But depending on the details, I think it will be pretty high.
It would certainly have to depend on the details, since obviously many people do not choose the longevity treatments that are already available, like healthy eating and exercise, even though they are usually not very expensive. Sure, maybe someone will be more motivated by an extra 50-100 years than by an extra 5-15. But then again maybe they won’t.
It would certainly have to depend on the details, since obviously many people do not choose the longevity treatments that are already available, like healthy eating and exercise, even though they are usually not very expensive.
Eh. That seems to be a pretty different question.
Let’s say that an hour of exercise a day will extend your lifespan by 5 years. If you sleep 8 hours a night, that’s about 6.3% of your waking time; if you live 85 years without exercise vs 90 years with exercise, you probably have close to the same amount of non-exercising waking time either way. So if it’s worthwhile probably depends on how much you enjoy or don’t enjoy exercise, how much you value free time when you’re 30 vs time when you’re 85, ect.
I think exercise is a good deal all around, but then again that’s partly because I think there’s a significant chance that we will get longevity treatments in our lifetime, and want to be around to see them. It’s not the same kind of clear-cut decision that, say, “take a pill every morning to live 5 years longer” would be.
“take a pill every morning to live 5 years longer”
It is an assumption that it will be that easy. If there is a complicated surgery that will extend people’s lives by 5 years, or even by 20, it is likely that many people will not want it.
Sure. Obviously people will always consider trade-offs, in terms of risks, costs, and side effects.
Although it is worth mentioning that if you look at, say, most people with cancer, people seem to be willing to go through extremly difficult and dangerous procedures even to just have a small chance of extending lifespan a little bit. But perhaps people will be less willing to do that with a more vague problem like “aging”? Hard to say.
I don’t think it will stay like that, though. Maybe the first commercially available aging treatment will be borderline enough that’s it’s a reasonable debate if it’s worthwhile, but I expect them to continue improve from that point.
It would certainly have to depend on the details, since obviously many people do not choose the longevity treatments that are already available, like healthy eating and exercise, even though they are usually not very expensive. Sure, maybe someone will be more motivated by an extra 50-100 years than by an extra 5-15. But then again maybe they won’t.
Eh. That seems to be a pretty different question.
Let’s say that an hour of exercise a day will extend your lifespan by 5 years. If you sleep 8 hours a night, that’s about 6.3% of your waking time; if you live 85 years without exercise vs 90 years with exercise, you probably have close to the same amount of non-exercising waking time either way. So if it’s worthwhile probably depends on how much you enjoy or don’t enjoy exercise, how much you value free time when you’re 30 vs time when you’re 85, ect.
I think exercise is a good deal all around, but then again that’s partly because I think there’s a significant chance that we will get longevity treatments in our lifetime, and want to be around to see them. It’s not the same kind of clear-cut decision that, say, “take a pill every morning to live 5 years longer” would be.
It is an assumption that it will be that easy. If there is a complicated surgery that will extend people’s lives by 5 years, or even by 20, it is likely that many people will not want it.
Sure. Obviously people will always consider trade-offs, in terms of risks, costs, and side effects.
Although it is worth mentioning that if you look at, say, most people with cancer, people seem to be willing to go through extremly difficult and dangerous procedures even to just have a small chance of extending lifespan a little bit. But perhaps people will be less willing to do that with a more vague problem like “aging”? Hard to say.
I don’t think it will stay like that, though. Maybe the first commercially available aging treatment will be borderline enough that’s it’s a reasonable debate if it’s worthwhile, but I expect them to continue improve from that point.