
Peter Thiel Planning to Live 120 Years - drey
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-18/investor-peter-thiel-planning-to-live-120-years.html
======
SapphireSun
I think Mr. Thiel is overly optimistic that we'll have cancer licked in 10
years. Certainly some subtypes, but anyway... Mr. Thiel is in his 40s. In 10
years, he'll be nearly 60, which is weaker, but still a fairly healthy age. I
don't think he's risking dying from falls and such quite yet.

After reading Atul Gawande's book on ageing, aside from cancer and muscle
weakness, it seems that one of the biggest killers is the dissolving of your
skeleton as you age. When your skeleton weakens (e.g. in osteoporosis and
other conditions), that alone is dangerous from a bone snapping standpoint,
but those minerals and proteins don't just disappear. The excess calcium,
released toxins (e.g. previously trapped lead if you were exposed before, and
just stuff that shouldn't be in your blood), bio active proteins, etc wreck
havoc on your organ systems as they are released into your blood. I think he
mentioned that even artheosclerosis can be caused by "hard water" in your
blood.

I know there's a lot of research going on into this as well, but as a cause of
morbidity, it may be relatively overlooked as only the physical aspect is
usually acknowledged by the public.

I'd love to see a doctor weigh in on this. :)

------
hawkice
He's not concerned about cancer, but he takes human growth hormone to limit
risk of... bone injuries? Am I out of my mind or is this a several-orders-of-
magnitude confusion of relative risks?

~~~
lisper
It's not as clear-cut as that. The risk of losing muscle leading to bone
failure leading to inability to exercise leading to general decline in health
leading to premature (if your goal is 120 years) death is very high, bordering
on certainty. So increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for
a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades may not be quite as
crazy as it seems at first blush.

[UPDATE:] Note that I'm not saying that Thiel is right, only that his position
is not a self-evident "several-orders-of-magnitude confusion of relative
risks".

~~~
neverminder
As far as I know HGH doesn't increase the risk or cancer, but it speeds it up
if there is one, it's a growth hormone after all.

~~~
hawkice
This is a little fuzzy. It's likely that most organisms of a meaningful size
have _some_ number of cancerous cells, so I'm not sure that distinction is as
crisp as your phrasing. As for cancer risk, there is some reason to believe a
connection, but as with most complex medical questions, there is only so much
certainty, even in large studies, until we understand detailed mechanisms.

[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(02\)09519-3/abstract)
[https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/52/5/52_5_571/_...](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/52/5/52_5_571/_article)

------
kyllo
This sort of thing just screams of narcissism. When you're rich, famous, and
smart, it's pretty hard to accept the fact that you're eventually going to die
and you can't take any of it with you.

~~~
uptown
I'd much prefer the venture capitalists of the world to pursue what seems to
be impossible over figuring out a better way for me to share photos.

~~~
zaidf
The irony is that its his funding of a photo sharing company that made it
possible for him to pursue the impossible.

~~~
uptown
Well yes ... that and Paypal.

------
jqm
Ya well, best of luck. I hope he does it.

Unless (like so many people elderly people around today), his mind stops
working decades before his body goes. Then I'm not sure what the point would
be. It might be better to keep it all together and die a bit earlier as a
complete person. Personal preference I guess.

------
fivedogit
I find the desire that anyone would be this obsessively preoccupied with the
desire to live either forever or an extraordinarily long time unsettling, but
what I don't get is why stop at 120 years? The scientific signs pointing to
the idea that humanity will eventually be able to halt the aging process
altogether are compelling:

First, there are species of jellyfish and lobster (among others) that do not
age. The mechanism of chromosomal deterioration isn't there. There are even
plankton varieties that revert to a larval state _after_ adulthood.
Additionally, there are many life forms that, whether or not they actually
age, are thousands of years old.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-
living_organism...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-
living_organisms)

In other words, aging is far more elastic and non-linear than first meets the
eye.

And it's easy to understand why we evolved to age and die: Clearing out older
populations leaves more resources for newer, fitter ones (in the evolutionary
sense). Death became advantageous, but it's not, from a biological
perspective, necessary.

So if you combine these two ideas together -- things don't really _need_ to
die but it just so happens that humans do -- does anyone really believe that
technology won't find a way to beat the aging process, either by genetic
modification or maybe nano-level chromosome reconstruction? At some point
it'll be as "correctable" as laser eye surgery.

The implications of halting aging are staggering, earthshattering... there is
not enough hyperbole in the English language to do it justice. I just know I
don't want to be here when it happens.

~~~
aurora72
You seem to oversimplify the processes. Laser eye surgery has its own
complications. I have about 3 degrees myopia and avoid having any laser
surgery.

Aging's got more to do with "telomeres" the ends of the chromosome molecules
being shortened on each choromosome replication. I've read somewhere that some
food such as the green tea helps with the health of the telomeres and that
sounds like a more realistic way to extend life.

I'm surprised Thiel talks nothing about natural supplements and he relies only
on what's called the Human Growth Hormone. As for cancer cure, it's already
been found : Take a look at phkillscancer.com

------
chasing
The headline, here, should be:

"Founders Fund is investing in a number of biotechnology companies to extend
human lifespans."

This is a useful and interesting piece of information.

Thiel's belief that's he going to buy his way out of being hit by a bus
tomorrow is silly and it's _really_ hard to not make wise-ass comments about
it...

------
mentos
I feel like the cure to cancer is simply early detection.

Imagine some sort of device you could put in your toilet that could analyze
your urine or some sort of painless blood test in your tooth brush that can
let you know years before symptoms that you have cancer.

I think cheap, early and often screenings will be what revolutionize health.

~~~
porter
Why hasn't this been done?

~~~
surreal
Presumably because we are yet to find a way to detect cancer, years earlier,
in bodily fluids.

~~~
uptown
Dogs have had success detecting some forms of Cancer early:

[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/training-dogs-to-
sn...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/training-dogs-to-sniff-out-
cancer/?_r=0)

------
tomhschmidt
>Thiel said he also follows a Paleo diet, doesn’t eat sugar, drinks red wine
and runs regularly.

But red wine has sugar in it...

~~~
lisper
Not all sugars are created equal. In a dry red wine, most of the fructose is
gone, replaced with alcohol. Fructose is what causes most of the problems.

~~~
selmnoo
Moreover, people who say they don't eat sugar don't mean they'll never ever
eat sugar in any amount. I don't eat sugar - but I'm okay with a desert once
per month or something. I'm also willing to eat things which have minute
amount of sugar on a regular basis.

~~~
coldtea
Moreover, you have to eat some kind of sugar, or you'll die.

~~~
VLM
That's pretty much broscience unless substantial redefinition is made of "you"
"have to" "sugar" and "die".

There's plenty of broscience to go around, I only eat roughly 1800s era
quantities of sugar per year, compared to the American average being about 150
pounds/yr, so along with a bunch of people I say "zero" in general
conversation but in reality its about 5-10 pounds/yr. Well under 10% the sugar
consumption of "average american" so close enough to zero. But yeah I'll
probably eat some kind of sugar until I die, just practically none. Last week
I had a piece of family members birthday cake, how you folks eat that kind of
stuff mystifies me, I practically puked it was so sickly sweet and the
frosting was like a scoop of Crisco.

------
coldtea
Yeah, I wouldn't bet on it.

For every guy attempting to "live forever" I see a guy scared as hell of
death. That is, a person that has left the realm of the common living humans a
long time ago.

Brings to mind Michael Jackson, sleeping in an oxygen chamber and doing who
knows what to avoid disease et al - and then dying in his fifties. Or Howard
Hughes, the list is long.

Of course death is kind of scary, but being scared of death in that way is not
healthy (first and foremost psychologically). It's more important to live
(fully) than it is not to die.

If the "cure for death" comes, it won't be through BS individualistic
lifestyle experiments such as this, it would be as a scientific breakthrough,
like the cure for various diceases.

I also dislike the "screw you, I'll outlive you with my money and my access to
stuff" inherent element in this.

~~~
zo1
>" _For every guy attempting to "live forever" I see a guy scared as hell of
death. That is, a person that has left the realm of the common living humans a
long time ago._"

I don't quite see what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that someone
that is "scared as hell of death" is someone that's "left the realm of common
living humans" (whatever that may mean)? Maybe you're implying that most
living humans are not afraid of death? I'd posit that you're completely way
off mark there, judging from the amount of afterlife/re-incarnation fairy-
tales religions have been spinning for millennia in an effort to continue to
swoon the masses.

>" _Of course death is kind of scary, but being scared of death in that way is
not healthy (first and foremost psychologically). It 's more important to live
(fully) than it is not to die._"

Wow, self-aggrandizing your opinions much? Bear with me here: This discussion,
or comment (if you choose not to reply), was spawned as a result of
_conflicting opinions_ on what is important. He obviously values living
forever/longer more than he does "living fully" as you put it. You simply
stating the opposite opinion says nothing of the merits of his.

>" _I also dislike the "screw you, I'll outlive you with my money and my
access to stuff" inherent element in this._"

I really hope this wasn't the basis for your entire post, as it sounds pretty
petty at this point. Sure, he has money, lots of it. And he's using it to fund
ideas he believes in, whether they eventually pan out for the betterment of
mankind or not. And then you go around and criticize him for that? Are you
saying he can't use his money how he wishes? Must he spend it the way you
want? If so, what might that be? Some sort of grand scheme in helping people
live "life fully"?

~~~
coldtea
> _Maybe you 're implying that most living humans are not afraid of death?_

No, I'm implying that most living humans are not scared shitless of death to
the point of planning 24/7 of how to avoid it, and mostly go on with their
lives.

> _He obviously values living forever /longer more than he does "living fully"
> as you put it. You simply stating the opposite opinion says nothing of the
> merits of his._

And vice versa. Isn't it obvious?

> _Are you saying he can 't use his money how he wishes?_

I'm even more generally saying that having money and using them as one wishes
is not the be all of civilization. That is some uses of money are worse than
others, and people living in the same society have every right to criticize
them.

The same way I'd criticize someone blowing millions in a party with models and
cocaine.

------
dpweb
"I’m hopeful that we’ll get cancer cured in the next decade." Believe that
when I see it.

Seems to me we've solved the problem of near-instantaneous global
communication, but little else of the myriad of human problems has been solved
by the internet revolution.

We're nowhere with world peace and not sure we're that far along with
diseases. In fact, the US health system in 2014 is generally considered a
debacle.

I'm all for optimism and can-do attitude, but the wand waving away of really
difficult challenges that has been coming out lately.. and it's SV culture the
only ones doing it.

I hope he's right, but the cavalier attitude I just find very peculiar. This
is _immortality_ we're seriously discussing?

------
dayyan
Oh great, another article about someone who read a few studies, then basing
their entire life on it. Enough of this crap already.

------
kolev
That's very modest. I plan to live longer to live forever. I'm not sure why
people call it "fear of death". Of course, I'm scared of death, but that's not
what makes me want to extend my life - it's the curiosity of how we can
advance our civilization and the desire to help personally as much as I can. I
want to witness us becoming an interplanetary civilization at least, maybe
even interstellar. I want to see AI 50 years from now. I want to see my grand-
grand-grand-grand children, and so on. So, let's not focus on the fear,
please!

~~~
heurist
Have you considered that civilization might be better off if people don't live
a long time? Even ignoring resource constraints, old people hold onto outdated
ideas and morals while generally also holding the most power and wealth. I
don't see how that can be good for future societies.

~~~
kolev
I agree. Evolution designed us to die and pass information to newer and less
flawed offsprings. But my point was that we need to be able to contribute
unique benefits otherwise will be nothing, but burden. Look at Stephen Hawing,
for example. His brain regardless of physical condition is contributing
greatly to our civilization. So, again, the filter should always be - are you
worthy of living long or not. Given the fact that most of people who live
today contribute nothing, but a ton of shit (literally speaking) in their
lifetime, unconditional life extension looks like a terrible idea (unless we
advance to the interstellar level and use more resources than what's available
on our sorry planet). Unfortunately, a reasonable thing like this would be
considered unethical given today's standards although our society is indeed
more unethical than ever. Until we grow to a level where the benefit of the
group if above the benefit of niches, we'll be confined on this planet, we'll
be suffering from our broken system, which is based on dollars and not merits.
I highly recommend for hackers to get familiar with The Venus Project [0] and
the philosophy of Jacque Fresco [1], who many call the Leonardo da Vinci of
the modern day. Although my ideas are different, we have a very common theme -
the current system is terribly broken.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco)

------
moocow01
Is this what a midlife crisis looks like for a billionaire venture capitalist
?

------
ultraorangeand
Even death is an evolved trait. It's not a problem to be solved. It's a fact
of life and a feature of our being just like intelligence.

A person who wants to live forever must believe the resources of the planet
belong to them rather than future generations. It's simply narcissism and
small mindedness. It's also stupid to think that being a good investor makes a
person ethically or scientifically knowledgable.

On the contrary, Thiel is being taken to the cleaners by quacks...

------
forthefuture
I'm more surprised he thinks he'll only live 120 years.

------
thirdknife
He is a venture capitalist and a serial entrepreneur.

------
sparkzilla
Why not 121 years? What a quitter!

