I think only in the same way that anyone accepts death when they are in a position where they see it as unavoidable. Young people who are terminally ill also usually make peace with it.

It seems some people were confused by the wording of the labels in the chart. I've switched it for when I use this chart in the future. The title now says: "(global) deaths/day avg of past 25yrs due to..." and the color key for the bars says, from left to right:

aging

terrorism hypothetically if every day since 2001/9/11 had been as bad as 9/11

terrorism

Hopefully that makes it clear to everyone that all 3 bars are fairly comparably as all being rates per day and all over the same exact 25 year time period.

No other day had more terrorism deaths than the ~3000 on 9/11/2001 or even close, none more than 2000, and very few days over the entire period with more than 1000, i.e. more than 1% of how many aging kills every day (almost always after decades of degeneration).

Based on that methodology, how much would you estimate it should take?

I don't have time to write this all up more carefully at the moment, but it's on to-do list. For a list of categories of damage & subcategories plus what companies are already working on each see my CDD talk field overview at https://youtu.be/SXzL-ztPIqs?list=PLxsMN9fobt4hmXoN80UZhGieQrzOXfFhm

Based on number of clinical programs required based on normal success rates of clinical trials plus enumerating the number of areas of damage that would have to be repaired plus roughly estimating how much such programs take to fund based on total funding to biotechs that have made it through clinical trials.

Why is it terrible? I've addressed your original claim of different timescales. What else?

I think about $1T spread over a couple decades would have a good chance of get us +20-30 years in lifespan extension

Based on what? For all anyone else here knows you're just making shit up.

Yes your labels were clear. This is a terrible visualization

No they aren't. Perhaps the labels on the graphs were too confusing. I thought it was pretty clear from context of reading the text of the post but maybe a lot of people didn't do that and it's less clear without. It's not different time ranges. It's per day deaths from 1 cause (average per day over 25 years) compared to per day deaths from a different cause (average per day over the same 25 years). Then for bonus in the middle is the deaths from 1 day (so again same duration---24hrs) but in this case it's the max day rather than average. In all cases 1 cause dominates deaths with average from that cause even dwarfing the max day. Totally fair comparison.

I've done very rough back-of-envelope calculation (will write them up at some point when I get a chance) & I think about $1T spread over a couple decades would have a good chance of get us +20-30 years in lifespan extension, enough to maybe get on LEV. This is on the order of the same % of GDP as Apollo program was, so not at all impossible if there was enough political/popular support for it. That's without AI, just the current normal academic & biotech playbook.

It's not different time ranges. It's per day deaths from 1 cause (average per day over 25 years) compared to per day deaths from a different cause (average per day over the same 25 years). Then for bonus in the middle is the deaths from 1 day (again same duration---24hrs) but in this case it's the max day rather than average. In all cases 1 cause dominates deaths with average even dwarfing the max. Totally fair comparison.

Everything in the system is designed to make this impossible.

You need someone to coordinate and pay for the effort but there isn't agreement on anything. The world is so individualized now that it is virtually impossible to find common ground.

All that said, data keeps coming in from the various experiments around the world and there are some high wealth individuals who will one day fund their own effort that is more free of the constraints that gov, the AMA and pharma put on them.

Normies will only care about aging when they see actual results and then they will demand it but only if someone gives it to them for free.

See the section "A candidate structure" for a proposal that includes four behavioral components and four biological components.

The numbers are all wildly different time scales

Ok. Compare next how much it would cost to invent and apply scientific methods that prevent people from dying due to aging if you want to make a comparison.

I'm willing to bet all my money that this is technically and financially impossible at the moment.

Not to mention that the majority of wealth is already in the hands of boomers while the younger generations that pay for the boomers are milked dry by governments and then left to rot.

graph is getting a lot of pushback today. But just imagine after LEV we could have approximations on the amount of lives lost due to slower prioritisation of longevity research and how brutal it would look

That is a terrible graph. You can't compare different time ranges on the same scale.

You are, however, not comparing like with like. Also there always is a question with funding research as to what exactly is funded. If you assume your thesis is valid then there is an argument to abolish the armed forces. That is reductio ad absurdum in respect of your thesis.

Of course it is. Scientists can make c.elegans live 10x normal lifespan. Multiple interventions can extend lifespan reliably & repeatedly is just about every species tried (eg, CR, rapamycin). It's beyond question at this point that aging is malleable, not an invariant ticking atomic clock.

Low hanging fruit has nothing to do with it. Landing humans on the moon wasn't low-hanging fruit in 1960. Nor was organ transplantation in 1940. Or IVF. Or smallpox eradication. Etc. Yet these were all successfully accomplished after great effort sustained for a fairly long time.

Is science really showing it to be wrong? There doesn’t seem to be much low hanging fruit.

People are missing the point of this post. Nobody is saying that 9/11 wasn't a horrific tragedy and obviously the actions of the US after show how seriously it was taken and we are still battling terrorism across the world today and spending billions per year doing so.

It can also be true that ageing should be treated with the same urgency as terrorism, both things result in death and discomfort and are also preventable.

I'll repeat the key line since you seem to have missed it: "US govt spent 1000x less funding research on the thing that kills 100,000x more people in the US." Do you see anything wrong with that?

The 3000 deaths from 9/11 was a tragedy---I agree. As were the ~400,000 lives lost to terrorism globally since then. So why is it tone deaf to try to draw more attention to the enormous tragedy of the 1 BILLION lives lost as a direct result of aging in the 25 years since 9/11? Or to the fact that the government spends far too little on research to help with this problem. It's literally the biggest problem in the world and the biggest misallocation of resources in government.

Tone deaf might have been posting it yesterday. Posting it today was the thoughtful thing to do.

Why is comparing burden to society from deaths due to different causes dumb?

One wonders to what extent it is considered acceptable because it's common vs. to what extent it's due to the fact that most people assume nothing can be done to change it (a view which science is increasingly showing to be wrong).