[topaz0]

I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally. The biggest hurdle for the latter is not new research. It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious to the welfare of the most wealthy. I think medical research is generally a good thing (and full disclosure I am tangentially involved in it), but extending the lifespan of the ultrarich is generally going to be bad for society.

[Aurornis]

I disagree. This is a rare case where “trickle down” actually would work: If the ultra rich want to pay their way to discovering longevity improvements, it won’t be long before companies everywhere are competing to bring those same discoveries to the masses at ever-lower prices.

If ultra rich want to fund longevity research with their money then bring it on. Their personal spending on research doesn’t subtract from other issues like healthcare policy.

There was a time when things like refrigeration, televisions, and mobile phones were only for the extremely wealthy, too. Imagine if we had halted research on those because we didn’t think it was fair for only rich people to have those things.

[topaz0]

Have you looked at the current healthcare market, where even the cheapest and most proven drugs are exorbitantly expensive? This is a laughable pipe dream in this society (read, the society that protects the profits of the ultrarich over the health of average citizens).

[Aurornis]

> where even the cheapest and most proven drugs are exorbitantly expensive?

New, on-patent drugs are expensive.

Most proven, older drugs are actually pretty cheap.

The most commonly prescribed drugs in America like atorvastatin, lisinopril, and levothyroxine are all less than $10 without insurance at your local Walmart or Walgreens.

A lot of people are shocked to learn that most SSRIs and common (unscheduled) psych meds can be had for as little as $4/month cash pay at Walmart. Even insulin (excluding newest patented analogs) is $25/vial cash pay at Walmart. They’re starting to introduce cheap analogs, too, as patents run out.

And that’s my point: All of these medications were once extremely expensive, and now they’re cheap. Being expensive at launch doesn’t mean expensive forever.

[orangecat]

Ok, let's assume we are and always will be in a capitalist hellscape where the only thing that matters is what rich people want. Even in that case, if effective longevity treatments are discovered, they'll still be made widely available because it would be hugely profitable. Obviously the sellers of the treatments would make a fortune, also insurance companies would benefit from reduced medical expenses and corporations would benefit from employees getting chronic diseases less often.

[orangecat]

it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally

This is a caricature invented by people who reflexively assume that the "ultra rich" are cartoon villains. When Michael J Fox starts a foundation for Parkinson's research, do you think his goal is to get a cure for himself and ignore everyone else suffering from it?

It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious to the welfare of the most wealthy

Health care is very expensive, especially for old people. This is true across countries with very different funding mechanisms. Being able to slow or prevent aging would make it much more affordable.

[topaz0]

Not assume, rather observe. I think mostly they are just nihilists that don't care what happens to anybody but themselves. Michael J Fox is not in this category, and neither is Parkinson's research "longevity" research. Like I said, I am in favor of medical research, and having a cure for Parkinson's would be a net good for society. The point is that people will still decline and die from Parkinson's because they can't access the cure, just as they still die from many diseases that are preventable today from lack of healthcare access. That's not Michael J Fox's fault, but the point is that treating research as the secret to longevity is misunderstanding the problem.

[echelon]

Look at how much of the developing world has been pulled out of poverty in the last 30 years. Look at the infant mortality rates.

We're looking at the wrong data points.

> It's lack of access to affordable healthcare,

When the leading cause of mortality is heart disease, the solution is not more affordable healthcare. It's healthy eating and living.

When the next leading cause is cancer, the solution is more research not more affordable healthcare.

When the next leading cause is "accidents", and those are then broken down into "poisoning", "falls", and "automotive", the solutions are again not health insurance. Autonomous vehicles will do more to solve automotive mortality than changes to the health insurance industry.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

https://www.statista.com/statistics/526300/deaths-number-uni...

[topaz0]

I think you'd be surprised by how many of those deaths would have been preventable by earlier healthcare access. Just medicaid expansion reduced all-cause mortality rates by about 3% on average, compared to non-expansion states. That's all-cause mortality of the whole population, not just among the people on medicaid.

Of course you're right that it would be much more effective to eliminate poverty than to just provide healthcare. For example that would do a lot for the "healthy eating and living" that you mention. But providing healthcare would certainly help.