Why are there no large-scale...

Why are there no large-scale, well-funded efforts to significantly remediate the biological ageing process through scientific and technological means?

There seem to only be a handful of small charities with a few researchers and annual budgets in the low single digit millions of dollars; and a few researchers at a smattering of universities.

It doesn't seem to be considered a very big deal; why is this, given that everyone in the world will suffer as a result of ageing and there seems to be no in-principle reason why we could not do an awful lot more to significantly reduce - or even prevent - that suffering?

In particular, why are there not even any eccentric billionaires pumping serious money into this? It would be one thing for this to not be an issue that governments and their associated research institutes took seriously; but the fact that very few private citizens with considerable resources seem interested is particularly strange.

What gives?

R&D is always at the back end of concerns, it seems, even when that concern is ultimately foremost for the selfish (i.e. rational) organism.

Still, if we accept the OP's frame, then this is a deeply encouraging fact together with our capacity to destroy ourselves. You see, I've reached a misanthropic conclusion recently, which is that the species ought to simple cease to exist, rather than to allow these arbitrary life extensions to continue unabated, even to the point of a game-changing biological immortality.

The right attitude is NOT, "why should you care about some future immortals?". The right attitude IS, "why should they get to break the hymen of immortality when everyone else before them, without exception, has died?"

People make the mistake at this point of seeing only my correct view as the depraved one, when in fact this is a delusion brought on by the will-to-life. You /should/ identify with the crab who would pull the other crabs back into the bucket, at this point. And the reason why this is so is because the other crab is not just getting incrementally richer, doing that much more (tolerably) well, etc. No, biological immortality is an ontological game-changer which must be denied to all /exactly because/ there have existed people who have died. It is an abomination and the only genuinely self-aware attitude towards its possibility is abhorrence, unto the death of the entire species.

Edgy.

Why do you keep making this thread?

Ageing is a complex, multi-factorial process. While you can try to pin down genes here and DNA process there etc, investigating something like aging involves many more different angles. There's also the practical and ethical problem of dealing with animals in research that may better approximate human effects (say, primates) which adds another dimension of difficulty. Ultimately, because a lot of research is publicly funded and highly limited, issues must take due priorities. Curing or succesfully treating some common form of cancer will be pressing than figuring out how to make some people live by an extra 5 years or so, for instance.

>t. I just read Nietzsche.
Remind me to brutally butcher cunts like you, if you want to be crabs, I'll get real crabby.

In all honesty, your thought into original, nor profound but rather a tautology of the ideologically exhausted.

The ultimate realisation is that none of it matters, but that doesn't mean it doesn't subjectively matter and what that means?

The ability to enforce by right of power. That is, the only reason a government has the 'right' to the enforce the law, is because they have the ability to do so.

In a similar way, if a mob is 'strong enough' they become the new law.

So in short, stop trying to assign 'meaningfulness' to anything (if you're a true nihilist) and act as you want, but remember that there are people more powerful than you, be that mentally, physically or otherwise.

He's hoping to meet an "eccentric billionaire" and proceed to sweet-talk him into funding the project(s).

Excuse the typos, it is almost six in the morning where I reside.

You're the same edgy poster from previous threads about studying biological immortality.

You have Google's Calico, SENS, and there was some foundation that received 160$ million dollars if I remember correctly studying ways of fighting off biological ageing.

>Everyone before me has died.
>Therefore we should all die.
>No human should be able to live longer than others.
>I hate humanity.
Sounds like you might need to neck yourself man.

>There's also the practical and ethical problem of dealing with animals in research
Uggg, i know ethics are somewhat important but god damn they make everything boring

Ethics are fucking arbitrary shit and depend entirely upon the zeitgeist (which can and does change).

Also, arbitrary requires randomness, life probably isn't random due to needing a very exact combination of events to actually occur. Just thought I'd rekt you twice. I love taking part pseudo-intellectuals whilst not treating a Veeky Forums post like an academic paper. :^)

No doubt, but it is important since animals are capable of pain and shouldn't be abused for poorly thought out, or useless reasons. Despite that, people are more willing to let groups of primates go through serious risks rather than let researchers deal with stems cells, which, as the name imply, are nowhere near to resembling an organism.

It's a real shame.

Reversing or stopping aging will likely come from a crossroads of other research, such as gene editing like CRISPR and stem cell research.

It is the clash of scientific illiteracy and righteous pomposity.

Correct, and I'm still right.

If I had the capacity to push a button and end it for everyone, everywhere, I would do so.

Refute the conceit, and be wrong and a life-cuckold in the attempt.

Your philosophical error is in rejecting a certain petulance, because humans are cultured to reject petulance in ordinary human circumstances. This error is then projected onto the hypothetical extraordinary circumstance of some future life extension, where you continue to falsely believe in the normal, historical order of things exactly at the point where it has ceased to apply.

Edgy teenager much.

I love how you simply ignored:
I guess your 'hardcore' psyche couldn't handle being besmirched in such a casual way.

I think is spot on.

I've never read a word of Nietzsche.

That's funny, because you seem to regurgitate plenty of the same platitudinous dribble interspersed with
loquaciousness.

k. I'm still right for wanting to eliminate the species though and you can't actually argue the thing on its own merits. When someone tries to do so, they are caught in a very particular "spook", to borrow a meme-phrase from Veeky Forums's obsession with Stirner: the delusion of the will-to-life.

No, I promise, I really have never read any Nietzsche. I just have a vague idea of the types of phrases that go along with this type of thing.

>I'm right for wanting to eliminate the species.
>I'm right
>for wanting
>to eliminate
>a species
Not that user, but are you full of vainglory or just retarded?

But what is your reasoning? All you've done is state that you think humanity should cease to exist but haven't offered a good reason as to why.

He's going to reply we're greedy creatures who act likes viruses, we're just not fit to survive in the universe, or some other strawman/bullshit reason removing the good humanity has done in its time.

Hi res version of the pic?

Quite the opposite, I've divorced my reasoning from any "environmental" considerations. Ironically, the whole view is in one sense humanistic and anthropocentric, (except when it isn't) and folds back in on itself per the above aspect.

Basically, to use a disgusting yet true vernacular, you shouldn't want to be a cuck.

The foundation is also the general materialistic, atheistic conception of things which has taken root in modernity (thanks Marx!). And, when taken to its logical conclusion (as I do) this correctly entails annihilation. After all, if there were something more, then there would be a point in sticking round.

You can only go "for science!" so many thousands of years against a dumb universe before packing it in. But we should exactly foreclose that opportunity to any future issue, and this out of the rightness of petulance, which I have correctly alluded to earlier.

I have a very deep faith that we shall succeed to destroy ourselves, as is my hope. The global warming meme seems like a good bet, especially given recent data.

Failing that, the vastness of space should help as well. Let us hope that the animal is insufficiently co-operative.

>I divorced my reasoning from any environmental considerations.
Implying you can actually do that.

>The whole view is humanistic
Which it isn't as majority of people are against your view.

>cuck
Wew lad I should stop reading here.

>The foundation
What foundation

>general materialistic, atheistic conception
>Thanks to marx
If you're talking about modern society, people have always like having items and luxury. And a vast majority of the world is far from atheist and Marx hasn't done much.

>logical conclusion
You're far from logical

>If there was something more, then there would be a point in sticking around.
You're assuming you are right and there is nothing to look forward to. Nobody knows the future, or what it holds.

>dumb universe
The universe is more complex than you argument. I hardly find it dumb.

>I have a very deep faith that we shall destroy ourselves.
You are being edgy.

You still haven't explained your hate for humanity and why it should be destroyed. Your dodging the main question by pretending to be intelligent and acting in vanity.

Either give up trolling or if you hate humanity so much you should help with eliminating it by successfully killing yourself since you hate yourself for being human.

>tfw you want to talk about genetic engineering, bio engineering, and biological immortality, but there is that one guy who derails the whole thread the entire time, and won't fuck off.

You are aware this will cause massive over population. I don't think you will end any suffering by making people biologically immortal, only create it.

>Cause massive over population.
Actually it won't. Over population is a big meme.

1) For starters biological immortality would only be for 1st world countries (US-Canada-France-SK, Etc) and those within other countries who could afford it.

2) Next people within wealthier countries tend not to have as many children, as the guy next door or down the street (3rd worlders or extremely poor) so those affording it wouldn't be having children all the time.

3) As time goes on most people tend to stop having children, so the longer a person with biological immortality lives the less likely they are to have a child. Meaning you would have a biological immortality person probably having their own flesh and blood child every maybe 40-100 years. Doesn't help children are also expensive as hell so having many won't do you any good.

4) Population cap and the fact by not having many children you don't have to later compete with them in the job market. Not too mention any future generation that exist with biological immortal people being around have to compete with people who hare physically healthy and have decades more experience than them.

5) Just because you're biologically immortal doesn't mean you still can't die.

6) Humans learn to adapt and stop with the overpopulation meme being passed around.

We could also provide a solution to over population (for example, terraforming other planets, or even rehabilitating parts of our own), things are not so one-dimensional.

Overpopulation can destroy the planet, or at least degrade quality of life, and create unrest and resource shortages.

Making everyone live forever without solving the basic problems is a recipe for disaster.

>Degrade quality of life.
How? Population currently is on the rise, but in the 2050's is going to drop, drop, and drop like a bitch according to the UN.

This degradation will only affect major cities like New York, Shanghai, there is a lot of unoccupied land in the world for people to live in, especially in the countryside.

>create unrest
In 3rd world countries yeah.

>resource shortages
Not currently with the way technology is.

Looks like the UN predicts that the population will go over 10 billion and stay that way.

That's definitely assuming we don't find immortality.

Makes you really think. Those projections might change if war occurs, or standard of living rises in other countries making people wanting to breed less.

As for biological immortality. You have companies like Calico by Google doing its own variation of the research, and there is SENS which hasn't been disproven and are showing some results in their work.

Aging is tied to everything that is us, even within how our DNA functions. Which means you don't combat aging, you combat millions of facets that it is comprised of. Which means studying everything, which we already do.

Besides the humongously complex problem aging represents, which other people have already pointed at, there's the ethical and moral issue.

Due to the absence of infinite resources and our capitalistic society immortality would always be available only to a few people. This would concentrate wealth even more in those individuals/families and possibly bring societal advance to a halt. Not to mention the social tensions that would arise. Also, human life is precious and interesting precisely because it's limited. If it becomes neverending it will just become boring and most would suffer from existential ennui.

Just my two cents.

Many humans before you never got the chance to use a computer, therefore you should not use a computer.

>Why are there no large-scale, well-funded efforts to significantly remediate the biological ageing process through scientific and technological means?
There are some reasons:

a) There is little hope for substantial success. If there was "one weird trick" to the whole aging problem, then evolution would have found out by now.

b) There is no real interest. Of course, individually, everybody is afraid to die (more or less), but as a society we have absolutely no desire to have even more old people. In opposite, a much more urging problem these days is how to make people die in a somewhat dignified way.

c) It probably wouldn't be a forever young thing, it would more or less be a delay of death. Nobody is interested in that. Most people I know just want to die in peace at some point and have little interest in finding out how little life you need to keep going.

>then evolution would have found out by now
1. thats isn't how evolution works
2. there are indeed living beings on earth that do not age

Because this species will be destroyed before you ever, ever, /ever/ get to fuck off into your transhumanist pipe dream. Or if it isn't a pipe dream, then all the more reason to destroy the capacity of any human to achieve it.

If history tells us anything, it is this: anyone can be killed. And mercifully, the supply chains that will be necessary for such a scientific development will very probably be precarious at first.

I'll ruin these threads each time that you propose to make them, or contribute to them. Happily, you too will die after a few decades on the outside. You are not a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" in terms of lifespan, and you should stop fancying yourself as one. You are the same as everyone else who has ever lived, in the final analysis, where it really counts. and this conceit is exactly what makes life bearable, that nobody ever really gets ahead in the end, in any meaningful way.

Not that user, but

>This species will be destroyed before you ever
You are implying something that you do not know that will happen.

>I'll ruin these threads each time they are made or someone contributes to them.
Yes this is shitposting and you will be reported.

>evolution would have found it

uh no, evolution is about reproductive fitness, there's very few if any pressures, especially for us, to live forever, especially considering how intense our biology is

I can assure you that the elites have scientists working around the clock to solve the aging problem and if they ever discover it (maybe they already have) the general public will never hear about it. If the tech is available to the public then it will be absurdly expensive

How do I become one of these elites?

Kill yourself and hope that you get reincarnated into a better position.

Because funerals and hospitals generate a great amount of revenue.

People will kill themselves. No children means no fresh perspectives. What's the fucking point? What the fuck is the fucking point holy shit. I'm not the edgy dude but comon who wants to live forever? The thought of that is worse than the thought that I will die one day.

I rather live an eternity than spend one day dead. The thought of never waking up, never taking a breathe, to never see, smile, or do anything again, to never dream, or think, to have absolute oblivion is a fate worse than death because this is what death leads to.

I rather live a eternity of despair and loneliness than one day dead.

Spoken like a young, prideful person who hasn't actually thought things through.

I will live and you will die.

Yeah, you'll live forever, but you'll be like last year's laptop, already out of date a week after you bought it.
You won't have a job because everyone needs to work, but the population will be bloated so there are no open jobs.
Even if you are lucky enough to find work, it's going to pay peanuts because you're easilly replaceable as mr. robot without a face.

nothing lives forever

>Nothing we currently know of lives forever.
Fixed that for you senpai.

Everything is made up of protons neutrons and electrons and atomic particles decay.

So no, nothing lives forever.

> protons decay
prove it faggot.