When my mom was in a car accident a few weeks ago, her iPhone detected the crash and called emergency services. I was in her emergency contact so it messaged me her location and I was able to call family to pick her up before she had even gotten out of the car.
No money in the world could buy you that 100 or 200 years ago or as a king. In fact, it might have been the slow communications of the state of ones family that inspired Samuel Morse to make advances in the telegraph: https://archive.ph/3GBEn
Is it actually better to have more yachts and kings?
I think so. I want everyone to be rich, powerful, and live long lives, don't you?
And 100 years ago that car accident wouldn't have happened. The technology is solving problems caused by technology. It would be foolish to deny that it is useful, or can save lives. But in the...
And 100 years ago that car accident wouldn't have happened. The technology is solving problems caused by technology.
It would be foolish to deny that it is useful, or can save lives. But in the grand scheme of things, in your daily life, does it provide fulfillment on its own? Do you really need to know whats going on on the entire planet at all times? To be perpetually distracted from the world around you by the buzzing flashing lights in your pocket?
Theres a decent chance that the iPhone autocalling also wouldn't have saved your mother at all. And there's millions of people who die because someone has an iPhone in their hands while driving. Does the iPhone save more people every year than it costs lives? I'm doubtful.
I'd love to have everyone have long fulfilling lives. But the reality is that only the kings do, and the peasants whom do the dirty work do not. Hows the life expectency for people slaving away in sweatshops so that we can live like kings? Do we do anything to tangibly prevent this so they might also live as kings? Or do we passively sweep it under the rug as "just the way things are" and choose to live in our ignorant bliss?
And you ignored my most important question: Is all of this worth destroying the planet for?
If so, what makes us so special that we get to make that choice for all other life?
At what point in history would you rather be alive than today? What time period struck the right balance of technological advancement? Just as we should not sweep away under the rug the problems...
At what point in history would you rather be alive than today? What time period struck the right balance of technological advancement?
Just as we should not sweep away under the rug the problems we've picked up with technological advancement, we should also not sweep away the problems solved.
100 years from now, will even more advancements be available, more technology, more diseases cured, more verifiable information generating more complex alignments, more neuronal structure differences allowing for changes in the dimensions and construction of our networks, more metamorphosis of the thermodynamics of our everyday lives, as people talk of the good old days of the 2020s?
It is not a zero-sum game of destroy the planet or make technology. Promoting the idea that collapse is somehow impossible to mitigate or that we are on an irreversible track towards doom, and that things will only be worse in the future, is normalizing an attitude of inaction and zero-sum behavior. It prevents effective social, political, and economic change from really happening because people become convinced they don't have the agency to build a better world.
Solar geoengineering, weather engineering, net-zero carbon cycle, etc are all actionable paths that one can go down to increase probabilities of easing our collective eco-anxiety, and there are people on the frontlines of this. For instance, look at what rainmaker is doing to fix droughts with cloudseeding.
The question is not if technology is worth destroying the planet for. Technology is enabling us to control the planet.
What makes us so special, is that we are willing to make ourselves so.
However, I certainly emphasize with your point of view, as I held it once as well.
Or the destabilized climate will casually wreak everything we have made. How well do nuclear power plants hold up to tsunamis again? How far back would our computing technology be set back by 2-3...
100 years from now, will even more advancements be available, more [more more more]
Or the destabilized climate will casually wreak everything we have made. How well do nuclear power plants hold up to tsunamis again? How far back would our computing technology be set back by 2-3 hurricanes or tornadoes that hit just the right spots? The Roman empire didn't see their fall coming either. And we just recently have rediscovered how to do masonry the way they did.
How many people will be lost in wars for survival when their homes are now uninhabitable?
How many will die from famines at the hands of unpredictable weather causing unforeseen crop destruction?
How far will we be able to advance technology if we need to relocate millions of people every couple of years?
Many presume this infinite growth of improvement will continue forever, but I am not one of them anymore. We see advancements in many sectors slowing. We're hitting on practical limits of efficiency improvements in many areas. I see us as a civilization that jumped up a peak on a non-renewable resource, and is betting huge that we will be able to continue engineering ourselves out of the mess we created for ourselves when those fossil fuels run out. Considering we can't keep up with building enough power for datacenter demand today, that does not bode well.
I don't want to live on a planet without fireflies. Sadly we're already about halfway there. We've killed half of the insect biomass on the planet, and as the insects go, so goes all the life that depends on them.
If our global energy demand grows as it has done for the past 200 years, 3-4% a year, then within 500 years the oceans boil away even if we cover every square inch of the Earth in 100% efficient solar panels. Technological fantasy does not trump laws of thermodynamics.
As far as 'when' to live, past/present/future, I care not. There was always suffering, there was always joy. There will always be suffering and there will always be joy. No myriad of medical treatments or technological advancements will change that.
Riding a horse is dangerous. So is farming. In general, people back then took a lot more risks than we do. It's true that technology often solves problems created by technology, but the end result...
And 100 years ago that car accident wouldn't have happened.
Riding a horse is dangerous. So is farming. In general, people back then took a lot more risks than we do.
It's true that technology often solves problems created by technology, but the end result is often safer. (At least, if we're just looking at accidents.)
But this whole conversation is looking at things from a very zoomed-out perspective. (Is technological progress good or bad?) I think it's better to zoom in. Limiting our scope to healthcare improvements would still be very broad, but somewhat closer to the original topic.
Sort of, but from the getgo this thread is commenting on whether or not it was moral or desirable to seek immortality, and to that, for me, than answer is an enthusiastic "no." Are all these...
Sort of, but from the getgo this thread is commenting on whether or not it was moral or desirable to seek immortality, and to that, for me, than answer is an enthusiastic "no."
Are all these people seeking immortality going to also work forever? Are we going to force sterilization of those whom seek it? How do you reconcile a population that never shrinks?
Will living for 1000 years actually feel fulfilling, or will we eventually grow bored as each year becomes an ever shrinking sliver of our lives?
Will we ever bother to return to the memories of 200 years ago? Most people can't be bothered to remember two decades.
Think of how 'set in their ways' old people become now. Would we want to have 500 year old people imposing their values on us in perpetuity?
I doubt they will succeed, but I don't think it's wrong to try, and it might result in some good innovations in healthcare? This is excessively binary, but there are two choices, live for another...
I doubt they will succeed, but I don't think it's wrong to try, and it might result in some good innovations in healthcare?
This is excessively binary, but there are two choices, live for another year or don't. I think it's immoral to want older people to be killed off at any particular age.
More realistically, though, there are many people living terrible lives in nursing homes and at that point it's a closer question. I don't think the people working on immortality are interested in living longer that way either, though?
Sometimes this is discussed as increasing "healthspan" (how long you're living in relatively healthy way) rather than "lifespan." But I expect that they are related areas of research.
The alternative is what we have now. You don't get to decide how long you have to live. To tell people that the status quo is good and we should stay this way is to say; "I don't want you to be...
Will living for 1000 years actually feel fulfilling, or will we eventually grow bored as each year becomes an ever shrinking sliver of our lives?
The alternative is what we have now. You don't get to decide how long you have to live. To tell people that the status quo is good and we should stay this way is to say; "I don't want you to be able to live longer if you choose." In a way, not being able to choose is a pro-death stance. This is one that someone can be at peace with, but I think it would be better to not die, or at least to be able to live a much longer healthier life.
We're not just talking about biotech, we're taking about a means of control and accumulation. Sure, you can buy metal flatware now, but can you be king? Can you collect taxes? Direct armies to...
We're not just talking about biotech, we're taking about a means of control and accumulation. Sure, you can buy metal flatware now, but can you be king? Can you collect taxes? Direct armies to attack or withdraw? Can you excommunicate a person and have them ostracized from society? These are the kinds of things those with power reserve for themselves. I don't think effective immortality would be any different.
Products trickle down, wealth and power do not. Power and wealth only come down to common people at the point of the bayonet, and then only in a distributed sort of way.
Oh yes, because now there's simply not enough motivation to become well connected and wealthy. It's easy enough, and the system is structured such that everyone could feasibly do it, the rewards...
Oh yes, because now there's simply not enough motivation to become well connected and wealthy. It's easy enough, and the system is structured such that everyone could feasibly do it, the rewards just aren't exciting enough.
I can buy tech that the richest people in the world couldn't buy 100 years ago, because I'm extremely fortunate. 26% of the population doesn't even have access to clean water. Technology does not become available to everyone, it becomes available to the privileged, and how quickly and to whom varies drastically. Houses are pretty old technology and I can't buy one of those.
Immortality would offer the most power I not distributed widely. It would create a permanent wealthy caste with a world full of disposable underlings scrambling desperately for their shot to avoid death. Anyone who had any control over offering it would become a little God king with absolute control over their subjects. Given the way billionaires currently use their power, I cannot possibly imagine they would be kind about it.
In the search for universal or universally optional immortality there's an argument to be made about whether it's moral or immoral. I think it very well could be moral. But the Immortality of a billionaire, known of and controlled by a billionaire? Absolutely immoral. Just another case of hoarding more than they need.
Maybe time is a circle, and we're just about to hit the "Pharoh is God" phase. The empires will collapse again, 80%+ of the human population is wiped out from the instability and wars that...
Maybe time is a circle, and we're just about to hit the "Pharoh is God" phase. The empires will collapse again, 80%+ of the human population is wiped out from the instability and wars that accompany it, and a few hundred years of minimal human existence the planet will recover....then we can try again.
Also....there is very much fiction written about the existential crisises that accompany immortality. I look forward to death because it means that eventually I won't have to grind for 40 hours a...
Also....there is very much fiction written about the existential crisises that accompany immortality.
I look forward to death because it means that eventually I won't have to grind for 40 hours a week.
There will always be fiction on the existential crisis of technology. Dystopia sells much more the utopia, thats why we have more Black Mirror but fewer Super 30:...
There will always be fiction on the existential crisis of technology.
No, but life and death are a yin and yang. You cannot have life without death. It is a circle. You're born, you live, you die, your body becomes food for other life, which becomes food for the...
No, but life and death are a yin and yang. You cannot have life without death. It is a circle. You're born, you live, you die, your body becomes food for other life, which becomes food for the next generations.
Sounds like a religious argument, and I don't think we could see eye to eye on this issue. But I can elaborate a bit more on why I don't agree with that. As far as we know, humans aren't like...
Exemplary
Sounds like a religious argument, and I don't think we could see eye to eye on this issue. But I can elaborate a bit more on why I don't agree with that.
As far as we know, humans aren't like other animals, in the sense that we are aware of death. This creates an anxiety, and people therefore need to cope with this anxiety in some way. There are many cultural elements that enable us to cope with it, including religion and spirituality. For further information, people reading this can look at "terror management theory" in psychology. I think one way of doing this is justifying the existence of death. There are many religious and secular philosophies that do exactly this.
I don't agree with this, and I think death is horrible. I sometimes entertain an idea. Maybe some thousands of years later humanity will have conquered death, and people will look back and take pity on us, in a way similar to how we take pity on victims of black death some hundreds of years ago. "Those poor souls," they might think. "They didn't have the means to overcome this now very preventable ill."
On a personal level, I know that I have to cope with the fear of death. I have no choice on this matter, because that's how life is. On a grander scale though, if I was given the choice, I would most definitely abolish it for humanity. Philosophies can always adapt to this choice. When the base of reality changes from mortality to immortality, I'm sure egalitarian philosophies that reconcile immortality with altruism would come about. After all, philosophies of human condition are about meeting the current human needs. If the need to cope with mortality disappeared and a need to adapt to immortality appeared, the philosophies would follow suit.
It could be said that we are executed by nature. I recognize the need to come to terms with being executed, to live life to the fullest without being burdened by crushing anxiety, but I am against romanticizing being executed or the executioner. I think we should progress in a way that would overcome being executed.
Note: Before any objections, I am using colorful language to make a point. I don't believe there is any intent to nature.
Religion for the atheist I suppose. I don't adhere that we are somehow special from other animals, other than we took a different path. We have many of the same flaws and virtues. We see that...
Religion for the atheist I suppose. I don't adhere that we are somehow special from other animals, other than we took a different path. We have many of the same flaws and virtues. We see that animals can mourn and fear death. I have seen how animals change behaviorally when they are close to death, I have no doubt that they understand that their time is coming to an end...particularly when they choose to stop eating.
The nutrients in the soil are comprised of dead animals and plants, humans inclusive. If you only plant the same crop in one area forever, the soil depletes of nutrients, dies, and becomes barren.
The oil and coal in the ground did not magically spring forth from the cosmos, it was generated after millions of years of life, death, and gravity.
And much like a gambler in a casino where they always win... winning has no meaning without the losses. Contrast brings forth lows, but also highs. Joy means less with no sorrow. Life without death is life with no stakes.
If you've never felt pain, the slightest cut will feel agonizing.
The most common thing in life is life, yet every life is a miracle. I am small and insignificant. But I am the only me. To claim that I am somehow important enough to live forever ignores how small and insignificant I am in the grand scheme of the universe.
Is it really that surprising that someone trying to sell the idea of "immortality" to the masses is covering up his own health issues? I feel bad for this person. It sounds vaguely like the...
Is it really that surprising that someone trying to sell the idea of "immortality" to the masses is covering up his own health issues? I feel bad for this person. It sounds vaguely like the punchline to a stand-up routine I heard once that some people get so obsessed with spending their time exercising to extend their lifespans that they sometimes forget that they're trading time for time. This guy seems so obsessed with dying (or, more accurately, not dying) that he's completely forgotten about what it means to live.
This seems like clickbait, but I can come up with some questions about it anyway: What does "lost 15% of my lung capacity" mean in practice? How would someone measure this? What was the baseline?...
This seems like clickbait, but I can come up with some questions about it anyway:
What does "lost 15% of my lung capacity" mean in practice? How would someone measure this? What was the baseline? Do you get more if you work out? Is it something you lose as you age?
I doubt this blogger knows much about it either, but he's spinning it as "wrecked his lungs."
They measure lung capacity using a Pulmonary Function Test. They can measure the volume of air your lungs can hold, home much gas exchange happens in your lungs, dissolved O2, among other...
They measure lung capacity using a Pulmonary Function Test. They can measure the volume of air your lungs can hold, home much gas exchange happens in your lungs, dissolved O2, among other attributes. I have pectus excavatum, so I have reduce lung volume, but in this case, (as for many covid cases) he probably has scarring inside his lungs which means he has less functioning lung alveoli so his body isn't able to exchange CO2 and O2 as effectively anymore.
How this impacts him can be varied, he could now have an enlarged heart since his heart has to move more blood to get better gas exchange, he might find he gets winded faster during exercise or has difficulty catching his breath. It may get better gradually, it may not.
Generally, working out doesn't fix lungs, it helps your heart and circulatory system.
Relatively simple tests. First, you have them blow out into a tube with a weighted ball blocking the top, and count how long it takes for their lungs to completely empty. Second, you test their...
What does "lost 15% of my lung capacity" mean in practice? How would someone measure this? What was the baseline? Do you get more if you work out? Is it something you lose as you age?
Relatively simple tests. First, you have them blow out into a tube with a weighted ball blocking the top, and count how long it takes for their lungs to completely empty. Second, you test their exhaled air for oxygen content, for example by burning a candle in a bag they blew into - the longer it lasts the more oxygen is present. More oxygen left over means your lungs are less efficient at absorbing it from the amount in the air you inhale.
I dated someone with cystic fibrosis in the past so I have firsthand experience with them using tests like this to measure lung function (respiratory issues are a huge part of CF and they need to...
I dated someone with cystic fibrosis in the past so I have firsthand experience with them using tests like this to measure lung function (respiratory issues are a huge part of CF and they need to keep on top of it) and the one time I attended one they gave a percentage. But even outside of that, I get lung function tests at the doctor fairly regularly and I just have asthma (though they usually say my function's normal rather than giving me a percentage, since my asthma is exercise-induced and they don't make me run up a flight of stairs before taking it) -- they have me breath normally into a mouthpiece, then empty my lungs, then fill my lungs as much as possible and breathe out as hard as I can until my lungs are empty. They usually make me do this a couple of times, but I'm not sure if that's bc it's necessary or because I suck at the test. I can't read the graphs that result but presumably they're meaningful to the doctors lol.
It is something that improves with exercise and decreases with age. It's measured with a spirometer. Baseline depends on age, height and gender. You'll notice decreased lung capacity when exerting...
It is something that improves with exercise and decreases with age. It's measured with a spirometer. Baseline depends on age, height and gender.
You'll notice decreased lung capacity when exerting yourself - how quickly you run out of breath and from what intensity of activity. If this is long term, for someone that tracks metrics like this guy it's a noticeable change in his ability to exercise to the same extent. If you could run a mile without getting winded and now you took longer to run it because you had to catch your breath that would be noticeable and particularly frustrating. Especially if you measure your ongoing health in part by that mile, just a an example.
Oddly I was just thinking about him yesterday for some reason. I barely know anything about him, I just remember reading about the extent he goes to try to make himself younger and finding it very sad, in a way. His obsession with avoiding death seems like it consumes his thoughts to a disturbing degree, he seems to eschew a lot of simple, basic pleasures and joys in his pursuit of immortality. His whole life seems to be ruled by fear.
That said, long Covid really is just terrifying. Disease ultimately spares no one.
The description of his everyday life would be misery for me. I've been on a handful of meds before, it's not something I would want to do for a long period of time.
How I see it... tech bros taking their winnings from making a payments app and using it to find the unlocks that make death a choice, rather than an inevitability, is probably one of the most noble things they can do, even if they must first suffer a lack of basic pleasures to get us there. If the job of technology is to eliminate scarcity, the ultimate scarcity in our life is... our time... then making that time abundant is a natural progression for technology to go.
That said, Bryan looks like he's still having fun, referring to himself as Chief Erection Officer (CEO) on X.
https://x.com/bryan_johnson/status/1756745807590818089
Betting on a hypothetical that may be thousands of years away (if not utterly impossible), rather than like feeding the homeless dude down the street, not seem noble to me at all. Especially when you get into how grifty the wellness/longevity space is. A lot of it is just setting money on fire
You're assuming anything he's doing is scientifically sound or contributing meaningfully to life extension in any way. He seems more like a guy with an anxiety disorder trying every quack health fad he reads in pop science articles.
Doesn't seem that way to me
Considering that his infamous blood transfusions are considered pseudoscience by medical institutions, and the fact that he's testing with a sample size of one and therefore can't produce any scientific data from what he's doing, I think it's a pretty justified assessment.
You're using a sample size of one (blood transfusions) to make this evaluation.
No, I'm using multiple observations of his methodology. He doesn't test on statistically significant numbers of test subjects under medically controlled conditions. Surely we can agree on that?
ok
So it follows that he's not producing anything of scientific value. Even if he lives longer than average, there's no way of establishing which of his twelve treatments contributed, or if it was genetics or diet or a million other things, or if the treatments actually shortened his life. So when people tell you this is doing no good for anyone, believe them.
Immortality is not a noble goal, it is a selfish one. It is saying "the world does not need new people, I will not make room."
Private vice but public good.
The reason speed has value is because time has value; the reason time has value is because human
life spans are finite.
If you make life spans longer, you reduce the effective cost of everything.
You assume that if immortality were developed, it would be available for everyone. I'm certain that's not the case. The advantage for personal gain through immortality is too great. I expect that if immortality were ever developed, it would be available to only the most well-connected and wealthy.
Even more motivation to become well-connected and wealthy.
But that aside.
Throughout history, eventually all technological unlocks permeate and commoditize.
You can buy tech today that richest people in the world couldn't buy 100 years ago, even if they spent all their money to have it.
What would make biotech different?
Yes, but the richest people 100 years ago also still lived better than then the poorest do today. Pretty sure the wealthy still had yachts. Heck, 200 years ago they could just buy people and force them to fight to the death for their amusement (glad that one is gone).
Just because we have more shiny baubles available now to distract us doesn't really mean that the really expensive things will trickle down.
How much money would an iPhone cost to own 100 years ago? Or full spectrum genetic screening?
Has yacht ownership numbers increased or decreased in the last 100 years?
Is owning an iPhone actually fulfilling a meaningful part of your life? Or is it a shiny bauble that replaced some other thing that fulfilled the same purpose? For me at least...the smartphone has not the slightest improvement on the quality of my life. The stuff that I own doesn't even rank in the top 50% for providing fulfillment. It is the family and friends...technology has torn us apart as much as it has brought us together. I wouldn't need to communicate with my sister via a smartphone if we still lived within 5 miles of each other.
Does everyone in Africa, South America, and Asia have access to genetic screening, or is it mostly just The West? Does the genetic screening actually give you good odds to survive an additional 10-20 years, or merely give you one additional thing to worry about that you probably can't afford to change?
Is it actually better to have more yachts and kings? I'd contend nobody should have a personal vessel commanded by a fleet of
slavesemployees. And that progress that only goes to a few is not progress at all.Is playing video games with friends really somehow intrinsically more fulfilling than playing poker with those same friends? Did people whom didn't have videogames miss having them? Of course not. But games have been around since the dawn of civilization, and probably even before that.
Are movies and TV really more fulfilling than the theater, or telling stories around a campfire? Doubtful, and again, before their invention nobody was hurting for the lack of them (also see the Notel study to see the tangible cognitive declines TV brought with it).
I say this not as a technological nay-sayer, I do enjoy these things, but to say that technological improvement over time does not make peasants into kings, nor bring more fulfillment then what came before. Especially when the gap between the haves and the 'have nots' perpetually grows wider.
And then there's the elephant in the machine: Is our quest for immortality and technological progress worth destroying the only home we have? Because the iPhone wouldn't exist without climate change.
See also my cousin reply to someone else
Yes. A super computer in my pocket that allows for instant telecommunication is extremely valuable. Family is important, that is true. When my mom was in a car accident a few weeks ago, her iPhone detected the crash and called emergency services. I was in her emergency contact so it messaged me her location and I was able to call family to pick her up before she had even gotten out of the car.
No money in the world could buy you that 100 or 200 years ago or as a king. In fact, it might have been the slow communications of the state of ones family that inspired Samuel Morse to make advances in the telegraph: https://archive.ph/3GBEn
I think so. I want everyone to be rich, powerful, and live long lives, don't you?
And 100 years ago that car accident wouldn't have happened. The technology is solving problems caused by technology.
It would be foolish to deny that it is useful, or can save lives. But in the grand scheme of things, in your daily life, does it provide fulfillment on its own? Do you really need to know whats going on on the entire planet at all times? To be perpetually distracted from the world around you by the buzzing flashing lights in your pocket?
Theres a decent chance that the iPhone autocalling also wouldn't have saved your mother at all. And there's millions of people who die because someone has an iPhone in their hands while driving. Does the iPhone save more people every year than it costs lives? I'm doubtful.
I'd love to have everyone have long fulfilling lives. But the reality is that only the kings do, and the peasants whom do the dirty work do not. Hows the life expectency for people slaving away in sweatshops so that we can live like kings? Do we do anything to tangibly prevent this so they might also live as kings? Or do we passively sweep it under the rug as "just the way things are" and choose to live in our ignorant bliss?
And you ignored my most important question: Is all of this worth destroying the planet for?
If so, what makes us so special that we get to make that choice for all other life?
At what point in history would you rather be alive than today? What time period struck the right balance of technological advancement?
Just as we should not sweep away under the rug the problems we've picked up with technological advancement, we should also not sweep away the problems solved.
100 years from now, will even more advancements be available, more technology, more diseases cured, more verifiable information generating more complex alignments, more neuronal structure differences allowing for changes in the dimensions and construction of our networks, more metamorphosis of the thermodynamics of our everyday lives, as people talk of the good old days of the 2020s?
It is not a zero-sum game of destroy the planet or make technology. Promoting the idea that collapse is somehow impossible to mitigate or that we are on an irreversible track towards doom, and that things will only be worse in the future, is normalizing an attitude of inaction and zero-sum behavior. It prevents effective social, political, and economic change from really happening because people become convinced they don't have the agency to build a better world.
Solar geoengineering, weather engineering, net-zero carbon cycle, etc are all actionable paths that one can go down to increase probabilities of easing our collective eco-anxiety, and there are people on the frontlines of this. For instance, look at what rainmaker is doing to fix droughts with cloudseeding.
The question is not if technology is worth destroying the planet for. Technology is enabling us to control the planet.
What makes us so special, is that we are willing to make ourselves so.
However, I certainly emphasize with your point of view, as I held it once as well.
Or the destabilized climate will casually wreak everything we have made. How well do nuclear power plants hold up to tsunamis again? How far back would our computing technology be set back by 2-3 hurricanes or tornadoes that hit just the right spots? The Roman empire didn't see their fall coming either. And we just recently have rediscovered how to do masonry the way they did.
How many people will be lost in wars for survival when their homes are now uninhabitable?
How many will die from famines at the hands of unpredictable weather causing unforeseen crop destruction?
How far will we be able to advance technology if we need to relocate millions of people every couple of years?
Many presume this infinite growth of improvement will continue forever, but I am not one of them anymore. We see advancements in many sectors slowing. We're hitting on practical limits of efficiency improvements in many areas. I see us as a civilization that jumped up a peak on a non-renewable resource, and is betting huge that we will be able to continue engineering ourselves out of the mess we created for ourselves when those fossil fuels run out. Considering we can't keep up with building enough power for datacenter demand today, that does not bode well.
I don't want to live on a planet without fireflies. Sadly we're already about halfway there. We've killed half of the insect biomass on the planet, and as the insects go, so goes all the life that depends on them.
If our global energy demand grows as it has done for the past 200 years, 3-4% a year, then within 500 years the oceans boil away even if we cover every square inch of the Earth in 100% efficient solar panels. Technological fantasy does not trump laws of thermodynamics.
As far as 'when' to live, past/present/future, I care not. There was always suffering, there was always joy. There will always be suffering and there will always be joy. No myriad of medical treatments or technological advancements will change that.
Riding a horse is dangerous. So is farming. In general, people back then took a lot more risks than we do.
It's true that technology often solves problems created by technology, but the end result is often safer. (At least, if we're just looking at accidents.)
But this whole conversation is looking at things from a very zoomed-out perspective. (Is technological progress good or bad?) I think it's better to zoom in. Limiting our scope to healthcare improvements would still be very broad, but somewhat closer to the original topic.
Sort of, but from the getgo this thread is commenting on whether or not it was moral or desirable to seek immortality, and to that, for me, than answer is an enthusiastic "no."
Are all these people seeking immortality going to also work forever? Are we going to force sterilization of those whom seek it? How do you reconcile a population that never shrinks?
Will living for 1000 years actually feel fulfilling, or will we eventually grow bored as each year becomes an ever shrinking sliver of our lives?
Will we ever bother to return to the memories of 200 years ago? Most people can't be bothered to remember two decades.
Think of how 'set in their ways' old people become now. Would we want to have 500 year old people imposing their values on us in perpetuity?
I doubt they will succeed, but I don't think it's wrong to try, and it might result in some good innovations in healthcare?
This is excessively binary, but there are two choices, live for another year or don't. I think it's immoral to want older people to be killed off at any particular age.
More realistically, though, there are many people living terrible lives in nursing homes and at that point it's a closer question. I don't think the people working on immortality are interested in living longer that way either, though?
Sometimes this is discussed as increasing "healthspan" (how long you're living in relatively healthy way) rather than "lifespan." But I expect that they are related areas of research.
The alternative is what we have now. You don't get to decide how long you have to live. To tell people that the status quo is good and we should stay this way is to say; "I don't want you to be able to live longer if you choose." In a way, not being able to choose is a pro-death stance. This is one that someone can be at peace with, but I think it would be better to not die, or at least to be able to live a much longer healthier life.
We're not just talking about biotech, we're taking about a means of control and accumulation. Sure, you can buy metal flatware now, but can you be king? Can you collect taxes? Direct armies to attack or withdraw? Can you excommunicate a person and have them ostracized from society? These are the kinds of things those with power reserve for themselves. I don't think effective immortality would be any different.
Products trickle down, wealth and power do not. Power and wealth only come down to common people at the point of the bayonet, and then only in a distributed sort of way.
Oh yes, because now there's simply not enough motivation to become well connected and wealthy. It's easy enough, and the system is structured such that everyone could feasibly do it, the rewards just aren't exciting enough.
I can buy tech that the richest people in the world couldn't buy 100 years ago, because I'm extremely fortunate. 26% of the population doesn't even have access to clean water. Technology does not become available to everyone, it becomes available to the privileged, and how quickly and to whom varies drastically. Houses are pretty old technology and I can't buy one of those.
Immortality would offer the most power I not distributed widely. It would create a permanent wealthy caste with a world full of disposable underlings scrambling desperately for their shot to avoid death. Anyone who had any control over offering it would become a little God king with absolute control over their subjects. Given the way billionaires currently use their power, I cannot possibly imagine they would be kind about it.
In the search for universal or universally optional immortality there's an argument to be made about whether it's moral or immoral. I think it very well could be moral. But the Immortality of a billionaire, known of and controlled by a billionaire? Absolutely immoral. Just another case of hoarding more than they need.
Maybe time is a circle, and we're just about to hit the "Pharoh is God" phase. The empires will collapse again, 80%+ of the human population is wiped out from the instability and wars that accompany it, and a few hundred years of minimal human existence the planet will recover....then we can try again.
If it goes that way I won't be rich enough to see it.
Cory Doctorow's Walkaway explores this nicely. It's kind of a prequel to Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
Also....there is very much fiction written about the existential crisises that accompany immortality.
I look forward to death because it means that eventually I won't have to grind for 40 hours a week.
There will always be fiction on the existential crisis of technology.
Dystopia sells much more the utopia, thats why we have more Black Mirror but fewer Super 30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpvEWVVnICE
But the story of technology is not as dystopian as the grifters want us to think.
https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/0465020410/ref=asc_df_0465020410
Not wanting to die is not a vice. Other people don't get to tell you you should die. Right to live is the most basic human right.
No, but life and death are a yin and yang. You cannot have life without death. It is a circle. You're born, you live, you die, your body becomes food for other life, which becomes food for the next generations.
And the green grass grows all around, the green grass grows all around.
Not wanting to die is reasonable. Trying to cheat death forever is selfish.
Sounds like a religious argument, and I don't think we could see eye to eye on this issue. But I can elaborate a bit more on why I don't agree with that.
As far as we know, humans aren't like other animals, in the sense that we are aware of death. This creates an anxiety, and people therefore need to cope with this anxiety in some way. There are many cultural elements that enable us to cope with it, including religion and spirituality. For further information, people reading this can look at "terror management theory" in psychology. I think one way of doing this is justifying the existence of death. There are many religious and secular philosophies that do exactly this.
I don't agree with this, and I think death is horrible. I sometimes entertain an idea. Maybe some thousands of years later humanity will have conquered death, and people will look back and take pity on us, in a way similar to how we take pity on victims of black death some hundreds of years ago. "Those poor souls," they might think. "They didn't have the means to overcome this now very preventable ill."
On a personal level, I know that I have to cope with the fear of death. I have no choice on this matter, because that's how life is. On a grander scale though, if I was given the choice, I would most definitely abolish it for humanity. Philosophies can always adapt to this choice. When the base of reality changes from mortality to immortality, I'm sure egalitarian philosophies that reconcile immortality with altruism would come about. After all, philosophies of human condition are about meeting the current human needs. If the need to cope with mortality disappeared and a need to adapt to immortality appeared, the philosophies would follow suit.
It could be said that we are executed by nature. I recognize the need to come to terms with being executed, to live life to the fullest without being burdened by crushing anxiety, but I am against romanticizing being executed or the executioner. I think we should progress in a way that would overcome being executed.
Note: Before any objections, I am using colorful language to make a point. I don't believe there is any intent to nature.
Religion for the atheist I suppose. I don't adhere that we are somehow special from other animals, other than we took a different path. We have many of the same flaws and virtues. We see that animals can mourn and fear death. I have seen how animals change behaviorally when they are close to death, I have no doubt that they understand that their time is coming to an end...particularly when they choose to stop eating.
The nutrients in the soil are comprised of dead animals and plants, humans inclusive. If you only plant the same crop in one area forever, the soil depletes of nutrients, dies, and becomes barren.
The oil and coal in the ground did not magically spring forth from the cosmos, it was generated after millions of years of life, death, and gravity.
And much like a gambler in a casino where they always win... winning has no meaning without the losses. Contrast brings forth lows, but also highs. Joy means less with no sorrow. Life without death is life with no stakes.
If you've never felt pain, the slightest cut will feel agonizing.
The most common thing in life is life, yet every life is a miracle. I am small and insignificant. But I am the only me. To claim that I am somehow important enough to live forever ignores how small and insignificant I am in the grand scheme of the universe.
Is it really that surprising that someone trying to sell the idea of "immortality" to the masses is covering up his own health issues? I feel bad for this person. It sounds vaguely like the punchline to a stand-up routine I heard once that some people get so obsessed with spending their time exercising to extend their lifespans that they sometimes forget that they're trading time for time. This guy seems so obsessed with dying (or, more accurately, not dying) that he's completely forgotten about what it means to live.
This seems like clickbait, but I can come up with some questions about it anyway:
What does "lost 15% of my lung capacity" mean in practice? How would someone measure this? What was the baseline? Do you get more if you work out? Is it something you lose as you age?
I doubt this blogger knows much about it either, but he's spinning it as "wrecked his lungs."
They measure lung capacity using a Pulmonary Function Test. They can measure the volume of air your lungs can hold, home much gas exchange happens in your lungs, dissolved O2, among other attributes. I have pectus excavatum, so I have reduce lung volume, but in this case, (as for many covid cases) he probably has scarring inside his lungs which means he has less functioning lung alveoli so his body isn't able to exchange CO2 and O2 as effectively anymore.
How this impacts him can be varied, he could now have an enlarged heart since his heart has to move more blood to get better gas exchange, he might find he gets winded faster during exercise or has difficulty catching his breath. It may get better gradually, it may not.
Generally, working out doesn't fix lungs, it helps your heart and circulatory system.
Relatively simple tests. First, you have them blow out into a tube with a weighted ball blocking the top, and count how long it takes for their lungs to completely empty. Second, you test their exhaled air for oxygen content, for example by burning a candle in a bag they blew into - the longer it lasts the more oxygen is present. More oxygen left over means your lungs are less efficient at absorbing it from the amount in the air you inhale.
I dated someone with cystic fibrosis in the past so I have firsthand experience with them using tests like this to measure lung function (respiratory issues are a huge part of CF and they need to keep on top of it) and the one time I attended one they gave a percentage. But even outside of that, I get lung function tests at the doctor fairly regularly and I just have asthma (though they usually say my function's normal rather than giving me a percentage, since my asthma is exercise-induced and they don't make me run up a flight of stairs before taking it) -- they have me breath normally into a mouthpiece, then empty my lungs, then fill my lungs as much as possible and breathe out as hard as I can until my lungs are empty. They usually make me do this a couple of times, but I'm not sure if that's bc it's necessary or because I suck at the test. I can't read the graphs that result but presumably they're meaningful to the doctors lol.
It is something that improves with exercise and decreases with age. It's measured with a spirometer. Baseline depends on age, height and gender.
You'll notice decreased lung capacity when exerting yourself - how quickly you run out of breath and from what intensity of activity. If this is long term, for someone that tracks metrics like this guy it's a noticeable change in his ability to exercise to the same extent. If you could run a mile without getting winded and now you took longer to run it because you had to catch your breath that would be noticeable and particularly frustrating. Especially if you measure your ongoing health in part by that mile, just a an example.