

Who wants to live forever? Scientist sees aging cured - XH
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110704/lf_nm_life/us_ageing_cure

======
Unseelie
I'm not sure this article is worthy of hacker news. It doesn't cite any new
information about De-Grey, just rehashes the same arguments he's been making
(but not testing) for the last decade at least. In such, its really not news
to anyone but those who've never heard of De-Grey.

------
Hisoka
So this means it's of utmost importance that you stay alive for the next 25-50
years so you don't die before this technology comes out.

And when it does come out, chances are it'll be uber expensive initially, so
it's also critical you start a multi-million dollar startup in your lifetime.

Hmm.. finally some motivation for me to exercise regularly and not be lazy
hacking at my side business =)

------
ryandvm
What could go wrong?

~~~
michaelchisari
Good question, what could go wrong? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

~~~
ryandvm
7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring might put a bit of a
strain on our natural resources. Or if you're going to halt all reproduction
then you've just ended human evolution.

Those seem like good starting points for a discussion on the ramifications of
immortality.

That said, I'm more of a shoot first, aim later kind of guy so I say go for
it...

~~~
gte910h
People have vastly curtailed their childbearing world over:
[http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-
rates-...](http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-rates-in-
decline/)

Even with no death from aging/age-related diseases, insurance company
actuaries still see you dying around 500-600.

These two things together make me think this is all okay 1> Especially if
fertility/birth defects no longer get worse with age, people will hold off on
having kids. 2> It won't swell the world population as much as many think it
will due to the fact that costs still limit people.

