TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

265 点作者 mxschumacher大约 3 年前

12 条评论

DantesKite大约 3 年前
Peter Thiel once said something along the lines that nobody is against aging research, because in practice what you’re solving for are problems everybody wants cures for, like Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson’s, etc.<p>I often think about that quote because aging is such an intractably hard problem, we’ve sort of collectively rationalized it as something “good”. You see it in many religious traditions. In the zeitgeist. That somehow death gives life meaning. Makes it good.<p>But I’ve never found anybody who thinks cancer is a good thing. Nobody sane at least.<p>I’ve thought for a while now that every philosophy problem is in some sense, just a health problem waiting to be solved.<p>Occasionally I think about the Bible too and the way Christ (regardless of your religious beliefs) upended this tradition of rationalizing death as good. There’s a line in the Bible that’s the shortest verse in the English version: “Jesus wept.” And he was weeping for Lazarus, a man who died (who he could bring back to life effortlessly); in some sense a true condemnation of death as evil. Something even a god would weep over.<p>I think about the future often too; the way immortality will finally be achieved. There’s so many complications when it comes to aging, and so much we don’t know about the human body, I wonder whether humans will be involved at all; whether machines will silently develop cures while our bodies lie in a metal tomb, explaining to us what happened afterwards in terms we can understand.<p>I think it’ll happen someday. But I don’t know if it’ll be a year or 100 years from now.<p>I certainly hope it’s soon. Some days I feel like I’m at the edge of an eternal history.
评论 #30489131 未加载
评论 #30487580 未加载
评论 #30488009 未加载
评论 #30491147 未加载
评论 #30493172 未加载
评论 #30487484 未加载
评论 #30490534 未加载
评论 #30489296 未加载
评论 #30488791 未加载
评论 #30487725 未加载
评论 #30505676 未加载
评论 #30488289 未加载
评论 #30487340 未加载
评论 #30490052 未加载
评论 #30487972 未加载
评论 #30487431 未加载
评论 #30489969 未加载
dombesz大约 3 年前
Whenever we talk about longevity we cannot not mention David Sinclair, who is a leading researcher in longevity. His recent podcast is the most popular on the topic of longevity.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;ro&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;lifespan-with-dr-david-sinclair&#x2F;id1601709306?i=1000551979439" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;ro&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;lifespan-with-dr-david...</a>
评论 #30501089 未加载
评论 #30495330 未加载
评论 #30490611 未加载
gw67大约 3 年前
All the public companies backed are now down badly.<p>- METACRINE -92% (1 year)<p>- Unity biotechnology -86% (1 year)<p>- DECIBEL THERAPEUTICS -80% (1 year)<p>- PRECISION BIOSCIENCES -62% (1 year)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.longevity.vc&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.longevity.vc&#x2F;</a>
评论 #30489018 未加载
评论 #30490557 未加载
netfortius大约 3 年前
I hate it when this type of info does not have a date attached to the main article, right in the beginning. I could assume some years, by looking at the references and some mentioned inside (2016?!? A little after?!?), but in today&#x27;s accelerated scientific progress, especially in the light of recent developments of successful applications, post-COVID appearance, it is hard to determine how authoritative this info is.
评论 #30493622 未加载
keiferski大约 3 年前
Sorry for the academic terminology, but: longevity is basically the dream of eternal life recast for a modern disenchanted world. If this topic interests you, I highly recommend reading some books by Charles Taylor.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;A_Secular_Age" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;A_Secular_Age</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ubcgcu.files.wordpress.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;08&#x2F;taylor-and-immanent-frame.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ubcgcu.files.wordpress.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;08&#x2F;taylor-and-immane...</a>
评论 #30488787 未加载
评论 #30488497 未加载
grishka大约 3 年前
As someone who follows life extension research closely: all the lifestyle stuff like &quot;eating less&quot; is useless. You can&#x27;t rejuvenate an organism by changing the external inputs to its natural processes. It&#x27;s half-measures at best.
评论 #30488315 未加载
评论 #30490630 未加载
评论 #30487496 未加载
snvzz大约 3 年前
I am surprised there&#x27;s no mention of SENS[0]. I find their repairing the damage approach quite sound.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sens.org&#x2F;intro-to-sens-research&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sens.org&#x2F;intro-to-sens-research&#x2F;</a>
ypeterholmes大约 3 年前
This essay overlooks the most likely path to life extension, which is our ability to snapshot the brain&#x27;s electrical&#x2F;chemical storage. Always back up your data! The speed of progress in computing is fast outpacing medical research, and at the end of the day, the human brain is just a computer of sorts. Historically it&#x27;s been orders of magnitude too complex to understand, but the gap is closing fast.<p>Obviously this raises a million different questions, such as what to do exactly with the data, and whether it can exist outside it&#x27;s biological substrates.<p>But the concept of life as data is worth noting in any conversation about the human lifespan.
hwers大约 3 年前
Only tangentially relevant nitpick: shouldn&#x27;t that first graph have a sigmoid shape since it represents chance of dying as a function of age. At age 130 is should top out at 100% but it shouldn&#x27;t increase exponentially.
评论 #30488265 未加载
manmal大约 3 年前
Even if we „solved“ death and disease, accidents and wars would end our live eventually. Lifespan would increase for sure (I think there was a model that predicted sthg like 500 years?), but immortality just won’t work.
评论 #30490005 未加载
评论 #30493700 未加载
评论 #30490445 未加载
评论 #30489858 未加载
feviskus大约 3 年前
use verteporfin in combination with wounding. it works, even for hair loss. thank me later.
评论 #30490927 未加载
评论 #30487956 未加载
teslaberri大约 3 年前
longevity research is 30 years of total garbage.<p>healthspan research is clear. 1) inflammation is a natural process that results in wear on your body 2) lower inflammation 3) doing so is different for everyone. behavior is at the core of this process. including eating, sleeping, living a life of non-excessive stress, avoiding and treating major disease, maintaining healthy mouth, and moderate exercise.<p>so in a word---a lot , but not all , of chinese and eastern medical philosophy has been epidimilogically confirmed.<p>all the new crap about &#x27;caffiene&#x27; &#x27;metformin&#x27; and other bullshit being good for you is just that, garbage.<p>what isn&#x27;t , is that sometimes some people do have deficiencies of insulin sentitvity, or vitamin D, or other things---like they used to have scurvy ( vitmain C defficiency) -----so these things have been figured out and in no way relate to logevity only healthspan.<p>the annoying stupid thing about longevity idiots is that if a set of practices and health observation and treatments coudl guarantee living a life of perfect healthy until 100 years old----(assuming any rich person coudl afford this) ---this would yield a total revolution in human affairs for the rest of civilizations existence.<p>longevity is the dream of fools guaranteed healthspan is the dream of realists.<p>no one on hackernews is over 60 yet, and this is why all you idiots think with your brains, instead of your hearts. you dont&#x27; talk to 80 and 90 year olds, and if you do you dont&#x27; empathize with the path towards aging sickness and death. but you will if you don&#x27;t die healthy and young, because that is what happens to you . guaranteed.<p>and you will only realize how stupid the idea of living forever is, when you eventually get sick and just want to live healthy one more year. you will realize that feels like forever when it&#x27;s you. but it&#x27;s only one more year.<p>virtually no one lives past 110. focussing on pushing that limit is stupid and longevity research has yielded very little interesting results applicable to other areas.<p>suspended animation and metabolism research , are , however , intereseting and they are fundamental biological areas of exploration and not &#x27;goal oriented&#x27; towards the philsopher&#x27;s bone. cause that&#x27;s what it is. a skull bone.