Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by s7atic 1811 days ago
Every day over 100,000 humans die due to age-related disease. The lack of research in aging and life extension is one of the biggest resource misallocation of our times, and it is leading to massive welfare losses.

There are so many entrenched beliefs that curb research in this field: 'Aging is "natural"', 'Who would want to live until they are xxx years old, anyway?', 'Aging keeps population levels down', 'Aging removes bad people (dictators etc.)', 'Death makes life scarce and therefore valuable', ... No, aging is fixable and all other problems, real or imagined, have more direct solutions. We have to realize this, as a society, immediately and stop all the nonsense prevarications. Parents should not have to outlive their children, and neither should children have to outlive their parents.

Mathematical models that claim to “prove” that aging is inevitable are trivial to construct by introducing assumptions that fit your narrative. The assumptions are biologically plausible in isolation but fail to account for the full complexity of biological life and, indeed, reality [1].

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-018-0562-z

2 comments

While I disagree about banning this research, I totally agree with the main point about this paper: it amounts to fitting several parametric curves to historical population lifespan data for several species.

This class of models is a simple extrapolation of historical aggregate lifespan time-series, and thus cannot model non-trivial pharmacological and genetic manipulations even in principle, unless these are a part of a large smooth sub-trend that has already begun.

One wouldn't be able to predict that some random flavonoid molecule extends lifespan of lab mice by 10-15%[1], and if we took the [overstated] paper's title claim uncritically, this research wouldn't happen. And yet it happened, and more than a dozen clinical trials in humans are underway.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197652/

> While I disagree about banning this research ...

For context to other readers, I had the following phrasing at the end of my comment: "This research is extremely damaging and should not be allowed". I removed it shortly after posting before I had seen sinenomine's comment, since, ultimately, I'm not in favor of censoring research (as along as limitations are clearly stated). My original comment was mostly a knee-jerk reaction knowing the uphill battle that life-extension research faces in the public discourse.

Do you have any (formal, academic) training in biology or medical research?

The reason I'm asking is that you're invoking the 'death trance argument', rather than anything scientific or medical.