Comment by throaway2112

13 hours ago

But why would you not want to beat aging in a medical sense? I don't really understand your logic here.

4 comments

throaway2112

Reply
taeric  13 hours ago

But this gets to my question, essentially? Is "aging for the elderly" different than "aging for the middle aged?"

So, what does it mean to "beat aging in a medical sense?" If it is just definitionally to not have any of the bad effects of aging, then sure. Of course I would want that. What are the names for the good things that are generally along for the ride with aging?

Going back to my earlier quip, if you could turn off aging for babies/toddlers, how would that be a good thing?

  • throaway2112  13 hours ago

    It wouldn't. So you wouldn't do that. It would be like giving an insulin pump to someone who wasn't diabetic. Why would you?

    • taeric  13 hours ago

      This may somewhat surprise you, but I would ask the same for people in the 30s. 40s even, at this point. Freezing someone at that age doesn't sound appealing to me. At all.

      So the heart of my question is why do we view "defeating aging" as the same as "living longer?" Or is this something where the target age that people would want to be generally coalesces on a common number?

      1 reply →