Possible New Anti-Aging Drug to begin human trials

[The Sons of Adam]

The human condition being what it is, I dont see extending the age of venerability as any great benefit. For the most part, we will just mess about longer, creating bigger problems for the upcoming generation that now has to wait longer in the wings before coming onto the stage to attempt redressing the wrongs.

It can also work the other way around. Now that the chance of living several decades longer in good health and with a properly functioning brain is upon the human race, the risk of harvesting the bitter fruits of all those ecocidal seeds sown by those who were of the opinion that they would have perished by now suddenly becomes a lot bigger. Ecological awareness might actually increase because of it, if only for personal reasons.

And now that people live longer, more knowledge can be stored during one lifetime. Think of the innovation!

[Kilobugya]

a large demand will by nature of being large cause prices to rise as a lot of people contest for a limited supply of the drug. So even under ideal conditions things will still get pricy.

That just doesn't hold - the so-called "law" of supply and demand only is (somewhat) valid when you consider one term of the equation (supply or demand) is fixed and cannot be changed. That's the not the case here - an increase demand usually yields an increase in supply, not an increase in price. Computers or cell phones, or even wheat and rice, are cheaper that they were decades/centuries ago, even if the demand is far higher. Actually it's quite frequent that a massive increase in demand, after a small transition period, ends up in lower price per unit, because it justifies investments to mass produce the good.

At the end, what determines price is the amount of labor required to produce it, and the amount of labor required to massively produce the drug doesn't have to be high per unit.

[Kilobugya]

I don't really see the point of this drug, to be honest.

If you didn't see the point of taking a substance to live longer, you would stop eating or drinking. Or at the very least, you wouldn't ever take antibiotics nor vaccines nor ... This drug is supposed to allow everyone to live in good condition up to ~120 years, the maximal lifespan some humans already have, nothing radically different here from anything else you do to keep being alive a bit longer.

Death after all is the great equalizer: no matter how good or evil you are, no matter if you are a billionaire or someone who only has a penny to his name, you all die in the end.

Hum and ? That's a non-sequitur. Some people are blind, or deaf, so we should make everyone blind or deaf to equalize ? Equality is definitely something important, but that doesn't mean "equality at any cost, even at the cost of annihilation" is something to praise.

And if one is immortal, and can live forever... it will be impossible because your mind will eventually wear out.

This is not about being immortal, but merely about people living for ~120 years. Arguments against immortality are pointless for that. I definitely disagree with your view about immortality, but that's not the topic.

[Purpelia]

That just doesn't hold - the so-called "law" of supply and demand only is (somewhat) valid when you consider one term of the equation (supply or demand) is fixed and cannot be changed. That's the not the case here - an increase demand usually yields an increase in supply, not an increase in price. Computers or cell phones, or even wheat and rice, are cheaper that they were decades/centuries ago, even if the demand is far higher. Actually it's quite frequent that a massive increase in demand, after a small transition period, ends up in lower price per unit, because it justifies investments to mass produce the good.

At the end, what determines price is the amount of labor required to produce it, and the amount of labor required to massively produce the drug doesn't have to be high per unit.

My point is that no matter what you do the companies can just limit supply and thus rack the prices up. Corporations are entities specifically designed to rape people for fun and profit. Newer forget that.

[Alvecia]

Having a basic knowledge of how biology works, I won't hold out much hope until the results of teh trials get back.
That said, that it managed to get to human trials says a lot about it's potential efficacy.
Still.

[Kilobugya]

My point is that no matter what you do the companies can just limit supply and thus rack the prices up. Corporations are entities specifically designed to rape people for fun and profit. Newer forget that.

Corporations are indeed, "entities specifically designed to rape people for fun and profit", but that doesn't mean there is no way to fight/control/limit it. Laws can fix prices (we do it here for some drugs, we did it for almost two centuries for bread), they can allow competitors to clone your drugs, and you can even have state-owned factories producing them (as they are doing in Ecuador for example, they recently opened state-owned factories for some drugs that were overpriced by corporations).

[The Sons of Adam]

Common people's opinions of corporations are usually a kneejerk kick in the balls reaction. What is so bad about corporations anyways? I mean, as long as they are regulated they should do good and not cause much problems. Or is it just that they make money?

[Purpelia]

Common people's opinions of corporations are usually a kneejerk kick in the balls reaction. What is so bad about corporations anyways? I mean, as long as they are regulated they should do good and not cause much problems. Or is it just that they make money?

What's bad is that they are mechanisms for producing wealth designed in such a way that a small group of individuals who do not actually contribute in any way, shape or form get to claim massive profits whilst the huge mass of workers who actually contribute toward the creation of that wealth only ever get to see a small fraction of it.

[The Sons of Adam]

Common people's opinions of corporations are usually a kneejerk kick in the balls reaction. What is so bad about corporations anyways? I mean, as long as they are regulated they should do good and not cause much problems. Or is it just that they make money?

What's bad is that they are mechanisms for producing wealth designed in such a way that a small group of individuals who do not actually contribute in any way, shape or form get to claim massive profits whilst the huge mass of workers who actually contribute toward the creation of that wealth only ever get to see a small fraction of it.

Proof? And are you talking about investors (who usually are people who worked in the field)? Or the people who don't work at all but collect other people's wealth (for example welfare systems).

[Purpelia]

Proof? And are you talking about investors (who usually are people who worked in the field)? Or the people who don't work at all but collect other people's wealth (for example welfare systems).

Are you for real? Seriously? You want proof that the people who own a business take money from that business even though they do not in fact work in said business and thus do not contribute to the earning of said money? That is self evident.

[Alvecia]

Common people's opinions of corporations are usually a kneejerk kick in the balls reaction. What is so bad about corporations anyways? I mean, as long as they are regulated they should do good and not cause much problems. Or is it just that they make money?

What's bad is that they are mechanisms for producing wealth designed in such a way that a small group of individuals who do not actually contribute in any way, shape or form get to claim massive profits whilst the huge mass of workers who actually contribute toward the creation of that wealth only ever get to see a small fraction of it.

I think corporations are more of a tool than an inherent evil. If a corporation is run by the right people in the right way then it can be a force for good.
I think they can be analagous to guns. You could argue that much like guns, corporations are only as evil as the person/s wielding it.

[The Sons of Adam]

Proof? And are you talking about investors (who usually are people who worked in the field)? Or the people who don't work at all but collect other people's wealth (for example welfare systems).

Are you for real? Seriously? You want proof that the people who own a business take money from that business even though they do not in fact work in said business and thus do not contribute to the earning of said money? That is self evident.

The people who own the business usually either work in the same field for the business, created it, or are rich enough (through generations of hard labor) to make money off the business. Of course they contribute by investing. Without investment, a business cannot have the capital to produce its goods or pay its employees. It is a system where everyone wins.

[The Sons of Adam]

What's bad is that they are mechanisms for producing wealth designed in such a way that a small group of individuals who do not actually contribute in any way, shape or form get to claim massive profits whilst the huge mass of workers who actually contribute toward the creation of that wealth only ever get to see a small fraction of it.

I think corporations are more of a tool than an inherent evil. If a corporation is run by the right people in the right way then it can be a force for good.
I think they can be analagous to guns. You could argue that much like guns, corporations are only as evil as the person/s wielding it.

*applauds

[Kraylandia]

It probably won't work in the first place, but meh I don't really want to live past 60 or 70 anyway.

Once again this weird age thing... what specifically bothers you about being older than 60?

Just wouldn't enjoy it, the quality of life deteriorates a bit and life and the planet is shit as it is.

[Kilobugya]

Proof?

The whole stock market system is the proof of it And even for companies which aren't publically traded on the stock market, it's usually a tiny few owners and executives who pocket most of the wealth created.

And are you talking about investors (who usually are people who worked in the field)?

No, they are not. "Investors" are often bankers, rich heirs of rich families, or lucky people who managed to trick others and get away with it. And even for the few who did work in the field, they still aren't the ones who did any major contribution to the field. Even if you take a field where "investors" are more likely close to your romanced view of it, like computer science, it's not the people who invented the Web (Tim Barner Lee) or made massive progress in programming languages or operating systems (Denis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Ken Thompson, Andew S. Taneunbaum, ...) who end up being billionaire, but the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs predators.

But that is just the surface of the iceberg, the real wealth is produced as much by the famous people than by the ones without whom they would be nothing - the chinese factory workers who assemble the computers on which they work, the immigrant who wakes up at 4am to clean their office for a misery pay, the farmer who didn't take a week-end in months to feed them. And those only get crumbs of the wealth that, without them, couldn't be produced.

Or the people who don't work at all but collect other people's wealth (for example welfare systems).

Welfare system are not, by the far, any significant source of "people who don't work at all but collect other people's wealth". Even in a country like France, which has a (relatively) extensive social welfare system, the total amount of money given into welfare is like 10% of the dividends collected by the stock owners of the 40 biggest companies. And the stock owners get that money just because they already had money to buy stock, without contributing any labor - if they happen to also contribute labor, like top executives often do, they get a (very high) wage in addition to those dividends, those dividends are exactly "people who don't work at all but collect other people's wealth".

As for the people who do are on welfare, most are on welfare because the corporations fired them (or refused to employ them) to maximize the stock holders profits, and even then many still contribute to society in many ways, from learning new skills so they can get a job later, to taking care of their relatives (children, elderly parents, ...) to participating in NGOs to ...

[Kilobugya]

I think corporations are more of a tool than an inherent evil. If a corporation is run by the right people in the right way then it can be a force for good.

Corporations are owned and controlled by shareholders, and their purpose is to maximize the (short-term) profits of the shareholders. If you the CEO runs a corporation for "the greater good", he'll be sacked by the shareholders.

Part of the communist/socialist movement is actually to try to change that, to have "corporations" (controlled by shareholders for shareholders interests) be replaced by cooperatives (controlled by the workers), public services (controlled by the elected government) or mutual organization (controlled by the users/customers), or a mix between those.

I think they can be analagous to guns. You could argue that much like guns, corporations are only as evil as the person/s wielding it.

That's quite a bad analogy, but guns are designed to kill anyway, they are not neutral, and they are "evil" for all meaningful purpose of evil.

[Purpelia]

*applauds

I'll just ask you a very simple question. It's so simple you can't possibly get it wrong. I'll even help you by saying that the answer is a number.
So, are you ready? Here is the question.

Imagine I am the owner of a shoe factory. I don't work in the factory or anything. I just own it. The factory produces 500 pairs of shoes per day.
The question is: How many of those shoes did I personally make?

[Bojikami]

Good, I suppose. But only if it is readily available to most people.

[The Novakian Empire]

Wow!
This is great!

[Alvecia]

I think corporations are more of a tool than an inherent evil. If a corporation is run by the right people in the right way then it can be a force for good.

Corporations are owned and controlled by shareholders, and their purpose is to maximize the (short-term) profits of the shareholders. If you the CEO runs a corporation for "the greater good", he'll be sacked by the shareholders.

That's only necessarily true for publicly owned companies. A company can be owned by one or more people who have long-term benefits and human interests in mind.

Part of the communist/socialist movement is actually to try to change that, to have "corporations" (controlled by shareholders for shareholders interests) be replaced by cooperatives (controlled by the workers), public services (controlled by the elected government) or mutual organization (controlled by the users/customers), or a mix between those.

This I have no objection to, having more of these would be a nice thing.

I think they can be analagous to guns. You could argue that much like guns, corporations are only as evil as the person/s wielding it.

That's quite a bad analogy, but guns are designed to kill anyway, they are not neutral, and they are "evil" for all meaningful purpose of evil.

I disagree. Guns are designed to do damage to another human, true. But that is not necessarily a bad thing if the purpose is in self defense or in defense of others.
Claiming that tools have alignments depending on thier designed purpose is a bit silly. Kitchen knives are designed for cutting up food for people to eat, which is a good thing. But they can still be used to kill people. An example of a "good" tool being used for evil purposes.

[Alvecia]

*applauds

I'll just ask you a very simple question. It's so simple you can't possibly get it wrong. I'll even help you by saying that the answer is a number.
So, are you ready? Here is the question.

Imagine I am the owner of a shoe factory. I don't work in the factory or anything. I just own it. The factory produces 500 pairs of shoes per day.
The question is: How many of those shoes did I personally make?

Well the answer is obviously 0. You are, however, cutting out many relevant nuances form your example.

[Kilobugya]

Corporations are owned and controlled by shareholders, and their purpose is to maximize the (short-term) profits of the shareholders. If you the CEO runs a corporation for "the greater good", he'll be sacked by the shareholders.

That's only necessarily true for publicly owned companies. A company can be owned by one or more people who have long-term benefits and human interests in mind.

Publicly owned companies are the biggest and most powerful ones, and even among the others, they still mostly operate the same way (seeking short-term profits), and for the few that don't, they can change by a whim of the owner (or when they are sold, or when the owner dies, ...). You can't reliably trust a corporation to do good on the long term.

I disagree. Guns are designed to do damage to another human, true. But that is not necessarily a bad thing if the purpose is in self defense or in defense of others.

No, a gun isn't a shield, it's an offensive weapons, that can't be used for defense - firearms give a huge advantage to offense, to the one who fires first, rewarding the more violent, and triggering an escalation of violence through simple game theoretical effects.

Claiming that tools have alignments depending on thier designed purpose is a bit silly. Kitchen knives are designed for cutting up food for people to eat, which is a good thing. But they can still be used to kill people. An example of a "good" tool being used for evil purposes.

Every tool can be used for good or for evil, sure. But that doesn't mean what it's designed for, nor how it is designed, is irrelevant. A good kitchen knife and a good fighting knife will not be identical. One makes cutting food easier, one makes killing people easier. Tools are loaded with the intent for which they were created, they make doing good or doing evil more likely, and therefore can be considered aligned, even if indirectly so.

The same apply for juridical structures, the juridical structure of corporations is not aimed towards doing good, it's much more easily exploited to rip profits regardless of consequences. That occasionally they can be used for good doesn't change that they make doing evil much easier than doing good, and that's what they were designed for.

[Alvecia]

That's only necessarily true for publicly owned companies. A company can be owned by one or more people who have long-term benefits and human interests in mind.

Publicly owned companies are the biggest and most powerful ones, and even among the others, they still mostly operate the same way (seeking short-term profits), and for the few that don't, they can change by a whim of the owner (or when they are sold, or when the owner dies, ...). You can't reliably trust a corporation to do good on the long term.

I wouldn't disagree. All I'm pointing out it that it is possible for a privately owned corporation to be objectively good.

I disagree. Guns are designed to do damage to another human, true. But that is not necessarily a bad thing if the purpose is in self defense or in defense of others.

No, a gun isn't a shield, it's an offensive weapons, that can't be used for defense - firearms give a huge advantage to offense, to the one who fires first, rewarding the more violent, and triggering an escalation of violence through simple game theoretical effects.

The saying "the best defense is a good offense" is a very valid one here, I think.

Claiming that tools have alignments depending on thier designed purpose is a bit silly. Kitchen knives are designed for cutting up food for people to eat, which is a good thing. But they can still be used to kill people. An example of a "good" tool being used for evil purposes.

Every tool can be used for good or for evil, sure. But that doesn't mean what it's designed for, nor how it is designed, is irrelevant. A good kitchen knife and a good fighting knife will not be identical. One makes cutting food easier, one makes killing people easier. Tools are loaded with the intent for which they were created, they make doing good or doing evil more likely, and therefore can be considered aligned, even if indirectly so.

The same apply for juridical structures, the juridical structure of corporations is not aimed towards doing good, it's much more easily exploited to rip profits regardless of consequences. That occasionally they can be used for good doesn't change that they make doing evil much easier than doing good, and that's what they were designed for.

Again, I disagree with regards to guns, but if we drop the analogy and go back to corporations, I don't think that because you can use something for one purpose much more easily that another that means that it was designed as such. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that such an exploit could be purely coincidental.
I also think that there is just not enough evidence to suggest that corporations were designed with evil in mind. In fact I think logically it is much more likely that the current corporate structure evolved organically out of smaller businesses growing to accomodate a larger and larger market.

[New Chalcedon]

More recreational chemicals for the filthy rich.

Eh, the drug has been around since the 20's and dosages cost pennies per day.

Eh, don't worry. There's a Martin Shkreli for every drug out there!

[The Sons of Adam]

*applauds

I'll just ask you a very simple question. It's so simple you can't possibly get it wrong. I'll even help you by saying that the answer is a number.
So, are you ready? Here is the question.

Imagine I am the owner of a shoe factory. I don't work in the factory or anything. I just own it. The factory produces 500 pairs of shoes per day.
The question is: How many of those shoes did I personally make?

The perentage of shoes that you invested to create.

* EDIT

IF they hadn't invested in the company in the first place, I don't think the company would produce much of the stuff they made, and the workers would be payed less.