"Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology?"
Is there? Is this a widely accepted scientific fact? What does this even mean? That you can't get a benefit without a cost? I thought that this phrase comes from economics. I think you're thinking of economics which is... not human biology.
"Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that."
So just accept the fact that we all die and not learn about our bodies? I mean I don't know; some of us value being alive and prefer to stay that way if possible. Do you not also see dying as a problem?
If you were to know that you were going to die tomorrow you wouldn't see that as a problem? Or is it only not a problem if you die at the sort of average full human lifespan age of ~70-80? Why is dying then ok and not tomorrow?
You see I'm also a human being such as you who values life and people. It's a bit harsh to comment about my world view sarcastically like that.
I was just voicing something about the process: biology is a complex thing and longevity is not attacking things from a metabolic, complex-system viewpoint. As we see here, we are after single pills or single gene activations to carry us to a healthy state. I doubt infinite health unlocks in such form.
Another point is, if you transform yourself to this new state that's immortal but lose most of the biology that makes your body human, what does it mean? (reference to Leto Atreides II here maybe)
Why do people suddenly make it unethical to view death as most-probably-inevitable for human beings?
There’s a big difference between being immortal and not having to die at some preprogrammed time that is purely a byproduct of our evolutionary history. It’s a spectrum.
We don’t know what it will take to make us healthier/love longer.
All we are doing is trying to understand our bodies.
All cancer and heart healthier research is also trying to effectively increase human lifespan. So are anti smoking campaigns and seat belts.
No one would comment the way you did for these. We just take these for granted as a good thing.
But trying to understand the genetic basis of aging is however you put it.
There are other mammals who live much longer than humans. Evolution optimized for continuation of the species, not longevity of the individual. So there is absolutely optimization room for increasing human lifespan.
> There are other mammals who live much longer than humans.
This didn't ring true to me so I did a bit of reading. AFAICT there's one[0] species of mammal that can live much longer than us. We're at least tied for second-longest lifespan of all mammals.
I think you should look at it in terms of lifetime calories burned per unit of body mass. Most mammals have very similar lifespan measured in this manner. With the exception of bats. Because they really needed to burn way more calories, so they figured it out how to do it without accumulating damage to their bodies that eventually leads to death at the same lousy rate that all other mammals can get away with.
Is there? Is this a widely accepted scientific fact? What does this even mean? That you can't get a benefit without a cost? I thought that this phrase comes from economics. I think you're thinking of economics which is... not human biology.
"Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that."
So just accept the fact that we all die and not learn about our bodies? I mean I don't know; some of us value being alive and prefer to stay that way if possible. Do you not also see dying as a problem?
If you were to know that you were going to die tomorrow you wouldn't see that as a problem? Or is it only not a problem if you die at the sort of average full human lifespan age of ~70-80? Why is dying then ok and not tomorrow?