• Our developer will be working on RCF over the next few weeks. Things may look wonky at times, normal functions may not work or dissappear completely. It's the nature of the beast but we'll try to make sure this is painless as possible.

Solve Rising Healthcare Costs by Curing Aging

KI4MVP

formerly LJ4MVP
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
21,652
Reaction score
22,112
Points
135
Instead of spending massive amounts of money treating an increasing number of people with diseases caused by aging, what if we could prevent and reverse aging so these diseases become far less likely to happen. Trillions of dollars/year could be saved each year. We may be a lot closer to actually doing something about this at a time when most people think it's impossible.

A couple of videos on the subject


 

Sumac13

Heretic
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
588
Reaction score
539
Points
93
While perhaps helping to solve healthcare costs, there will be many latent consequences of such actions that will need to be addressed. People still will need to be provided for if they live well into their 90s. Will medical costs simply be shifted over to social welfare costs? Few will have enough financial resources set aside to take care of themselves. Will these people work longer? Past 65 or 67? And if so, what impact will that have on those lower in rank? Will families more and more step forward and assume the role of caregiver? What changes will happen to family dynamics. And so on.
 

KI4MVP

formerly LJ4MVP
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
21,652
Reaction score
22,112
Points
135
While perhaps helping to solve healthcare costs, there will be many latent consequences of such actions that will need to be addressed. People still will need to be provided for if they live well into their 90s. Will medical costs simply be shifted over to social welfare costs? Few will have enough financial resources set aside to take care of themselves. Will these people work longer? Past 65 or 67? And if so, what impact will that have on those lower in rank? Will families more and more step forward and assume the role of caregiver? What changes will happen to family dynamics. And so on.
if we prevent/reverse aging and thus prevent aging related decline/disease, why would people need to be provided for or need caregivers?
 

Sumac13

Heretic
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
588
Reaction score
539
Points
93
if we prevent/reverse aging and thus prevent aging related decline/disease, why would people need to be provided for or need caregivers?
Well, I took prevent/reverse aging to mean slowing it down greatly, not fully stopping it. If stopping it or reversing it, then at what age does this occur. Do people remain their 20s-year old version? 30s-year old version? Or which? Do we remain forever 15? Do we simply not age and live indefinitely? If so, then welcome to one hell of a population boom which would tax the fuck out of Earth's resources. Some major technological innovation would have to occur if to sustain the population boom. Would the world move to a single child policy? And if people do not age, do they work indefinitely? And if so, are they holding onto jobs that younger generation would have available to them?

Exactly when and how would people die? How quick would the process be?

About 55 million people die every year. If we merely prevent the top 9 causes (all health related) from occurring, then we would be keeping about 30 million extra people around on this shithole. In eleven years, that's 330 million, roughly the population of the United States.

My intention is not to be negative. We (humanity) need to realize there will be very real latent consequences of preventing aging. While there may be some savings, there undoubtably will be many associated--potentially exorbitant--costs, too.

This comes from a person who doesn't believe there isn't any inherent way we are meant to live our lives. In no way am I arguing we are interfering with the balance of nature or a goddess' or goddesses' grand plan. No value judgment.
 

KI4MVP

formerly LJ4MVP
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
21,652
Reaction score
22,112
Points
135
Well, I took prevent/reverse aging to mean slowing it down greatly, not fully stopping it. If stopping it or reversing it, then at what age does this occur. Do people remain their 20s-year old version? 30s-year old version? Or which? Do we remain forever 15? Do we simply not age and live indefinitely? If so, then welcome to one hell of a population boom which would tax the fuck out of Earth's resources. Some major technological innovation would have to occur if to sustain the population boom. Would the world move to a single child policy? And if people do not age, do they work indefinitely? And if so, are they holding onto jobs that younger generation would have available to them?

Exactly when and how would people die? How quick would the process be?

About 55 million people die every year. If we merely prevent the top 9 causes (all health related) from occurring, then we would be keeping about 30 million extra people around on this shithole. In eleven years, that's 330 million, roughly the population of the United States.

My intention is not to be negative. We (humanity) need to realize there will be very real latent consequences of preventing aging. While there may be some savings, there undoubtably will be many associated--potentially exorbitant--costs, too.

This comes from a person who doesn't believe there isn't any inherent way we are meant to live our lives. In no way am I arguing we are interfering with the balance of nature or a goddess' or goddesses' grand plan. No value judgment.
as we age, we grow, mature, peak, decline. The goal would be to stay near the peak. So mid 20s to mid 30s.

people would still die from all of the non age related things they die from currently. top 10 causes of death - I count 6 of the 10 as being primarily age related.



130 million people are born each year, if we eliminate aging as a cause of death, thus saving up to 30 million lives/year (number wouldn't be quite that high, and the impact wouldn't at all be immediate), we only have to lower the already declining global birth rate by 23% to offset that.

As for jobs, there is no fixed number of jobs. People not dying from aging means more consumers, which means more demand for jobs.

Assume aging is a solvable problem. What would you rather tell our children.
1 - we solved aging, so you can potentially live for centuries in prime heath, but you'll have to have smaller families, and your children can also live for centuries in prime health.
2 - we solved aging, but we're not going to use the solution, you'll grow old, get sick, be cared for, and die in the next few decades, but hey, you can have an extra child that has to go through the same thing

As for the planet, don't you think group 1 would care a heck of a lot more about caring for the planet than group 2 does?
 
Last edited:

KI4MVP

formerly LJ4MVP
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
21,652
Reaction score
22,112
Points
135
To add to above, I assume that if people are in prime heath indefinitely, they'd take breaks from working and afterwards move onto something new that interests them, or something new that they enjoy doing.
 

Misc Costs To Finish Browns Site

Total amount
$750.00
Goal
$750.00


Radio

Top