You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Decius comments on [LINK] Should we live to 1,000? - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: XFrequentist 11 December 2012 04:59PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (8)
Tags: aging ethics philanthropy

Comments (8)

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

Comment author: Decius 12 December 2012 09:10:36PM *  0 points [-]

Because the article was advocating treating aging, instead of cancer, heart disease, and other degenerative diseases.

If your first thought is “a cure for cancer” or “a cure for heart disease,” think again. Aubrey de Grey, Chief Science Officer of SENS Foundation and the world’s most prominent advocate of anti-aging research, argues that it makes no sense to spend the vast majority of our medical resources on trying to combat the diseases of aging without tackling aging itself.

Comment author: beriukay 13 December 2012 10:36:31AM 1 point [-]

I'm thinking it's the difference between prevention and treating symptoms. It's more like "we will cure the common cold" and less like "we will make it so you don't suffer the stuffy nose while the virus wreaks havoc on your body".

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit