Undoing Aging

[MrPopo]

It's 30.

So at 30 years old, you still believe the only changes aging brings to the human condition are purely physiological?

You're conflating the biological process of aging with the mental process of gaining life experiences.

[jp1]

It's 30.

So at 30 years old, you still believe the only changes aging brings to the human condition are purely physiological?

You're conflating the biological process of aging with the mental process of gaining life experiences.

They generally go hand in hand. You disagree?

[Michi]

It's 30.

So at 30 years old, you still believe the only changes aging brings to the human condition are purely physiological?

You're conflating the biological process of aging with the mental process of gaining life experiences.

They generally go hand in hand. You disagree?

Only because we haven't figured out a way to stop the aging process. Just because you conceivably stopped aging at around 30, wouldn't necessarily mean you would stop aging mentally.

[jp1]

Thanks Michi, sort of flaked on that one. I was thinking only in terms of current possibilities. Makes sense now.

[Exhuminator]

It's 30.

So at 30 years old, you still believe the only changes aging brings to the human condition are purely physiological?

You're conflating the biological process of aging with the mental process of gaining life experiences.

You're denying that having a depreciating body does not in fact cause one to gain new insights revealed by reflecting upon one's own physiological entropy.

[MrPopo]

I think you can gain new angst, but not new insights. Stopping aging doesn't remove the fear of death; all you remove is that slow inevitable march that you can put a really good range on. If people no longer were guaranteed "no matter what you'll be dead by 120" (or whatever the number is) you still have a probability tail "in any given year I have X% chance of dying due to cause Y, so I can run the numbers and see I'm less and less likely to keep living as time goes on, but I could always win the progressive".

[Overload]

Do you really want to live forever, as a human being on planet earth?

Do you honestly think there are no benefits to aging?

How old are you?

1) I could ask you: Do you really want to become terminally ill? And when? Asking me if I want to live "forever" is moot. Our brains can't comprehend that timescale. What I DO know is that I don't want to die anytime soon, especially if I'm not in agony, and I don't want to enter a state of agonizingly ill health.

2) There are benefits to chronological aging, namely wisdom, but biological aging? No, of course not.

3) Irrelevant. There are people of all ages both for and against. If they're young and for, you could chalk it up to the naivete of youth. If older, you could say they're clinging to the idea because death is near, and they're afraid. If middle-aged, it's a mid-life crisis. I'd say that we all know aging is horrible from the time we're children, but systematically bludgeon the thought to the depths of our minds as we grow older, because it's too painful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

[Overload]

Something about Elon Musk triggers my skepticism alarm.

That wasn't him speaking about aging, but his own Space X company. I just thought it fit, as I think optimism and skepticism both get in the way of progress. Action is all that matters.

[TSTR]

good thing that

JOHN CENA WILL NEVER DIE
JOHN CENA WILL NEVER GIVE UP

[Overload]

Aging is a part of nature. I don't want to sound like a hippie freak but its the way of the world. Just imagine if EVERYONE stopped aging... The world would be over run and we'd end up living in bloody Logan's Run. The population is already too vast for the amount of resources we are consuming.
Of course this relies off of the idea that if we stop aging we will live forever.
However perhaps we could stop aging but still die at age 100. Even then, I think we'd still end up in a bad 70's movie.

Natural != good. Remember, it used to be the way of the world to die around 30 from infectious disease. Cancer's natural, but I don't think you'd use that as justification for keeping it around.

The population is only growing out of control in developing nations. As they become more educated and technologically advanced, birthrates even out to match replacement rate, or, in the case of Japan, not even.

Nature works from the bottom up. We'd like to think that we can grow to any population we'd like, but resources would limit us. You see it in other species throughout nature. They grow too plentiful -> not enough food -> they die off until it's balanced. If you can't feed your kids, they're not going to live to have kids of their own.

Of course, we're masters at exploiting the environment, so we could go somewhat beyond this limit, causing perhaps irreparable damage, which is why we should all live as if we're going to be around for a very long time. I think most people don't give two shits about things like climate change is because they're not going to be around. If, however, it was a threat in our lifetime, it would be harder to ignore.

"Youth is wasted on the young" is a thing because by the time we really start figuring things out, it's too late. When we have the energy and capability to do things, we lack the wisdom and knowledge. When we have the latter, we lack the former. Imagine what we could accomplish if we had both. We need to grow wiser as a species to keep up with the breakneck pace at which our technology is advancing. We're shackled by this perpetual march toward death, psychologically and practically.