That's the whole "senescent cells" approach. Basically tries to kill senescent cells (cells that stop dividing) which accumulate with age. Human trials are starting this year by the way.

Non-argument. Assumes that damage won't be repairable in the future based on incomplete knowledge of pretty much everything.

What evidence do you have to make such claim? I've found none.

Unless you'd like to revise your statement to "you can't currently revive frozen humans".

There was a plan for the first ever human head transplant a year or so ago. But I don't think anything came from that, so I'm not sure if that actually happened or got delayed.

There are a few different paths to this problem.

One would be to continuously repair the effects of aging. And the other would be to stop aging entirely.

The ways to achieve either of these include replacing the human body entirely (with a cloned biological body, artificial physical body, digital/mind upload), repairing the human body by reversing the effects of aging, or halting the effects of aging altogether.

There is progress happening on all of these fronts.

We have cloned organs, cloned animals. [Potential biological body replacements]

Artificial limbs that can be mind controlled with actual sensorial feedback. [Artificial body replacements]

Mind control of artificial and digital objects. [Mind upload]

Different approaches with cells (senescent cells and senolytic drugs), genes (Crispr), blood shown to reverse some effects of aging in rats. [Reversing/halting the effects on a biological level]


As time goes by these will become more sophisticated and probably result in multi-lateral approaches to dealing with aging. So far they're baby steps, but they're bound to compound exponentially over time. With more progress there comes more funding, with more funding more progress. Same old feedback loop.

Wouldn't be so sure about that.

First off, not everybody wants to live forever.

Additionally to that, the only plausible shot for life extension right now is crypto-preservation, which isn't capable of re-animating humans yet. But that's not necessarily relevant as the probability of reanimating via that route is larger than zero.
So with time, more people will be going that route even if reanimation hasn't been demonstrated yet. And once it's demonstrated in a mammal use will begin growing rapidly.

But this entire process takes forever, just like people haven't jumped on the internet, Bitcoin, or any other technology in the early stages.

Many people might not even be aware of the options either. Life extension has been attempted throughout all of human history with no success after all. So it's not at all surprising that rich people wouldn't have a team dedicated to keeping them informed about any progress happening there when there has been almost none that is tangible for people without a science background.

I would consider looking up a digest of the progress on life extension at least every other year, starting now.
There's a decent amount of buzz going on there, comparable to Bitcoin 10 years ago.

The current "cutting edge" claims are a 50/50 chance for catching up to the aging escape velocity by 2040-50, and claims for minor rejuvenation (adding less years than you'd need to halt/reverse aging) by 2030ish.

Cryopreservation is also becoming significantly cheaper, so that could be an option for people too old to make it to even 2050. Around the next rally a fraction of a Bitcoin could be enough for the cryopreservation part, and with a sensible portfolio you could "unfreeze" filthy rich whenever the technology is there.

tl;dr We're virtually around the corner (relatively speaking). So anyone who feels like potentially being able to choose their point of death should do some digging.

I'd argue that you can more efficiently win fights by offering superior alternatives that people have no choice but to want to adopt. That way you also homogenize interests instead of splitting off into countless opposing groups that fight each other over whose delusion of life is the right one.

That is not what is happening. Refer to point 1.

Don't patents cost at least a few thousands to register? With random general tech bullshit it makes sense if you want to be a twat and sue people. But fucking cat exercise method? Rich troll?

1. You make way too many assumptions about people's intentions.

3. He never said they weren't as far as I can tell. Why can't you just base your responses around what has been written without your own interpolations that always go off who knows where? Also, he doesn't seem to be defending anyone here.

I suggest we have the 1 million party in a hotel on the fucking moon.

Nature vs nurture is no more than the question about how much in a person's behavior (including skills etc) is genetic and how much can be picked up throughout a lifetime. Nurture in the idiom refers to any external stimuli that could nurture a person.

Now, in reality, it's both to an extent nobody fucking knows. And at the end of the day there's a person making decisions, the choices that will ring most loudly within their heads will be whatever genetics and environment threw at them. And the person makes the choice.

And technically, the whole debate only exists because genetic/environmental factors are vastly more prevalent than original thought, coupled with the fact that people don't fucking understand statistics worth shit. The only thing that matters is an individual's choice, everything else is noise.

And that statement is still true.
If it was all about money you wouldn't be able to find people demanding organic food, green energy, or even entertainment. You would find an abundance of suppliers, but no demand.

Point was, and still is, money isn't the primary driver for most people. I'd go as far as to say it's the driver for nobody, as even those that hoard and accumulate money do it for different reasons with money just being a byproduct.

The deeper point was that capitalism isn't about money, and that people who think it is don't understand it in the slightest(inb4 but it says capital)


Sure I can, because there were two distinct points being made. One about idiots breeding. One about things going relatively smooth.


Not sure what you're trying to get at.

Never said that "normal people" push more for organic food than they cared about money. Simply stated that money isn't the only, or even primary factor in most people's lives. If it was nobody would be buying anything besides food. People would even live on the street if they didn't need an address for jobs and whatnot. Fact is, for rich people it's rarely about money, and for poor people it's about surviving - also not about money. Nobody truly gives a shit about money.

(Individual) Humans are breeding beyond their economic capacities, which makes them idiots. Hence, idiots are breeding more than they should.


And I consider things to go smooth in the sense that humanity, as a whole, gets exactly what it deserves. One example would be the tribal twats in the States flinging shit at each other from left to right and back.

If that is the extent of public human discourse in the 21st century, then whatever humanity has achieved as a whole is "things going smooth". Possibly too smooth for our own good. I'm not sure if we might not need some very serious event (WW tier) for people to stop being full blown retards over the dumbest fairy tales of problems.


Then maybe you should start listening better. I've never advocated for a "not my problem" rhetoric. If I was to advocate for anything of the like it would be for a "don't fucking tell me what to do/think and maybe I'll consider helping you out as I see fit within my capacity" rhetoric.

In so far as there are any real problems they're with degenerates of the like that bring up gender pronouns in politics while aging, disease and hunger are still a thing.

Wages are pretty much constant, not falling, because people want to be smart and lazy. Whine about your life and try to steal money from others and you'll get used and abused instead of becoming an ally.

Your assertion that "all pieces are already owned" is completely and utterly false as well. Or do you refresh your statement every Planck second?

Wealth distribution =/= wealth redistribution =/= UBI.

Workers get a guaranteed salary, regardless of how the business is going.

They don't participate in the risk and have no right to the payouts that the risk brings. There are equity options for those that care about putting their salary on the line.

Not to mention it's a voluntary exchange. So nothing stolen here whatsoever.


Except for the case that you tried to argue against (e.g. "other people's money"). Nobody asked if they want to pay taxes.

Even if you literally give every person in the world a mansion, there will still be people who will lose them and end up on the streets.


With money coming from where exactly?

Not a flaw of capitalism, but governmental overreach enabling bad actors.


By distributing everything "equally"? How frequently do you think you'll have to do this? Because I can guarantee you one thing, there will always be a top 1% (give or take) in every category. It's a fundamental feature of our reality as far as the evidence is concerned.

If everything was about money, people wouldn't be pushing for organic food.

It's obvious that you've got capitalism backwards. There are needs and desires, markets emerge to satisfy them. In this order.


Things just take time. And they're going pretty smooth as they are when considering the amount of idiots breeding like animals.

Dig their pastries. But other than that they seem like fucking savages that came fresh out of the jungle with all the weird kind of shit they call food.