gwern comments on Announcing the Quantified Health Prize - Less Wrong

50 Post author: Zvi 02 December 2011 06:01AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (140)

Comments (140)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 30 December 2011 04:08:27PM 0 points [-]

Are there people who hit 120 who were not in good shape at 77? If not, then it seems like improving your status at 77 is a necessary step.

Necessary, but not sufficient, even if one grants the claim that CR results in an overall improvement (rather than a dramatic improvement on some age-related diseases and unknown compensating penalties).

Beyond that, if you wouldn't do it for an EV of 1 decade, but would do it because it gives you a chance at hitting 120, I think our priorities are very different.

Yes. A treatment that gives another 20 years and breaks the 120 barrier is many times more interesting and full of potential than a treatment that only gives 10 years and respects the old longevity barrier.

Comment author: Vaniver 30 December 2011 04:30:27PM 0 points [-]

A treatment that gives another 20 years and breaks the 120 barrier is many times more interesting and full of potential than a treatment that only gives 10 years and respects the old longevity barrier.

I agree that 20 more years is more interesting than 10 more years. What I find confusing is the probability on living past 100 without CR that's implied by the longevity barrier being relevant.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit