Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 119

Thread: Long life distribution methods

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824

    Long life distribution methods

    So, if someone does come up with a means of unnatural [sic] longevity, could there be a plausible means of distributing it somewhat equitably? How practical could such a scheme be made?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So, if someone does come up with a means of unnatural [sic] longevity, could there be a plausible means of distributing it somewhat equitably? How practical could such a scheme be made?
    I think that would depend somewhat on the nature of the means. If it is a drug, then using tax money in some form to produce the drug would definitely help to make it more equitable. If it is something very high tech, like say having your mind stored in a giant supercomputer that costs billions of dollars to build, then it would be very difficult. Perhaps something like a lottery could be used.
    As above, so below

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think that would depend somewhat on the nature of the means. If it is a drug, then using tax money in some form to produce the drug would definitely help to make it more equitable. If it is something very high tech, like say having your mind stored in a giant supercomputer that costs billions of dollars to build, then it would be very difficult. Perhaps something like a lottery could be used.
    The most likely at present, it seems to me, is using CRISPR technology to modify the genome and when that reaches human trials it becomes as cheap as vaccines since basically a virus is used to introduce the changes. At first it will be approved for genetic diseases that are rare and life limiting but in the long run many life ending conditions might come to be seen as targets. But I do not imply any widespread applications soon.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,516
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    The most likely at present, it seems to me, is using CRISPR technology to modify the genome and when that reaches human trials it becomes as cheap as vaccines since basically a virus is used to introduce the changes. At first it will be approved for genetic diseases that are rare and life limiting but in the long run many life ending conditions might come to be seen as targets. But I do not imply any widespread applications soon.
    Yes, I think that's probably the most likely scenario, and in that case it won't be an issue. I guess that NCN is really asking about how to handle the hypothetical situation if it turns out to be something that isn't universally applicable.
    As above, so below

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Yes. I was looking at the trend of current research into life extension and rejuvenation; the fruits of things like CRISPR, telomere repair, plenipotential adult stem cell reversion, regeneration. I don't know what form such treatments could take, or how much they might cost, but I do think that if it became known that a medical procedure or series of them could be proven to give long, healthy, perhaps indefinite life, but that not everyone can afford it, the public reactions could range widely across the emotional spectrum. Anything from headlines to riots in the streets. If people perceive that something valuable to them is being hoarded or otherwise kept from them, they resent it.

    If this procedure is seen as a fountain of youth, well, people have been known to go to great lengths to get ahold of some form of immortality.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Yes. I was looking at the trend of current research into life extension and rejuvenation; the fruits of things like CRISPR, telomere repair, plenipotential adult stem cell reversion, regeneration. I don't know what form such treatments could take, or how much they might cost, but I do think that if it became known that a medical procedure or series of them could be proven to give long, healthy, perhaps indefinite life, but that not everyone can afford it, the public reactions could range widely across the emotional spectrum. Anything from headlines to riots in the streets. If people perceive that something valuable to them is being hoarded or otherwise kept from them, they resent it.

    If this procedure is seen as a fountain of youth, well, people have been known to go to great lengths to get ahold of some form of immortality.
    indefinite life seems very unlikely, I think that is a good thing myself, our target should be a healthy life till close to death. It's perhaps ironic that one of the oldest ideas, young blood, seems to work on those telomeres in mice, extending healthy life. So we need to find out what the difference is to mess with that ageing mechanism. How long before extra good genes are on sale?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    I just want Death reduced to a possibility rather than an inevitability. (Well, that's a white lie, I just want to not ever die, but I think that's not a realistic goal)

    I was told once that if we can learn to extend life by, say, 25 years, medical science will have become 25 years better, perhaps allowing you to extend another 35 years, then after that another 50, etc. And at the same time, the extensions and improvements will probably make your old age healthier and more bearable. So you would be better suited to stay alive because you'll have less health problems as you continue to age.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,319
    First dibs should go to historians and mathematicians.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    First dibs should go to historians and mathematicians.
    Would that work practically? What would be the major obstacles?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I just want Death reduced to a possibility rather than an inevitability. (Well, that's a white lie, I just want to not ever die, but I think that's not a realistic goal)

    I was told once that if we can learn to extend life by, say, 25 years, medical science will have become 25 years better, perhaps allowing you to extend another 35 years, then after that another 50, etc. And at the same time, the extensions and improvements will probably make your old age healthier and more bearable. So you would be better suited to stay alive because you'll have less health problems as you continue to age.
    Inthe conferences about this the max i heard was 130 years as the probable limit and we are not there yet, although many more babies born today might reach 100 years than we see today. But 100 good years is a nice target. The people who live the longest healthy lives have simple farming lives and walk uphill every day (and downhill too!) they have simple diets and good relationships, helping each other and having fun. No cities no technology, no cars, they already have the secret of long healthy lives!
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    No cities no technology, no cars, they already have the secret of long healthy lives!
    None of their lifestyles are an option for me. But I don't just want 130 years, although that would be nice, I want to have the option to keep going on if I choose.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    But this thread isn't about the merits of not dying. It's asking, how do we find a way to distribute the not dying?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    None of their lifestyles are an option for me. But I don't just want 130 years, although that would be nice, I want to have the option to keep going on if I choose.
    you are not the only one to want that but psychology has an ageing effect too, the desire fades with the repeats, at least i observe that it does. it takes time to accept death is part of life, with luck and a good sequence of life events, attitude can change.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    you are not the only one to want that but psychology has an ageing effect too, the desire fades with the repeats, at least i observe that it does. it takes time to accept death is part of life, with luck and a good sequence of life events, attitude can change.
    But this thread isn't about the merits of not dying. It's asking, how do we find a way to distribute the not dying?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    But this thread isn't about the merits of not dying. It's asking, how do we find a way to distribute the not dying?

    Information , the wisdom of books, avoiding over population where resources only sustain a fixed number. Globally we are nowhere near that, only so called primitive societies get close, it’s an irony but gaming it forward it may be inevitable we get back to those kinds of societies again. Sustainability is a long term fact of life that must cause oscillation, we must hope the oscillation remains above zero. That stays truewhatever lifespan is achieved.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    That stays truewhatever lifespan is achieved.
    Making it not really relevant to this thread.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Making it not really relevant to this thread.
    No, I'm sorry, profloater. It is relevant, but not the main point.

    Still, I'm not going to ever become convinced that we should just give up and submit to the end of our existence. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    If we can extend lives, we should. We'll need to find ways to compensate; maybe make it no immortality without sterility. Suggestions?

    (Note: IMO, "just don't do it" is not only not a good suggestion, it's na´ve. We already have medical researchers working hard to crack the problems of the effects of age. They aren't going to stop.)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,516
    In addition to a lottery, which I brought up earlier, the two options that seem possible are money, the default method in a capitalist society, and need, which I think is the way that organs are distributed. So those closest to death get the treatment.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Would that work practically? What would be the major obstacles?
    As a historian, I think the major obstacle would be historians jumping off cliffs once they see the same historical event play out in a half a dozen variations in a lifetime.
    Solfe

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    In addition to a lottery, which I brought up earlier, the two options that seem possible are money, the default method in a capitalist society, and need, which I think is the way that organs are distributed. So those closest to death get the treatment.
    I really hope someone can make the organ-donor model work, because if buying additional years becomes the only method there would be riots in the streets.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So, if someone does come up with a means of unnatural [sic] longevity, could there be a plausible means of distributing it somewhat equitably? How practical could such a scheme be made?
    The question is, is the longevity self sustaining or a reoccurring treatment? If it was a once in a life time event then patronage would be the way to go. Make the treatment somewhat expensive while combining with a law to make it illegal to purchase for oneself. Longevity can only be a gift.

    You are super rich, you buy longevity for your clients in the hopes that enough clients will generate enough cash to pay for you. You could sweeten the deal with some sort of bond (marriage, adoption, compounded interest, whatever) with your clients so they don't pick their own children over the patron. You could forestall that with a deal to adopt the client's children and care for them. It would probably make adult adoption more common again.

    The Romans loved adult adoption, but now-a-days, it's rare. Mostly for inheritance purposes or finalizing a step-child situation where it was impermissible to adopt the child (Biological parent refused or some such thing).

    Edit - One thing that makes this attractive is that longevity makes compounded interest important. The value of such a treatment has to be high priced, so maybe you could secure your own family's well being, but then not have enough resources for them to reciprocate in the short span of your natural life time. It might be in your best interest to endow random people with longevity using your resources over your family members because you don't want to be isolated from your own kin. If you sponsor 100 random people, getting treatment for you and your four family members becomes more likely. If desperate, mom and dad could pay for their own kids along with a few clients in the hopes that this makes reciprocity more appealing to strangers.
    Last edited by Solfe; 2019-May-19 at 12:26 AM.
    Solfe

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    The question is, is the longevity self sustaining or a reoccurring treatment?
    At present, it doesn't seem like self sustaining longevity is a realistic possibility for the near future. Better check back in a hundred years.

    If it was a once in a life time event then patronage would be the way to go. Make the treatment somewhat expensive while combining with a law to make it illegal to purchase for oneself. Longevity can only be a gift.

    You are super rich, you buy longevity for your clients in the hopes that enough clients will generate enough cash to pay for you. You could sweeten the deal with some sort of bond (marriage, adoption, compounded interest, whatever) with your clients so they don't pick their own children over the patron. You could forestall that with a deal to adopt the client's children and care for them. It would probably make adult adoption more common again.

    The Romans loved adult adoption, but now-a-days, it's rare. Mostly for inheritance purposes or finalizing a step-child situation where it was impermissible to adopt the child (Biological parent refused or some such thing).

    Edit - One thing that makes this attractive is that longevity makes compounded interest important. The value of such a treatment has to be high priced, so maybe you could secure your own family's well being, but then not have enough resources for them to reciprocate in the short span of your natural life time. It might be in your best interest to endow random people with longevity using your resources over your family members because you don't want to be isolated from your own kin. If you sponsor 100 random people, getting treatment for you and your four family members becomes more likely. If desperate, mom and dad could pay for their own kids along with a few clients in the hopes that this makes reciprocity more appealing to strangers.
    An interesting idea. Although I can already see some ways it could be abused. You pay a junkie or flunky to "pay" for yours using money funneled through an offshore account in his name that you start for him.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2019-May-19 at 12:40 AM.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I really hope someone can make the organ-donor model work, because if buying additional years becomes the only method there would be riots in the streets.
    The problem with longevity treatments AND organ donation is, the random ways of dying are contrary to longevity and organ donation. If the only way people die in the future is serious accidents or horrible diseases, neither organ donation or further longevity works.

    If there was a way to donate an organ without dying, well, no one would object to the checkbook. Find a match then clone the organ in place. When its ready, transplant it. That has to be worth some money, but given that you have 7 billion possible competitors, the cost couldn't be too high for anyone. Parents might clone organs for their children and then throw those into donation rotation because they don't want their kids to get an "old organ". It'd make birthdays interesting. "I'm donating a kidney for my birthday. I plan on donating a liver next year!" That'd give you a cash transaction and a cashless transaction method.
    Solfe

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    At present, it doesn't seem like self sustaining longevity is a realistic possibility for the near future. Better check back in a hundred years.

    An interesting idea. Although I can already see some ways it could be abused. You pay a junkie or flunky to "pay" for yours using money funneled through an offshore account in his name that you start for him.
    You can ignore the possibility of picking a junkie handling you cash. That's a bad idea. "What do you mean he's shooting up on a beach? I need him to call me back, right now!"

    As far as having flunkies do it for you, that is the point of patronage. Your flunkies are getting the treatment and a wad of cash make sure they help you when the time comes. It's cheaper to follow the rules than break them. You are not just spreading the wealth, you want to spread the treatment.
    Solfe

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    10,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So, if someone does come up with a means of unnatural [sic] longevity, could there be a plausible means of distributing it somewhat equitably? How practical could such a scheme be made?

    Rather obviously, this is more a question of morality than technology -- there are people to whom "equity" is only a financial term and "fairness" is anathema.
    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

    How do things fly? This explains it all.

    Actually they can't: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.



  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    The problem with longevity treatments AND organ donation is, the random ways of dying are contrary to longevity and organ donation. If the only way people die in the future is serious accidents or horrible diseases, neither organ donation or further longevity works.

    If there was a way to donate an organ without dying, well, no one would object to the checkbook. Find a match then clone the organ in place. When its ready, transplant it. That has to be worth some money, but given that you have 7 billion possible competitors, the cost couldn't be too high for anyone. Parents might clone organs for their children and then throw those into donation rotation because they don't want their kids to get an "old organ". It'd make birthdays interesting. "I'm donating a kidney for my birthday. I plan on donating a liver next year!" That'd give you a cash transaction and a cashless transaction method.
    If you can clone organs with your own DNA, rejection factors become a thing of the past. Who would still take another's organs when it means the possibility of rejection and a lifetime of drugs and dangerous immune treatments, as opposed to one and done? Plus, the number of donated organs is limited, while making new ones means an essentially unlimited supply (Good news for Keith Richards!)

    Replacing or regenerating organs and tissues might be part and parcel of the life extension process, like the "young blood for old" treatment now in vogue. This blood for blood thing was actually predicted in Robert Heinlein's Methuselah's Children.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    (Good news for Keith Richards!)
    In the future, we will all be Keith Richards.
    Solfe

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    In the future, we will all be Keith Richards.

    Good, I always wanted to play guitar.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,824
    Quote Originally Posted by swampyankee View Post
    Rather obviously, this is more a question of morality than technology -- there are people to whom "equity" is only a financial term and "fairness" is anathema.
    Well, I'm hoping to come up with practical options that avoid most of those issues, or at least paper over them. As for such ...individuals, no comment.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If you can clone organs with your own DNA, rejection factors become a thing of the past. Who would still take another's organs when it means the possibility of rejection and a lifetime of drugs and dangerous immune treatments, as opposed to one and done? Plus, the number of donated organs is limited, while making new ones means an essentially unlimited supply (Good news for Keith Richards!)

    Replacing or regenerating organs and tissues might be part and parcel of the life extension process, like the "young blood for old" treatment now in vogue. This blood for blood thing was actually predicted in Robert Heinlein's Methuselah's Children.
    "Young blood for old" makes me think.

    Maybe if you could incent-ify the selling process of the treatment, you could cash in on good will style of treatments. Blood donors get their names in the paper after x numbers of units. Acclaim is powerful.

    Personally, when I used to donate anti-bodies, some of the appeal was the rush*. I'd get jabbed with a small amount of the wrong blood-type, I'd feel the whole process starting. Don't ask me how having your lips turn blue makes you feel good, but it does.

    As with all medicine, there has to be a side effect or danger in longevity. When donating anti-bodies, the danger was a "slight tingling, then death". Obviously the danger was rather minimal, but high enough that they wouldn't let me chew gum because that adds a step to resuscitation. It's not like they plowed in tons of the wrong blood type, I believe it was 6 and 4 ml at a time, to a maximum of 50 ml. If they dropped something, it leaked or it didn't look right, that counted as part of 50 ml limit per treatment. I believe they hit me with 16 ml before my lips turned blue and stopped there, with a syringe of heparin in hand. That was interesting.

    *Edit - most of my rational was my daughter was born premature and received a ridiculous amount of blood-based treatments and medicines. I figured RhIg donation was good start to paying it back.
    Last edited by Solfe; 2019-May-19 at 01:28 AM.
    Solfe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •