>And glad the research suggests it.

The article is actually arguing against aging being inevitable (in the article, "My answer may be right or wrong" and below).

The author also links to a blog titled "Age reduction breakthrough"~[1].

[1] https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/2020/05/11/age-reduct...

He admits it's a minority opinion, though. It seems based on a little research and a lot of theory, for the time being.

I actually like the entropy comment a lot. Cancer seems to be the great equalizer. The biggest things we can do today to extend life reliably are a) cure cancer, b) lab grow vital organs, and everything that goes along with that, and c) clear arteries. That would by far extend our lives, without looking to theories and such.

One day, death from aging will be as much of an anachronism as half of children dying before the age of five, as they did throughout human history until the 19th century, is today.

In almost any case where someone is dying, both them, and their loved ones, are devastated by the unfolding tragedy, and go to incredible lengths to prevent that outcome. There is nothing more human than to work to prevent death, and no outcome more inevitable, if the human race can survive long enough, than to provide people with biological immortality.

A 500 year old Musk or Bezos will be building out space colonies for us to live in and funding the development of ever more advanced and affordable spacecraft to help us get there. I also don't think biological immortality will lead to individuals remaining the wealthiest in the world for ever. In the rapidly evolving economy of the modern age, every generation will see new entrepreneurs disrupt the old guard and become the new top players. This has more to do with the advantage of having a fresh prespective, than aging making the previous generation feeble.

Pff, no thanks. 'Neverending story' is a concept for children, same as 'the song that never ends' and other cartoons of infinity. In reality I get as much enjoyment from finishing a book as starting it. I'm not rejecting the idea of technological progress, I'm rejecting the whole idea of wanting to live indefinitely. Shrinking from death misses the point of life.

There is nothing meaningful in death. It's a meaningless tragedy. If and when we can give humans the option of living forever, you're always free to not avail yourself of that option, if that is your preference.

Sure there is, the fact of its apparent permanence provides and ordering criteria for a value system. Are you saying that there's nothing - nothing at all - for which you'd be willing to sacrifice your life?

You can have an ordering criteria without having lifespans limited to 7-8 decades. Time still matters in the absence of death from aging.

You can, and you'll also end up with a gerontocracy. I see you don't address the sacrifice question so I guess that means there isn't any such thing. Perhaps that will change in the future.

Issues like gerontocracy will be completely irrelevant when we're spanning the solar system, and especially when we're sending colony ships to star systems light years away.

Without death, time has no value. Good luck peeing in bottles for 7 cents an hour to support these spacecraft.

The first smartphones, in 2007, cost $750 in inflation adjusted terms. Only 40 million people worlwide, almost exclusively living in the developed world, could afford one.

Today, smartphones are in the hands of over 3.8 billion people (approaching 50% of the human population) [1], with the most affordable today going for $50, and with far more capabilities than the 2007 iPhone.

[1] https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-w...

>Nothing is meant to live forever.

And you, axaxs, are the righteous and true arbiter of who lives and who dies? I'd rather make that decision for myself thank you.

> I'd rather make that decision for myself thank you.

Are you filthy rich? Because if you aren't, then you don't get that choice. If cures for aging become a reality, you don't think the filthy rich will hoard it for themselves and deny or ration everyone else's access, just as they do with so many other resources? The richest of the rich will decide who lives or dies even if such research yields any results.

Maybe in countries like the US where healthcare is run by predatory loan sharks, in the civilised world the economic advantages of keeping skilled workers with plenty of knowledge in the workforce longer will be obvious.

Arguably even Bezos doesn't really need 500 years, unless some magic happy pills pop up I can't see how that won't turn into a miserable existence eventually.