I read this post at the same time as reading Ascani 2019
and Ricón 2021 in an
attempt to get clear about anti-aging research. Comparing
these three texts against each other, I would classify Ascani 2019 as
trying to figure out whether focusing on anti-aging research is a
good idea, Ricón 2021 trying to give
a gearsy overview of the field (objective unlocked: get Nintil posts
cross-posted to LessWrong), and this text as showing what has already
been accomplished.
In that regard it succeeds perfectly well: The structure of Part V is
so clean I suspect that it sweeps a bunch of complexity and alternative
approaches under the rug, and the results described seriously impressed
me and some of the people I was reading this text with at the time (We
can reverse arthritis and cataracts in mice‽ We can double their
maximum lifespan‽). It is excellent science propaganda: Inspiring
awe at what has been accomplished, desire to accomplish more, and
hope that this is possible.
While the post shines in parts III, IV and V, I have some
quibbles and complaints about the introduction, part I
and part II. First, I disliked the jab against cryonics
in the first paragraph without considering the costs and benefits,
which rightly received some pushback in the comments (the strongest
counter-observation being that barring some practical suggestions for slowing down aging right now,
cryonics and anti-aging research occupy very different parts of the
strategy for life-extension, and can be pursued in parallel). Part II
disappointed me because it was pro-longevity advocacy under the veneer
of a factual question: Has anybody actually tried to think through how a
world without aging might actually look like, instead of re-treading the
same pro-aging trance and anti-aging science arguments? That seems like
a question that is both interesting and pretty relevant, even when you
believe that ending aging is important enough that it should definitely
be done, if just to prepare for weird second- and third-order effects.
(Part I felt like I was a choir being preached to, which isn’t that bad,
but still…)
I really liked learning a bunch of new facts about aging (as for example
the list of species that don’t age, that aging is responsible for 30%
of lost DALYs, and distinction between gerontology, engineering and
geriatrics). Factposts are underrated.
The comments on this post were often very good, and had some nice
discussion about whether the advice in section VII was to be focused on.
I’ve been overly negative in this review, but overall I still like this
post, and have voted a 4 on it (which I might change to a 1). The parts
III-V are excellent, and I have only minor problems with the preceding
parts. This is the kind of post I would give a science-interested skeptic of anti-aging research. I’d like to have this post in the review,
because it represents something some part of the core to the LessWrong
transhumanist aesthetic that often gets overlooked.
I read this post at the same time as reading Ascani 2019 and Ricón 2021 in an attempt to get clear about anti-aging research. Comparing these three texts against each other, I would classify Ascani 2019 as trying to figure out whether focusing on anti-aging research is a good idea, Ricón 2021 trying to give a gearsy overview of the field (objective unlocked: get Nintil posts cross-posted to LessWrong), and this text as showing what has already been accomplished.
In that regard it succeeds perfectly well: The structure of Part V is so clean I suspect that it sweeps a bunch of complexity and alternative approaches under the rug, and the results described seriously impressed me and some of the people I was reading this text with at the time (We can reverse arthritis and cataracts in mice‽ We can double their maximum lifespan‽). It is excellent science propaganda: Inspiring awe at what has been accomplished, desire to accomplish more, and hope that this is possible.
While the post shines in parts III, IV and V, I have some quibbles and complaints about the introduction, part I and part II. First, I disliked the jab against cryonics in the first paragraph without considering the costs and benefits, which rightly received some pushback in the comments (the strongest counter-observation being that barring some practical suggestions for slowing down aging right now, cryonics and anti-aging research occupy very different parts of the strategy for life-extension, and can be pursued in parallel). Part II disappointed me because it was pro-longevity advocacy under the veneer of a factual question: Has anybody actually tried to think through how a world without aging might actually look like, instead of re-treading the same pro-aging trance and anti-aging science arguments? That seems like a question that is both interesting and pretty relevant, even when you believe that ending aging is important enough that it should definitely be done, if just to prepare for weird second- and third-order effects.
(Part I felt like I was a choir being preached to, which isn’t that bad, but still…)
I really liked learning a bunch of new facts about aging (as for example the list of species that don’t age, that aging is responsible for 30% of lost DALYs, and distinction between gerontology, engineering and geriatrics). Factposts are underrated.
The comments on this post were often very good, and had some nice discussion about whether the advice in section VII was to be focused on.
I’ve been overly negative in this review, but overall I still like this post, and have voted a 4 on it (which I might change to a 1). The parts III-V are excellent, and I have only minor problems with the preceding parts. This is the kind of post I would give a science-interested skeptic of anti-aging research. I’d like to have this post in the review, because it represents something some part of the core to the LessWrong transhumanist aesthetic that often gets overlooked.