This dude is a perfect reflection the tech bro vision of the future; joyless, soulless, automatic, and inhuman. I'm glad the author doesn't shy away from criticism here, Silicon Valley has become...
This dude is a perfect reflection the tech bro vision of the future; joyless, soulless, automatic, and inhuman.
I'm glad the author doesn't shy away from criticism here, Silicon Valley has become a place where bizzare cults are being created. It's like superficial Hollywood diets and health trends but even worse, as people like Musk seek to use their money and technology to impose their future-cult nonsense on all of us, whether we want it or not.
Agree. While I highly support research into aging prevention, I'm not sure if I feel the same way about this tech-bro "biohacking" stuff. Sure, it can be cool - I enjoy doing Quantified Self...
Agree. While I highly support research into aging prevention, I'm not sure if I feel the same way about this tech-bro "biohacking" stuff. Sure, it can be cool - I enjoy doing Quantified Self experiments to improve some aspects of my life. However, when your entire life is based around that "minmaxing", that kinda sucks. Most of that stuff isn't even scientifically proven. There are so many biohacking products aimed at that kind of people like "bulletproof coffee" or nootropic pills, all of which are essentially the same as "magic water" and other new-age scams, except aimed at rich Silicon Valley men instead of Facebook moms.
Holy cow, yes. Sure, having more useful/happy life-hours would be nice, but even though there's evidence to show that living with a calorie deficit can make mice live appreciably longer, I'll be...
Holy cow, yes. Sure, having more useful/happy life-hours would be nice, but even though there's evidence to show that living with a calorie deficit can make mice live appreciably longer, I'll be damned if I starve myself for life for it! I don't exactly know what would be the benefit of living longer if it wasn't for the joys and guilty pleasures, etc.
I'm definitely not going to read this entire article but I scrolled through and just looked at the pictures (yes I am 8 years old) and if you didn't tell me otherwise, I would not think this was a...
joyless, soulless, automatic, and inhuman.
I'm definitely not going to read this entire article but I scrolled through and just looked at the pictures (yes I am 8 years old) and if you didn't tell me otherwise, I would not think this was a live human. He has such dead eyes in every picture, even the one where he's working out. Super creepy and very weird person
Yeah, he's clearly doing something that effects his body dramatically, but whether it's actually good is debatable. It brings to mind an article I read about how fashion models will maintain these...
Yeah, he's clearly doing something that effects his body dramatically, but whether it's actually good is debatable.
It brings to mind an article I read about how fashion models will maintain these extreme regimens to look good for the camera, starving themselves to have no body fat and then eating tons of very specific stuff like sweet potatos or something right before a shoot because it helped their muscle definition or something. They look fit, but meanwhile they're more or less living life on the edge of passing out. This kind of reminds me of that a bit.
Makes me wonder how much better the world would be if these people figured out that death is just a part of life. Rather than arrogantly thinking we can beat it with brute force. By thinking they...
Makes me wonder how much better the world would be if these people figured out that death is just a part of life. Rather than arrogantly thinking we can beat it with brute force.
By thinking they can cheat death, these people strive for a high-score. By accepting that death is part of life, they might realise that the legacy they leave behind should be more than that highscore.
Negligible senescence and biological immortality exist in nature. My grandma died a couple months ago, but for years before that she was suffering. Her senses gone, friends gone, her body breaking...
My grandma died a couple months ago, but for years before that she was suffering. Her senses gone, friends gone, her body breaking down. She went from joking about "not renewing her warranty" to saying "it's my time" to finally staying quiet. I don't think our current current relationship with death is that healthy.
We've arrogantly passed a point where ~40-50% of humans die before age 5-15. Cultures coped with this "part of life" with beliefs like taboo names (e.g., "Not this one" or "Not a Human Being") to repel evil spirits who would take another child from a family who'd already lost one.
We use lasers to sculpt eyes, grow skin, transplant organs, and many other acts that are a rejection of life as it was. I don't think many of those techniques came about by "brute force" and I don't think anyone would say we should turn back the progress.
Increases in longevity is contrasted with lifespan as keeping people in the prime of their life longer. Either increasing introduces its own challenges, but I think it takes seriously in-depth consideration to avoid just slipping into speculation or availability heuristics. The problem of dynastys? Like we aren't seeing Murdoch 2.0 take over or a board-appointed Bezos.
I know people younger than me that are hopelessly jaded, and octogenarians that have kept their best childlike qualities of curiosity and openness. A former neighbor took up karate and African drumming in her late 70s. If I lived to 400 I'd like to think I'd still be enjoying the world.
*but yeah, a lot of folks like Kurzweil / the guy from the article seem like Eddie Murphy tapping head "It's not a midlife crisis if I don't believe I'll die"
I think you've got how I feel summed up. Curing death is a daft idea that really takes away a lot. But longevity and health during those years? That I am perfectly okay with. If you could have...
I think you've got how I feel summed up.
Curing death is a daft idea that really takes away a lot. But longevity and health during those years? That I am perfectly okay with. If you could have people develop stronger muscles, stronger minds and live for longer and healthier? So be it. But curing death? I'm just not sure you can do that, not biologically. Or not without entering the realm of scifi!
I know this isn't the point of your post - and if this response isn't in the spirit of Tildes, let me know and I'll delete it - but that's not Eddie Murphy, it's Kayode Ewumi.
Eddie Murphy tapping head
I know this isn't the point of your post - and if this response isn't in the spirit of Tildes, let me know and I'll delete it - but that's not Eddie Murphy, it's Kayode Ewumi.
FYI: Down, next to the "Vote" button under my comment (this one here), go ahead and click "Label", then "Offtopic" or "Noise". When more than one user tags a comment with either of those labels,...
FYI: Down, next to the "Vote" button under my comment (this one here), go ahead and click "Label", then "Offtopic" or "Noise". When more than one user tags a comment with either of those labels, it will be moved lower down on the sorting priority, without indicating that the commenter did anything wrong, necessarily. I don't think there's been a custom established as to which is more appropriate for your kind of well-meaning and only tangentially relevant comment (I'd lean Offtopic), but the Noise label will collapse them by default for everyone.
Currently, there's no way to label your own comments, and some kind of disclaimer like the one you've made is more than polite enough. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but as a rule of thumb, people here do a decent job of recognizing that not every correction is an assault.
You could write this against the idea of curing any other disease or ailment. I think it's good that people didn't accept that dying from polio or infections was just a part of life and instead...
You could write this against the idea of curing any other disease or ailment. I think it's good that people didn't accept that dying from polio or infections was just a part of life and instead solved or reduced these issues. We've already solved so many problems that people of the past understood to be eternal features of the human condition. Aging is just another ailment that a solution or progress on would massively improve many people's lives. Progress on that seems among the very best legacies one could leave.
No you can't, because that argument is made in bad faith against something that is fundamentally different. Remaining Health != Curing Death At what cost? And who's lives? The poor south that...
No you can't, because that argument is made in bad faith against something that is fundamentally different.
Remaining Health != Curing Death
Aging is just another ailment that a solution or progress on would massively improve many people's lives. Progress on that seems among the very best legacies one could leave.
At what cost? And who's lives? The poor south that still struggles to secure valuable water? On a planet that is of finite resources yet is already on fire and overpopulated based on resource consumption?
Sure? Again, Sure? I'd be wary of the problems such a thing would bring. I wouldn't trust these clowns to get something like that to everyone who needed it and instead hoard it for themselves....
Isn't whatever humans do a part of life?
Sure?
And if it's possible to prevent death by human action, wouldn't that also make the act be part of life?
Again, Sure?
I'd be wary of the problems such a thing would bring. I wouldn't trust these clowns to get something like that to everyone who needed it and instead hoard it for themselves. They even more reason to protect their vast empires and fortunes as well then.
If you know death is coming, you must consider your legacy and what you leave behind. If that concept is alien because you can't die... then you'll live a life of hedonism at the expense of others. We already see that in their lifestyles that get justified as 'well they earnt it' despite us all knowing that isn't the case.
It's almost a purely philosophical conversation, one I thoroughly enjoy. But death is more than just an end, it's the thing that we're evolutionarily pre-disposed to want to avoid... despite putting ourselves into insane situations (Skydiving, Downhill mountain biking, Motorbike racing...) What would the joy be in those things if you could not take THAT risk?
It really is a philosophical debate. Why should your legacy matter if you and everyone else who might benefit from your legacy, will eventually die? I personally find joy in rollercoasters, which...
It really is a philosophical debate. Why should your legacy matter if you and everyone else who might benefit from your legacy, will eventually die?
I personally find joy in rollercoasters, which give you adrenaline without the risk of death. I also get into the fight or flight mode on occasion while watching something engrossing or playing a good videogame. Yet again, no risk of death there.
I know that there are people different than I am, and I guess that's what I (sort of) take issue with. Some people want a legacy, some don't. Some accept death, some fight against it. Who's to say which is right and which is not? Let's not pretend that any human being in existence ever had an answer to what's right and wrong in the grand scale of things.
I could also argue that there's no way of knowing the implications of stopping human death, just like nobody could have predicted the implications of any other major discovery. Sometimes it was good, sometimes worse. Who can know?
So I have read a significant amount of science fiction exploring these themes. Just as with other technologies, sometimes science fiction authors are prescient and really get it right ahead of...
So I have read a significant amount of science fiction exploring these themes. Just as with other technologies, sometimes science fiction authors are prescient and really get it right ahead of their time. But we wouldn't know unless it happened and we could compare fiction with fact.
I think it's reasonable to assume that it would exascerbate current problems of wealth distribution and also lead to hoarding of powerful jobs for centuries. I mean look at the current congress. Those people are determined to die in office. They wouldn't gracefully step down if they were going to be capable for another century or two. There would likely be class differences and resentments between the short lived and the long lived unless the technology was cheap and widely distributed.
If they wanted to do that then they'd be pushing for universal Healthcare and investing heavily into those technologies. Instead their actions bely their true intentions of "immortality for me,...
If they wanted to do that then they'd be pushing for universal Healthcare and investing heavily into those technologies.
Instead their actions bely their true intentions of "immortality for me, not for thee"
Overpopulated for our consumption levels, especially in the West. Can we have higher populations and remain in the lifestyles we're all so attuned to? I doubt it.
Overpopulated for our consumption levels, especially in the West.
Can we have higher populations and remain in the lifestyles we're all so attuned to? I doubt it.
Except that it is not possible, and eventually all things will die. This planet and this solar system will eventually cease, as will any other. At some point everyone has to accept that! Maybe new...
And if it's possible to prevent death by human action, wouldn't that also make the act be part of life?
Except that it is not possible, and eventually all things will die. This planet and this solar system will eventually cease, as will any other. At some point everyone has to accept that! Maybe new technology can delay the inevitable past the natural human lifespan, maybe far past, but no one can live forever. I'd rather our focus be on improving the lifespan that we do have and enjoying it rather than dumping resources into such a quixotic quest.
I suggest you read the short story The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant or watch the animated narration of it by CGP Grey. I find it to be a really good metaphor for why we shouldn't just accept aging...
We should definitly pursue ensuring longevity and health during it. But immortality? Absolutely not. We seem to be terrified of death in the west. You cannot live forever, even if you could... The...
We should definitly pursue ensuring longevity and health during it. But immortality? Absolutely not.
We seem to be terrified of death in the west. You cannot live forever, even if you could... The cost on others or those after you could be immense. That's hardly fair or just.
I think we’d need a post-capitalism world, but one could make immortality fairly ethical. Without financial compounding interest one couldn’t just live for free. Eternal health would mean experts...
I think we’d need a post-capitalism world, but one could make immortality fairly ethical. Without financial compounding interest one couldn’t just live for free. Eternal health would mean experts could be even more productive and for much longer. I want a world where my surgeon has attained mastery in a dozen skills and performed thousands of surgeries.
This does beg the question of what such a world thinks of those that might be mentally or physically incapable of internal compounding interest of expertise.
Again. Comes down to just how much you think that's viable. Do I think longer, healthier lives is a good thing? Absolutely. Do I think immortality would ever be a positive thing for any human? No...
Again. Comes down to just how much you think that's viable. Do I think longer, healthier lives is a good thing? Absolutely.
Do I think immortality would ever be a positive thing for any human? No chance.
When I think of immortality I think of an end to "death by aging" - not so much true immortality. So death by cancer is still on the table, viral infections, car crashes, etc. You're more so going...
When I think of immortality I think of an end to "death by aging" - not so much true immortality. So death by cancer is still on the table, viral infections, car crashes, etc. You're more so going to live until you get unlucky than truly live forever. If you're cautious (and not locking yourself away from any source of harm) then maybe that means a few hundred years? A thousand? And you might get bored and kill yourself at any point.
This would cause all sorts of problems. What is a life sentence in this world? Prisoners could easily live longer than everyone else if they're kept safe. And there could be some eternally irreparable humans that today we can rest knowing will only be around for a few more decades. It might be hard to incarcerate them... forever. But they might never get better. And then there are those that are drains on their family. Perhaps physically healthy enough to live forever without the threat of aging. But society could eventually get weighed down by these people. And what would happen to the birth rate?
Definitely lots of problems. But I can also see some good - so it could be a positive thing for some humans.
It's pretty much impossible to achieve true immortality due to law of large numbers so you don't have to worry about that. The cost of taking care of the old, the young, the sick is probably...
It's pretty much impossible to achieve true immortality due to law of large numbers so you don't have to worry about that.
The cost of taking care of the old, the young, the sick is probably higher than if most of everyone is healthy, biologically young, and able.
I would still firmly argue that death is not simply a part of life but part of what gives life so much meaning. It's a good thing that we have a time limit. It makes our decisions matter, the same...
I would still firmly argue that death is not simply a part of life but part of what gives life so much meaning.
It's a good thing that we have a time limit. It makes our decisions matter, the same way an artist is restricted by the dimensions of his canvas.
The more time you have the less important and meaningful each individual choice is.
I'll take a shorter more meaningful existence any day.
Everything is part of life, including the bad parts. I think if people accepted things as they were, life would be better,because people wouldn't constantly try to control others to change the...
Everything is part of life, including the bad parts. I think if people accepted things as they were, life would be better,because people wouldn't constantly try to control others to change the world. But I imagine other people would object to that vision of the future.
To your second part, what you need to factor in is that it's easier to trick people into thinking that you were a good person than to actually do it. Lots of rich people try to salvage their legacy, but very often they do so after they spent their most productive years doing the opposite. In tying their lives to legacy, they are motivated to bury the injustices of their past, rather than correct them.
Like Andrew Carnegie spent a bunch if money funding philanthropy and stuff, but even knowing that 19th century tech wasn't going to keep him alive forever didn't stop him from union busting.
Also, if you are going to die then you legacy is your children, so you have motivation to hoard as much as you can so that even after you die your family can stay dominant in society.
On the other hand, without Carnegie's gifts and energy, the public library system in the US likely wouldn't exist at all. Many people's lives would be worse. I don't think the instinct to hoard is...
On the other hand, without Carnegie's gifts and energy, the public library system in the US likely wouldn't exist at all. Many people's lives would be worse.
I don't think the instinct to hoard is exclusively tied to children or descendents. I expect people who could live for a thousand years would be highly motivated to attain assets to ensure luxurious living throughout that long life. Also wealth is frequently used as a marker of status. The desire to show off isn't going to disappear just because someone lives a long time.
People object to death and negative experience, they see it as their right to have a happy and prosperous life. Generally it's an attitude I experience more in western nations than I do anywhere...
People object to death and negative experience, they see it as their right to have a happy and prosperous life. Generally it's an attitude I experience more in western nations than I do anywhere else.
Oh absolutely. We need to stop institutional and generational wealth from affecting society as badly as it does. Huge inheritance taxes and ensuring that equitable policies are the way to do this, but current politics is too busy fighting over silly things... Rather than anything of import.
Bastards are always going to be bastards, to quote Bronn from Game of Thrones, "There's no cure for being a cunt" and I believe that. But as a society we really need to stop giving these people platforms or supporting them. But that drives tribal behaviour in every direction.
I have no children, not interested in having them. I'm not so bothered by my legacy beyond the people I help in my work and my social life. It's a funny one, but it reflects back on the idea of huge inheritance taxes and ensuring equitable policies exist. Anything else is just daft.
I see it as analagous to the push to populate the moon/mars/stars. These tech bros and their cultists should be focusing on improving the bodies/planet we have now rather than trying to make...
Makes me wonder how much better the world would be if these people figured out that death is just a part of life. Rather than arrogantly thinking we can beat it with brute force.
I see it as analagous to the push to populate the moon/mars/stars. These tech bros and their cultists should be focusing on improving the bodies/planet we have now rather than trying to make something unnatural work.
I think it's really neat. I hope he discovers something that works and it advances science and helps all of us. Curing aging is just as noble as curing diseases; maybe more so since it affects...
I think it's really neat. I hope he discovers something that works and it advances science and helps all of us. Curing aging is just as noble as curing diseases; maybe more so since it affects more people more harshly. I think it's good when rich people, in addition to paying their taxes, put their money into something experimental that could help the rest of us that might not have been tried otherwise.
Except this dude isn't cooperating with actual doctors and scientists. There's a reason that actual science isn't done by 40 year old rich white dudes in their home. He's not controlling for a...
Except this dude isn't cooperating with actual doctors and scientists.
There's a reason that actual science isn't done by 40 year old rich white dudes in their home. He's not controlling for a single variable - it can hardly be called an experiment.
I'm curious about your view - do you see aging as something to be cured?
First, what the public never sees are the initial stages of research which are little more than throwing darts in the dark. This is the discovery/pioneering stage. Initial decisions are at best...
First, what the public never sees are the initial stages of research which are little more than throwing darts in the dark. This is the discovery/pioneering stage. Initial decisions are at best somewhat educated guesses informed by our education and a lot of hunches, or in some cases it's especially trivial and matter of circumstance. It's not until a decade(s) later that you will hear of such-and-such drug target being tested in a clinical trial (if at all).
Second, there's more to science than N-Blinded Randomly Controlled Trials™. As a matter of fact, speaking as a professional scientist in the medical sciences in academia, high-risk high-reward research is actively disincentivized via the funding agencies we rely on. This sort of fishing expedition experimentation doesn't fit the short-term "safe" thinking that plagues contemporary science, at least in public institutions. Moreover, initial discovery work in my first point is nearly impossible to fund now, and is only done "under the table" (i.e., not mentioned on grants but intended on being executed anyways).
I'm not a fan of Bryan Johnson, and I would take a different, more distributed approach than what he's doing. Yet, it's completely valid to say that there is tremendous potential benefit for the rest of mankind and medicine. After all, most of our greatest scientific achievements have been—and still are—little more than luck and opportunism.
I'll counter both this and @Mrqewl 's comment by asking which significant (recent) scientific discovery, particularly in medicine, was achieved through someone that didn't seem to have the...
I'll counter both this and @Mrqewl 's comment by asking which significant (recent) scientific discovery, particularly in medicine, was achieved through someone that didn't seem to have the slightest interest in the field (beyond a strange, creepy obsession with living forever)?
My white guy with money was only half joking, as that crowd does and has helped bring about important science, but it's usually through sponsoring actual scientists. I find this guy's rhetoric - especially the points regarding "biological age" and measuring night-time erections to judge sexual health - to be completely detached from reality. It makes it hard to take him seriously in any regard.
I don't know, maybe I'm too cynical. There's absolutely nothing endearing about Johnson to me. There's a lot to be said about current scientific practices and whether or not they're stifling discovery, but I think that discussion is better held separate from Bryan's approach to experimentation, if you could even call it that.
Your wording of "someone that didn't seem to have the slightest interest in the field" is confusing, because that implies some rando layman stumbled upon gold, which generally doesn't happen....
which significant (recent) scientific discovery, particularly in medicine, was achieved through someone that didn't seem to have the slightest interest in the field
Your wording of "someone that didn't seem to have the slightest interest in the field" is confusing, because that implies some rando layman stumbled upon gold, which generally doesn't happen. Though there is the famous example of FoldIt gamifying the discovery of the structure of a HIV protein.
Anyways, of course these people are interested in the field in which they make discoveries, and so is Bryan, by definition of their pursuit. Perhaps not in institutional academia, but again, academic science is not the end-all be-all. Nevertheless, citizen science is a very real phenomenon. Astronomy and math has some the best examples of this that come to mind.
I assume you meant to say "was achieved by someone not in the field relevant to their discovery". The closest notable example I can give is for Viagra: it was supposed to be for hypertension, not erectile dysfunction. But we often don't hear these stories because of the narratives that are spun after the fact, speaking from my own and second-hand experience from colleagues.
the points regarding "biological age" and measuring night-time erections to judge sexual health - to be completely detached from reality.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of his approach. But what exactly about biological age and nighttime erections as a marker of sexual health do you find detached from reality? "Biological age" is still in the process of being robustly defined (including in academic science) so that's difficult to argue for/against. One of the oldest markers was telomere length, but there are also other markers outside of just genomic material. While nighttime erections (nocturnal penile tumescence) does indeed have diagnostic value.
There's absolutely nothing endearing about Johnson to me.
I completely agree. I also think he's creepy and overconfident, and I wish I could advise him otherwise because his resources could be spent much more effectively. But,
There's a lot to be said about current scientific practices and whether or not they're stifling discovery, but I think that discussion is better held separate from Bryan's approach to experimentation, if you could even call it that.
It's still experimentation. To quote Adam Savage: "The difference between screwing around and science is writing it down." Sure it's an N = 1, which is not even close to being clinically relevant, but he still belongs to Homo sapiens and he is thoroughly documenting his experiments/expeditions, which I can tell you is not always the case in professional science.
No, I specifically mean someone with no interest in the field. Bryan measures biological age through arbitrary and unmeasurable standards - or, even better, he just disregards his actual age and...
No, I specifically mean someone with no interest in the field.
Bryan measures biological age through arbitrary and unmeasurable standards - or, even better, he just disregards his actual age and maintains an unhealthy fat% because it's the "top 1% of 18 year olds". He doesn't once mention any actual biological age markers that are actually measurable or accepted by scientists; this is what I mean by no interest in the field. I promise you this man hasn't picked up a biology textbook since highschool. I am aware that nighttime erections are a marker of sexual health, my point is that making them longer isn't going to make him younger. It's a symptom of aging, not the cause, and even if he hides all of the symptoms there's no doubt that he is aging.
Citizen science is great and people can do amazing things even when they're not trained in it, but the key is that they have to actually care about the subject and not just be obsessed with the result. A lot of Bryan's approach reminds me of UFO fanatics, in that he's already decided that what he's doing is correct and right (see his comment about the 25th century). Someone like this, in my eyes, isn't actually interested in the science but in being a messiah type figure who will lead humanity to a new age.
Having slept on it, I think that what's actually happening is that Johnson is equating looking younger to being younger. All of the laser treatments, the fat content, the hair dye - it all points to a man that will do anything to avoid reckoning with his own mortality rather than someone who wants to help the world. And I mean, to inject a little bit of bias here, it's about what I expect from a tech multi-millionaire.
You jest, but the vast majority of science and math was only done by rich white dudes pree WWIi Publicly funded science is a relatively recent social structure (for the better)
You jest, but the vast majority of science and math was only done by rich white dudes pree WWIi
Publicly funded science is a relatively recent social structure (for the better)
I get your point about publically-funded science being a relatively recent phenomenon, and I definitely won't dispute that rich white dudes tended to have a lot more opportunities to pursue things...
the vast majority of science and math was only done by rich white dudes pree WWIi
I get your point about publically-funded science being a relatively recent phenomenon, and I definitely won't dispute that rich white dudes tended to have a lot more opportunities to pursue things like science since their basic needs weren't at issue and they were not excluded from opportunities the way women and people of color often were. But this just isn't true -- at least not all the way up to the 1930s as you claim. While the majority of scientists in Western Europe were certainly white men, there were still quite a few female scientists even before the 20th century and many female scientists in the 20th century were doing work well prior to WW2. There were even a fair number of African-American scientists who worked prior to WW2. And that's ignoring the history of science and mathematics outside of Western Europe. I understand what the point you were trying to make was, but I don't think it's fair to downplay the amount of science and math that wasn't done by rich white dudes, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century when we start to see a lot more women and black people entering the sciences.
Except he's not doing that. He's just trying things he's heard on himself but a study of one person really tells you nothing. Who knows if he lives long because his genes were just good or that...
Except he's not doing that. He's just trying things he's heard on himself but a study of one person really tells you nothing. Who knows if he lives long because his genes were just good or that red laser pointing at his head actually did something.
He's not funding any research into anything, he's just trying random bs he's heard of.
Also... unless we want to stop people from birthing any new people at all, it is not a good thing that people can be immortal. This earth can only sustain so much (and honestly I'd say we already are taking too much of it as is). It's a nice idea from a selfish pov but it's not a good thing for even just humans nevermind the planet.
I think it's neat too. He can do all those things and find out what works and what doesn't, and then actual scientists and doctors can use his findings. I wouldn't go through the Blueprint myself,...
I think it's neat too. He can do all those things and find out what works and what doesn't, and then actual scientists and doctors can use his findings.
I wouldn't go through the Blueprint myself, but I would be interesting to see what comes out of it.
How is he finding out what works when the study only involves one person. That is equivelant to use anectdotes to prove your point. I mean I breath oxygen and I will eventually die... does that...
How is he finding out what works when the study only involves one person. That is equivelant to use anectdotes to prove your point. I mean I breath oxygen and I will eventually die... does that mean oxygen kills me? That's the equivelant of what he's doing really.
I've said this before on Tildes but: Death can be a gift or a curse depending on how you see it and where the rest of our technology is. When you're 92, your loved ones are already dead, and you...
I've said this before on Tildes but:
Death can be a gift or a curse depending on how you see it and where the rest of our technology is.
When you're 92, your loved ones are already dead, and you can't function, death is perhaps a gift.
When you're happy and healthy with a life full of love and wonder, death is the ultimate cruelty.
Personally, my ADHD-ridden mind is always full of wonder and curiosity. My wife claims I say "...interesting" more than anyone else she's ever known. I would love to live forever and continuously gain knowledge and experiences. I would love to learn dance, music, science, math, philosophy, and everything else I could get my hands on. I'd love to see where technology ends up, help people, have time on my hands to fuck off and relax, etc.
If I could live a healthy life, I believe I would want to live for many centuries at least. I don't have any sense that it's wrong or immoral, as long as we don't suck our planet dry of resources by overpopulating.
I suppose the one hang up I have is the idea that there would be fewer new people born, and therefore I would be indirectly borrowing time from potential future generations. However, my counter to that would be that people have the capacity to make many more babies than they do, so potential babies aren't born all the time and they're none the wiser.
Anyway, I mainly see death as a curable disease and I hope we see accessible treatments in my lifetime.
Well-written article, very frustrating subject. Biological age and phenotypic age and that kind of thing are a hot topic in health science right now, as predictors of development of age-related...
Well-written article, very frustrating subject. Biological age and phenotypic age and that kind of thing are a hot topic in health science right now, as predictors of development of age-related diseases, etc. Amongst the (usually simply the) heaviest coefficients for these models are, you guessed it: chronological age. Chronological age, and the biological effects it entails, are not fully characterised, and are not presently reversible by any available supplement (or combination thereof), exercise regime, or diet.
The weird thing, is that this problem of the endemic effects of ageing, associated with chronological age, isn't even being approached by this person's method. Even the cryogenic freezing folk made a valid argument, i.e. their priors, if correct, would make eternal life possible (albeit by mechanism of hand-waving to future developments). This person seems to be simply aiming for health-associated measures that reduce risk of developing age-related complications, without having any answer for the inherent effects of chronological ageing itself.
It seems to be a basic misunderstanding of risk: if the weights on developing dementia are 0.5 chronological age and 0.5 your blood glucose level, there isn't any blood glucose level that will scupper the contribution from chronological age. This is why when we use these biological/phenotypic age measures in risk models for development of age-related disease, we also include chronological age as a coefficient (if they are not included in the bio/phen age equation itself): because there are features of it that are not captured by these other modifiable measures. The thing is, how can you reasonably think otherwise? I question the integrity of the doctors and scientists who are involved.
Take vo2 max, there's a mean per age and variance, percentiles, around it, but this window decreases as chronological age increases. This is well known and is a common pattern across this kind of measure... Indeed, he claims his vo2 max is in the top 1.5 percentile for an 18 year old, but what is that compared with what his max capacity for that measure was at 35?
This isn't even getting into the polypharmacy. It is a serious task and a subject of much research to qualify and quantify the interactions of just a few drugs for just a few conditions, here this problem would seem to be being ignored.
All of this, along with the stuff later on about merging with AI and the necessity of giving up our agency completely to it are really concerning. These are the people with all the money and power. Ye gods.
There's a non-crazyperson version of this idea behind his unhinged lifestyle. AI able to take diagnostics and make supplement and exercise recommendations based on machine learning, having an...
There's a non-crazyperson version of this idea behind his unhinged lifestyle. AI able to take diagnostics and make supplement and exercise recommendations based on machine learning, having an ocean of human medical data to suggest from could be beneficial. Having a robot dictate your entire existence would be awful, but a computer saying "people at your age with your liver and your sleep patterns tend to be healthier on this diet" to be corroborated by a doctor to ensure no confounding issues could be a good way to generally improve everyone's quality of life.
Sure, and the extension of the depth, breadth, and modality of data we normally use for this kind of modelling is a very popular area of research, usually called ‘digital phenotyping.’ This...
Sure, and the extension of the depth, breadth, and modality of data we normally use for this kind of modelling is a very popular area of research, usually called ‘digital phenotyping.’ This person’s approach is, nevertheless, based on a deeply and fundamentally flawed understanding of the research on ageing and risk modelling.
I loved this article, wonderfully well-written. I think one big piece of his self-experimentation that's missing here (outside of the many interacting variables) and may not generalize to the...
I loved this article, wonderfully well-written.
I think one big piece of his self-experimentation that's missing here (outside of the many interacting variables) and may not generalize to the population at large is how wealthy he is and what effect that likely has on his general stress. We know that chronic stress can be catastrophic for the body, and that having your basic needs met without having to worry about how you will get them is a great way to reduce that stress.
I'm not super against him doing all of this, although I think the money could be better spent on funding better controlled studies more directly. I do think the author has a great point at the end that in the pursuit of extending our life we can tend to miss the parts that make our life worth living. This man has a pretty regimented schedule and it sounds like he's given up many things - and I'm not just talking about delicious food. If he's happier all the more power to him, but it doesn't seem like a life I would want to live.
Living forever sounds like hell in the world and societies in it we have built. Well, it sounds like torture even if it were lived out in a mythical place like heaven. The eternal part is the...
Living forever sounds like hell in the world and societies in it we have built. Well, it sounds like torture even if it were lived out in a mythical place like heaven. The eternal part is the torture.
I do not believe cheating death ultimately is possible, I think we can only prolong life to an extent and try to make the years people are alive as good as possible- that approach I am okay with.
Even if living forever were possible for the sake of argument, there are 1000s of other societal ills that we need to cure first. We need a world that one would want to live in forever first, at a minimum, and one we have right now is not it. But regardless just the concept of immortality to me is inherently repugnant.
That system includes downing 111 pills every day, wearing a baseball cap that shoots red light into his scalp, collecting his own stool samples, and sleeping with a tiny jet pack attached to his penis to monitor his nighttime erections.
This dude is a perfect reflection the tech bro vision of the future; joyless, soulless, automatic, and inhuman.
I'm glad the author doesn't shy away from criticism here, Silicon Valley has become a place where bizzare cults are being created. It's like superficial Hollywood diets and health trends but even worse, as people like Musk seek to use their money and technology to impose their future-cult nonsense on all of us, whether we want it or not.
Agree. While I highly support research into aging prevention, I'm not sure if I feel the same way about this tech-bro "biohacking" stuff. Sure, it can be cool - I enjoy doing Quantified Self experiments to improve some aspects of my life. However, when your entire life is based around that "minmaxing", that kinda sucks. Most of that stuff isn't even scientifically proven. There are so many biohacking products aimed at that kind of people like "bulletproof coffee" or nootropic pills, all of which are essentially the same as "magic water" and other new-age scams, except aimed at rich Silicon Valley men instead of Facebook moms.
Holy cow, yes. Sure, having more useful/happy life-hours would be nice, but even though there's evidence to show that living with a calorie deficit can make mice live appreciably longer, I'll be damned if I starve myself for life for it! I don't exactly know what would be the benefit of living longer if it wasn't for the joys and guilty pleasures, etc.
I'm definitely not going to read this entire article but I scrolled through and just looked at the pictures (yes I am 8 years old) and if you didn't tell me otherwise, I would not think this was a live human. He has such dead eyes in every picture, even the one where he's working out. Super creepy and very weird person
Yeah, he's clearly doing something that effects his body dramatically, but whether it's actually good is debatable.
It brings to mind an article I read about how fashion models will maintain these extreme regimens to look good for the camera, starving themselves to have no body fat and then eating tons of very specific stuff like sweet potatos or something right before a shoot because it helped their muscle definition or something. They look fit, but meanwhile they're more or less living life on the edge of passing out. This kind of reminds me of that a bit.
Makes me wonder how much better the world would be if these people figured out that death is just a part of life. Rather than arrogantly thinking we can beat it with brute force.
By thinking they can cheat death, these people strive for a high-score. By accepting that death is part of life, they might realise that the legacy they leave behind should be more than that highscore.
Negligible senescence and biological immortality exist in nature.
My grandma died a couple months ago, but for years before that she was suffering. Her senses gone, friends gone, her body breaking down. She went from joking about "not renewing her warranty" to saying "it's my time" to finally staying quiet. I don't think our current current relationship with death is that healthy.
We've arrogantly passed a point where ~40-50% of humans die before age 5-15. Cultures coped with this "part of life" with beliefs like taboo names (e.g., "Not this one" or "Not a Human Being") to repel evil spirits who would take another child from a family who'd already lost one.
We use lasers to sculpt eyes, grow skin, transplant organs, and many other acts that are a rejection of life as it was. I don't think many of those techniques came about by "brute force" and I don't think anyone would say we should turn back the progress.
Increases in longevity is contrasted with lifespan as keeping people in the prime of their life longer. Either increasing introduces its own challenges, but I think it takes seriously in-depth consideration to avoid just slipping into speculation or availability heuristics. The problem of dynastys? Like we aren't seeing Murdoch 2.0 take over or a board-appointed Bezos.
I know people younger than me that are hopelessly jaded, and octogenarians that have kept their best childlike qualities of curiosity and openness. A former neighbor took up karate and African drumming in her late 70s. If I lived to 400 I'd like to think I'd still be enjoying the world.
*but yeah, a lot of folks like Kurzweil / the guy from the article seem like Eddie Murphy tapping head "It's not a midlife crisis if I don't believe I'll die"
I think you've got how I feel summed up.
Curing death is a daft idea that really takes away a lot. But longevity and health during those years? That I am perfectly okay with. If you could have people develop stronger muscles, stronger minds and live for longer and healthier? So be it. But curing death? I'm just not sure you can do that, not biologically. Or not without entering the realm of scifi!
I know this isn't the point of your post - and if this response isn't in the spirit of Tildes, let me know and I'll delete it - but that's not Eddie Murphy, it's Kayode Ewumi.
FYI: Down, next to the "Vote" button under my comment (this one here), go ahead and click "Label", then "Offtopic" or "Noise". When more than one user tags a comment with either of those labels, it will be moved lower down on the sorting priority, without indicating that the commenter did anything wrong, necessarily. I don't think there's been a custom established as to which is more appropriate for your kind of well-meaning and only tangentially relevant comment (I'd lean Offtopic), but the Noise label will collapse them by default for everyone.
Currently, there's no way to label your own comments, and some kind of disclaimer like the one you've made is more than polite enough. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but as a rule of thumb, people here do a decent job of recognizing that not every correction is an assault.
Thanks, appreciate the correction!
You could write this against the idea of curing any other disease or ailment. I think it's good that people didn't accept that dying from polio or infections was just a part of life and instead solved or reduced these issues. We've already solved so many problems that people of the past understood to be eternal features of the human condition. Aging is just another ailment that a solution or progress on would massively improve many people's lives. Progress on that seems among the very best legacies one could leave.
No you can't, because that argument is made in bad faith against something that is fundamentally different.
Remaining Health != Curing Death
At what cost? And who's lives? The poor south that still struggles to secure valuable water? On a planet that is of finite resources yet is already on fire and overpopulated based on resource consumption?
Isn't whatever humans do a part of life? And if it's possible to prevent death by human action, wouldn't that also make the act be part of life?
Sure?
Again, Sure?
I'd be wary of the problems such a thing would bring. I wouldn't trust these clowns to get something like that to everyone who needed it and instead hoard it for themselves. They even more reason to protect their vast empires and fortunes as well then.
If you know death is coming, you must consider your legacy and what you leave behind. If that concept is alien because you can't die... then you'll live a life of hedonism at the expense of others. We already see that in their lifestyles that get justified as 'well they earnt it' despite us all knowing that isn't the case.
It's almost a purely philosophical conversation, one I thoroughly enjoy. But death is more than just an end, it's the thing that we're evolutionarily pre-disposed to want to avoid... despite putting ourselves into insane situations (Skydiving, Downhill mountain biking, Motorbike racing...) What would the joy be in those things if you could not take THAT risk?
It really is a philosophical debate. Why should your legacy matter if you and everyone else who might benefit from your legacy, will eventually die?
I personally find joy in rollercoasters, which give you adrenaline without the risk of death. I also get into the fight or flight mode on occasion while watching something engrossing or playing a good videogame. Yet again, no risk of death there.
I know that there are people different than I am, and I guess that's what I (sort of) take issue with. Some people want a legacy, some don't. Some accept death, some fight against it. Who's to say which is right and which is not? Let's not pretend that any human being in existence ever had an answer to what's right and wrong in the grand scale of things.
I could also argue that there's no way of knowing the implications of stopping human death, just like nobody could have predicted the implications of any other major discovery. Sometimes it was good, sometimes worse. Who can know?
So I have read a significant amount of science fiction exploring these themes. Just as with other technologies, sometimes science fiction authors are prescient and really get it right ahead of their time. But we wouldn't know unless it happened and we could compare fiction with fact.
I think it's reasonable to assume that it would exascerbate current problems of wealth distribution and also lead to hoarding of powerful jobs for centuries. I mean look at the current congress. Those people are determined to die in office. They wouldn't gracefully step down if they were going to be capable for another century or two. There would likely be class differences and resentments between the short lived and the long lived unless the technology was cheap and widely distributed.
If they wanted to do that then they'd be pushing for universal Healthcare and investing heavily into those technologies.
Instead their actions bely their true intentions of "immortality for me, not for thee"
Overpopulated for our consumption levels, especially in the West.
Can we have higher populations and remain in the lifestyles we're all so attuned to? I doubt it.
Except that it is not possible, and eventually all things will die. This planet and this solar system will eventually cease, as will any other. At some point everyone has to accept that! Maybe new technology can delay the inevitable past the natural human lifespan, maybe far past, but no one can live forever. I'd rather our focus be on improving the lifespan that we do have and enjoying it rather than dumping resources into such a quixotic quest.
I suggest you read the short story The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant or watch the animated narration of it by CGP Grey. I find it to be a really good metaphor for why we shouldn't just accept aging as "a part of life"
With that said though, as I mentioned in my other comment, I'm not sure how I feel about people like this guy
We should definitly pursue ensuring longevity and health during it. But immortality? Absolutely not.
We seem to be terrified of death in the west. You cannot live forever, even if you could... The cost on others or those after you could be immense. That's hardly fair or just.
I think we’d need a post-capitalism world, but one could make immortality fairly ethical. Without financial compounding interest one couldn’t just live for free. Eternal health would mean experts could be even more productive and for much longer. I want a world where my surgeon has attained mastery in a dozen skills and performed thousands of surgeries.
This does beg the question of what such a world thinks of those that might be mentally or physically incapable of internal compounding interest of expertise.
Again. Comes down to just how much you think that's viable. Do I think longer, healthier lives is a good thing? Absolutely.
Do I think immortality would ever be a positive thing for any human? No chance.
When I think of immortality I think of an end to "death by aging" - not so much true immortality. So death by cancer is still on the table, viral infections, car crashes, etc. You're more so going to live until you get unlucky than truly live forever. If you're cautious (and not locking yourself away from any source of harm) then maybe that means a few hundred years? A thousand? And you might get bored and kill yourself at any point.
This would cause all sorts of problems. What is a life sentence in this world? Prisoners could easily live longer than everyone else if they're kept safe. And there could be some eternally irreparable humans that today we can rest knowing will only be around for a few more decades. It might be hard to incarcerate them... forever. But they might never get better. And then there are those that are drains on their family. Perhaps physically healthy enough to live forever without the threat of aging. But society could eventually get weighed down by these people. And what would happen to the birth rate?
Definitely lots of problems. But I can also see some good - so it could be a positive thing for some humans.
It's pretty much impossible to achieve true immortality due to law of large numbers so you don't have to worry about that.
The cost of taking care of the old, the young, the sick is probably higher than if most of everyone is healthy, biologically young, and able.
I would still firmly argue that death is not simply a part of life but part of what gives life so much meaning.
It's a good thing that we have a time limit. It makes our decisions matter, the same way an artist is restricted by the dimensions of his canvas.
The more time you have the less important and meaningful each individual choice is.
I'll take a shorter more meaningful existence any day.
Everything is part of life, including the bad parts. I think if people accepted things as they were, life would be better,because people wouldn't constantly try to control others to change the world. But I imagine other people would object to that vision of the future.
To your second part, what you need to factor in is that it's easier to trick people into thinking that you were a good person than to actually do it. Lots of rich people try to salvage their legacy, but very often they do so after they spent their most productive years doing the opposite. In tying their lives to legacy, they are motivated to bury the injustices of their past, rather than correct them.
Like Andrew Carnegie spent a bunch if money funding philanthropy and stuff, but even knowing that 19th century tech wasn't going to keep him alive forever didn't stop him from union busting.
Also, if you are going to die then you legacy is your children, so you have motivation to hoard as much as you can so that even after you die your family can stay dominant in society.
On the other hand, without Carnegie's gifts and energy, the public library system in the US likely wouldn't exist at all. Many people's lives would be worse.
I don't think the instinct to hoard is exclusively tied to children or descendents. I expect people who could live for a thousand years would be highly motivated to attain assets to ensure luxurious living throughout that long life. Also wealth is frequently used as a marker of status. The desire to show off isn't going to disappear just because someone lives a long time.
People object to death and negative experience, they see it as their right to have a happy and prosperous life. Generally it's an attitude I experience more in western nations than I do anywhere else.
Oh absolutely. We need to stop institutional and generational wealth from affecting society as badly as it does. Huge inheritance taxes and ensuring that equitable policies are the way to do this, but current politics is too busy fighting over silly things... Rather than anything of import.
Bastards are always going to be bastards, to quote Bronn from Game of Thrones, "There's no cure for being a cunt" and I believe that. But as a society we really need to stop giving these people platforms or supporting them. But that drives tribal behaviour in every direction.
I have no children, not interested in having them. I'm not so bothered by my legacy beyond the people I help in my work and my social life. It's a funny one, but it reflects back on the idea of huge inheritance taxes and ensuring equitable policies exist. Anything else is just daft.
I see it as analagous to the push to populate the moon/mars/stars. These tech bros and their cultists should be focusing on improving the bodies/planet we have now rather than trying to make something unnatural work.
I think it's really neat. I hope he discovers something that works and it advances science and helps all of us. Curing aging is just as noble as curing diseases; maybe more so since it affects more people more harshly. I think it's good when rich people, in addition to paying their taxes, put their money into something experimental that could help the rest of us that might not have been tried otherwise.
Except this dude isn't cooperating with actual doctors and scientists.
There's a reason that actual science isn't done by 40 year old rich white dudes in their home. He's not controlling for a single variable - it can hardly be called an experiment.
I'm curious about your view - do you see aging as something to be cured?
First, what the public never sees are the initial stages of research which are little more than throwing darts in the dark. This is the discovery/pioneering stage. Initial decisions are at best somewhat educated guesses informed by our education and a lot of hunches, or in some cases it's especially trivial and matter of circumstance. It's not until a decade(s) later that you will hear of such-and-such drug target being tested in a clinical trial (if at all).
Second, there's more to science than N-Blinded Randomly Controlled Trials™. As a matter of fact, speaking as a professional scientist in the medical sciences in academia, high-risk high-reward research is actively disincentivized via the funding agencies we rely on. This sort of
fishing expeditionexperimentation doesn't fit the short-term "safe" thinking that plagues contemporary science, at least in public institutions. Moreover, initial discovery work in my first point is nearly impossible to fund now, and is only done "under the table" (i.e., not mentioned on grants but intended on being executed anyways).I'm not a fan of Bryan Johnson, and I would take a different, more distributed approach than what he's doing. Yet, it's completely valid to say that there is tremendous potential benefit for the rest of mankind and medicine. After all, most of our greatest scientific achievements have been—and still are—little more than luck and opportunism.
I'll counter both this and @Mrqewl 's comment by asking which significant (recent) scientific discovery, particularly in medicine, was achieved through someone that didn't seem to have the slightest interest in the field (beyond a strange, creepy obsession with living forever)?
My white guy with money was only half joking, as that crowd does and has helped bring about important science, but it's usually through sponsoring actual scientists. I find this guy's rhetoric - especially the points regarding "biological age" and measuring night-time erections to judge sexual health - to be completely detached from reality. It makes it hard to take him seriously in any regard.
I don't know, maybe I'm too cynical. There's absolutely nothing endearing about Johnson to me. There's a lot to be said about current scientific practices and whether or not they're stifling discovery, but I think that discussion is better held separate from Bryan's approach to experimentation, if you could even call it that.
Your wording of "someone that didn't seem to have the slightest interest in the field" is confusing, because that implies some rando layman stumbled upon gold, which generally doesn't happen. Though there is the famous example of FoldIt gamifying the discovery of the structure of a HIV protein.
Anyways, of course these people are interested in the field in which they make discoveries, and so is Bryan, by definition of their pursuit. Perhaps not in institutional academia, but again, academic science is not the end-all be-all. Nevertheless, citizen science is a very real phenomenon. Astronomy and math has some the best examples of this that come to mind.
I assume you meant to say "was achieved by someone not in the field relevant to their discovery". The closest notable example I can give is for Viagra: it was supposed to be for hypertension, not erectile dysfunction. But we often don't hear these stories because of the narratives that are spun after the fact, speaking from my own and second-hand experience from colleagues.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of his approach. But what exactly about biological age and nighttime erections as a marker of sexual health do you find detached from reality? "Biological age" is still in the process of being robustly defined (including in academic science) so that's difficult to argue for/against. One of the oldest markers was telomere length, but there are also other markers outside of just genomic material. While nighttime erections (nocturnal penile tumescence) does indeed have diagnostic value.
I completely agree. I also think he's creepy and overconfident, and I wish I could advise him otherwise because his resources could be spent much more effectively. But,
It's still experimentation. To quote Adam Savage: "The difference between screwing around and science is writing it down." Sure it's an N = 1, which is not even close to being clinically relevant, but he still belongs to Homo sapiens and he is thoroughly documenting his experiments/expeditions, which I can tell you is not always the case in professional science.
No, I specifically mean someone with no interest in the field.
Bryan measures biological age through arbitrary and unmeasurable standards - or, even better, he just disregards his actual age and maintains an unhealthy fat% because it's the "top 1% of 18 year olds". He doesn't once mention any actual biological age markers that are actually measurable or accepted by scientists; this is what I mean by no interest in the field. I promise you this man hasn't picked up a biology textbook since highschool. I am aware that nighttime erections are a marker of sexual health, my point is that making them longer isn't going to make him younger. It's a symptom of aging, not the cause, and even if he hides all of the symptoms there's no doubt that he is aging.
Citizen science is great and people can do amazing things even when they're not trained in it, but the key is that they have to actually care about the subject and not just be obsessed with the result. A lot of Bryan's approach reminds me of UFO fanatics, in that he's already decided that what he's doing is correct and right (see his comment about the 25th century). Someone like this, in my eyes, isn't actually interested in the science but in being a messiah type figure who will lead humanity to a new age.
Having slept on it, I think that what's actually happening is that Johnson is equating looking younger to being younger. All of the laser treatments, the fat content, the hair dye - it all points to a man that will do anything to avoid reckoning with his own mortality rather than someone who wants to help the world. And I mean, to inject a little bit of bias here, it's about what I expect from a tech multi-millionaire.
You jest, but the vast majority of science and math was only done by rich white dudes pree WWIi
Publicly funded science is a relatively recent social structure (for the better)
I get your point about publically-funded science being a relatively recent phenomenon, and I definitely won't dispute that rich white dudes tended to have a lot more opportunities to pursue things like science since their basic needs weren't at issue and they were not excluded from opportunities the way women and people of color often were. But this just isn't true -- at least not all the way up to the 1930s as you claim. While the majority of scientists in Western Europe were certainly white men, there were still quite a few female scientists even before the 20th century and many female scientists in the 20th century were doing work well prior to WW2. There were even a fair number of African-American scientists who worked prior to WW2. And that's ignoring the history of science and mathematics outside of Western Europe. I understand what the point you were trying to make was, but I don't think it's fair to downplay the amount of science and math that wasn't done by rich white dudes, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century when we start to see a lot more women and black people entering the sciences.
Except he's not doing that. He's just trying things he's heard on himself but a study of one person really tells you nothing. Who knows if he lives long because his genes were just good or that red laser pointing at his head actually did something.
He's not funding any research into anything, he's just trying random bs he's heard of.
Also... unless we want to stop people from birthing any new people at all, it is not a good thing that people can be immortal. This earth can only sustain so much (and honestly I'd say we already are taking too much of it as is). It's a nice idea from a selfish pov but it's not a good thing for even just humans nevermind the planet.
I think it's neat too. He can do all those things and find out what works and what doesn't, and then actual scientists and doctors can use his findings.
I wouldn't go through the Blueprint myself, but I would be interesting to see what comes out of it.
How is he finding out what works when the study only involves one person. That is equivelant to use anectdotes to prove your point. I mean I breath oxygen and I will eventually die... does that mean oxygen kills me? That's the equivelant of what he's doing really.
I've said this before on Tildes but:
Death can be a gift or a curse depending on how you see it and where the rest of our technology is.
When you're 92, your loved ones are already dead, and you can't function, death is perhaps a gift.
When you're happy and healthy with a life full of love and wonder, death is the ultimate cruelty.
Personally, my ADHD-ridden mind is always full of wonder and curiosity. My wife claims I say "...interesting" more than anyone else she's ever known. I would love to live forever and continuously gain knowledge and experiences. I would love to learn dance, music, science, math, philosophy, and everything else I could get my hands on. I'd love to see where technology ends up, help people, have time on my hands to fuck off and relax, etc.
If I could live a healthy life, I believe I would want to live for many centuries at least. I don't have any sense that it's wrong or immoral, as long as we don't suck our planet dry of resources by overpopulating.
I suppose the one hang up I have is the idea that there would be fewer new people born, and therefore I would be indirectly borrowing time from potential future generations. However, my counter to that would be that people have the capacity to make many more babies than they do, so potential babies aren't born all the time and they're none the wiser.
Anyway, I mainly see death as a curable disease and I hope we see accessible treatments in my lifetime.
Well-written article, very frustrating subject. Biological age and phenotypic age and that kind of thing are a hot topic in health science right now, as predictors of development of age-related diseases, etc. Amongst the (usually simply the) heaviest coefficients for these models are, you guessed it: chronological age. Chronological age, and the biological effects it entails, are not fully characterised, and are not presently reversible by any available supplement (or combination thereof), exercise regime, or diet.
The weird thing, is that this problem of the endemic effects of ageing, associated with chronological age, isn't even being approached by this person's method. Even the cryogenic freezing folk made a valid argument, i.e. their priors, if correct, would make eternal life possible (albeit by mechanism of hand-waving to future developments). This person seems to be simply aiming for health-associated measures that reduce risk of developing age-related complications, without having any answer for the inherent effects of chronological ageing itself.
It seems to be a basic misunderstanding of risk: if the weights on developing dementia are 0.5 chronological age and 0.5 your blood glucose level, there isn't any blood glucose level that will scupper the contribution from chronological age. This is why when we use these biological/phenotypic age measures in risk models for development of age-related disease, we also include chronological age as a coefficient (if they are not included in the bio/phen age equation itself): because there are features of it that are not captured by these other modifiable measures. The thing is, how can you reasonably think otherwise? I question the integrity of the doctors and scientists who are involved.
Take vo2 max, there's a mean per age and variance, percentiles, around it, but this window decreases as chronological age increases. This is well known and is a common pattern across this kind of measure... Indeed, he claims his vo2 max is in the top 1.5 percentile for an 18 year old, but what is that compared with what his max capacity for that measure was at 35?
This isn't even getting into the polypharmacy. It is a serious task and a subject of much research to qualify and quantify the interactions of just a few drugs for just a few conditions, here this problem would seem to be being ignored.
All of this, along with the stuff later on about merging with AI and the necessity of giving up our agency completely to it are really concerning. These are the people with all the money and power. Ye gods.
There's a non-crazyperson version of this idea behind his unhinged lifestyle. AI able to take diagnostics and make supplement and exercise recommendations based on machine learning, having an ocean of human medical data to suggest from could be beneficial. Having a robot dictate your entire existence would be awful, but a computer saying "people at your age with your liver and your sleep patterns tend to be healthier on this diet" to be corroborated by a doctor to ensure no confounding issues could be a good way to generally improve everyone's quality of life.
Sure, and the extension of the depth, breadth, and modality of data we normally use for this kind of modelling is a very popular area of research, usually called ‘digital phenotyping.’ This person’s approach is, nevertheless, based on a deeply and fundamentally flawed understanding of the research on ageing and risk modelling.
I loved this article, wonderfully well-written.
I think one big piece of his self-experimentation that's missing here (outside of the many interacting variables) and may not generalize to the population at large is how wealthy he is and what effect that likely has on his general stress. We know that chronic stress can be catastrophic for the body, and that having your basic needs met without having to worry about how you will get them is a great way to reduce that stress.
I'm not super against him doing all of this, although I think the money could be better spent on funding better controlled studies more directly. I do think the author has a great point at the end that in the pursuit of extending our life we can tend to miss the parts that make our life worth living. This man has a pretty regimented schedule and it sounds like he's given up many things - and I'm not just talking about delicious food. If he's happier all the more power to him, but it doesn't seem like a life I would want to live.
Living forever sounds like hell in the world and societies in it we have built. Well, it sounds like torture even if it were lived out in a mythical place like heaven. The eternal part is the torture.
I do not believe cheating death ultimately is possible, I think we can only prolong life to an extent and try to make the years people are alive as good as possible- that approach I am okay with.
Even if living forever were possible for the sake of argument, there are 1000s of other societal ills that we need to cure first. We need a world that one would want to live in forever first, at a minimum, and one we have right now is not it. But regardless just the concept of immortality to me is inherently repugnant.
You know, for science.