Slashdot Mirror


How Venture Capitalist Peter Thiel Plans To Live 120 Years

HughPickens.com writes Bloomberg News reports that venture capitalist and paypal co-founder Peter Thiel has a plan to reach 120 years of age. His secret — taking human growth hormone (HGH) every day, a special Paleo diet, and a cure for cancer within ten years. "[HGH] helps maintain muscle mass, so you're much less likely to get bone injuries, arthritis," says Thiel. "There's always a worry that it increases your cancer risk but — I'm hopeful that we'll get cancer cured in the next decade." Human growth hormone also known as somatotropin or somatropin, is a peptide hormone that stimulates growth, cell reproduction and regeneration in humans and other animals. Thiel says he also follows a Paleo diet, doesn't eat sugar, drinks red wine and runs regularly. The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet, is a modern nutritional diet designed to emulate, insofar as possible using modern foods, the diet of wild plants and animals eaten by humans during the Paleolithic era. Thiel's Founders Fund is also investing in a number of biotechnology companies to extend human lifespans, including Stem CentRx Inc., which uses stem cell technology for cancer therapy. With the 70 plus years remaining him and inspired by "Atlas Shrugged," Thiel also plans to launch a floating sovereign nation in international waters, freeing him and like-minded thinkers to live by libertarian ideals with no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.

441 comments

  1. Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by user.aaaaa · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... or how long paleolitic people lived

    1. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by powerlinekid · · Score: 1, Interesting

      30 years was about right for the paleolithic. Neolithic though, our best guess is around 20.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    2. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Based on my exposure to his ilk it's about 20 years more than they deserve.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Derec01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The paleo diet might end up being silly, but just once I'd like to see this discussion without the kneejerk "20-30 year life expectancy".

      If you made it to 15 years of age or so in a hunter-gatherer society, you might reasonably expect to survive to 60. As an infant, you are highly likely to fall prey to disease or poor care, pushing the life expectancy at birth way down on average even though those deaths usually had nothing to do with the diet of a mature adult in the community. Adults didn't usually drop dead at 30 from poor nutrition.

    4. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only due to the dinosaurs you had to evade back then

    5. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Read up on the anthropology, especially about the value of grandparents. Also be careful to avoid means as averages in such cases.

      Hint: healthy humans don't undergo menarche until they're about twelve, and human children do not survive well if their parents die off before they're eight.

      There's evidence that life expectancy went down with agriculture, though housing heralds an improvement for infant mortality so the means go up, though tempered by increased disease.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Neolithic people dying at age 20? So that gives humans at the time only a few years from when they hit puberty until they die to have and [begin to] raise children? I can hear the kids now: "My parents were so old when they died, I actually vaguely remember them!"

    7. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by alphatel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
      Taggart: God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    8. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And grandma was a baboon!

    9. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Puberty starts 8-12 in modern humans. Puberty of women is the only thing that matters (a single post-pubescent male can inpregnate hundreds of women, but one woman can't carry more than one child at a time (exceptions for rare twins and such). And it doesn't matter if you live after giving birth, other than to reproduce again. It's only been about 100 years since the number 1 killer of women was childbirth. The non-breeders raised the breeders. One man would impregnate as many women as possible, and fertile women would be pregnant as much as possible, until dead.

      6-8 years of parenthood was enough. And the tribe would raise the children jointly, as the males died often getting food or warring with others, and the mothers were either pregnant or dead.

    10. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a winner. For all our talk about how capitalism has increased life expectancy, it's mostly drastic reduction in infant mortality thanks to government sanitation efforts.

    11. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Life expectancy didn't exceed much above 30 until the upper paleolithic, around 30,000 years ago there was a steep rise in the number of teeth from individuals older than 30. There were of course those who managed to make it to what we would in modern times consider old age, but from all the evidence we have they were extreme outliers until around that period.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    12. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The simple version is that it's a diet without grains and pasta and chips and Doritos and French fries with everything. AKA you aren't gorging on starches. Root veggies are allowed (maybe fries? Think more cut tater chunks).

      Look at your common diet and see how much bread (buns, sub, sandwich) pizza, pasta, donuts, muffins, potato chips, Funyons, much calories, taste good. die yung.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Quirkz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Puberty starts 8-12 in modern humans.

      Very modern humans with excellent nutrition. It can be delayed by poor nutrition. I'm pretty sure I've seen people talking about that number dipping lower in recent centuries. I suspect it was higher in neo/paleolithic ages, when the food supply was less consistent.

    14. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      30 years was about right for the paleolithic. Neolithic though, our best guess is around 20.

      Really? Since the neolithic was later than the paleolithic what did people do that dropped the life expectancy so much? I realize that the number is heavily skewed by a large infant mortality rate and that those surviving to adulthood lived a lot longer than the average but still to drop 10 years while technology was improving seems very strange - how robust is the data supporting this huge drop?

    15. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ben Franklin lived to be 80.

      Average Life Expectancy in America in 1903 was 47.

      Data isn't really going to guide us here.

    16. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's also probably in part due to reduction of infectious disease epidemics, again through sanitation (no more cholera and plague). Also, antiseptic birth, or how that thing is called - which I'm not sure if it counts as "sanitation" as such, but again, a similar principle. And food security, perhaps? That's the only major non-hygiene-related factor that I can come up with. Famines were a regular occurrence in pre-modern times, after all.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by pnutjam · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's silly, people lived well into their 40's, 50's, and 60's. Most 60 year old adults are not invalids. Life expectancy of a 20 year old was not vastly different from today, now life expectancy of an infant is another story.

    18. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Probably started killing one another over religion.

    19. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it doesn't matter if you live after giving birth ...

      That can be compensated by more females than males being born. Unfortunately, that is rare in human societies. So a woman needs to produce 2.1 offspring to maintain the population. Dying from the first pregnancy doesn't achieve that.

      ... One man would impregnate as many women as possible ...

      That would quickly cause in-breeding as all the children are related to one another. The animal kingdom prevents this by changing the male every year or by making the females highly promiscuous.

    20. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, the #1 killer of Paleolithic people over 30 was failing to outrun the velociraptors.

    21. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by synaptik · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that was the mean, not the median.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    22. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musta been all the booze and French whores. Seems like it's worth exploring for science!

    23. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      They started eating unleavened bread. That's what happened. The population was too high to live on a hunter-gatherer diet by then.

      The skeletons of that time usually have rickets and stunted growth.

    24. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      No, it was failing to outrun your fellow hunters who were fleeing at the same time.

    25. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you on that count, but the paleo diet is still flawed in that its fundamental premise - that at some point in the past mankind was somehow in sync with their environment, and their diet at that point was perfectly aligned with their nutritional needs.

      This is apparently because our ancestors evolved to a stable state on one diet over a very long period of time.

      This is a massive, and wrong, assumption. Humans were never in perfect harmony with their environment, even if such a condition is at all possible.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    26. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People didn't drop dead, but were typically picked off. Disease, infection, exposure, wild animal attacks, being killed by other cavedudes - the fact is that most cavemen didn't know what nutrition was because there was no real sense of "How do I live longer?" besides "Find warm place, food not kill me, lucky enough to not catch illness" and then the people who did live to 60 it was like "Holy shit dude, you're magical or something, tell me a bit about what you think about things" and that's the scoop.

    27. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like the Sandmen...

    28. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We've never measured life expectancy as a measure of life expectancy of a 5-year old. That would be a better measure. The reason the USA is now trailing in life expectancy is the high infant mortality rate. The life expectancy works if you are looking at population growth and birth rates, but doesn't work as a predictor of longevity.

      That, and you gave no infant mortality rates, I don't think they are significantly different than 200 years ago, for which we had more reasonable records. But that childhood and such were so much more dangerous.

    29. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And it doesn't matter if you live after giving birth, other than to reproduce again.

      Pause for just one second and it becomes clear that the mother's survival after childbirth is pretty damn important. Somebody has to care for the baby, feed the baby, teach the baby, protect the baby. Humans are not sharks, born fully-formed knowing everything they need and ready to fend for themselves.

      Even your own theory is self-contradictory - if all that matters is childbirth, why would lactation reduce fertility?

      You'd shit all over someone for such know-nothing pontification on a computer topic, so why do you indulge in it for a human biology topic?

    30. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Pause for just one second and it becomes clear that the mother's survival after childbirth is pretty damn important. Somebody has to care for the baby, feed the baby, teach the baby, protect the baby. Humans are not sharks, born fully-formed knowing everything they need and ready to fend for themselves.

      So every time a baby is born, everyone else in the village dies?

      Even your own theory is self-contradictory - if all that matters is childbirth, why would lactation reduce fertility?

      Because getting the baby to self-sufficiency (or at least solid food) is necessary, and the calories for that decrease gestational efficiency. The single largest killer of women until the early 1900s was childbirth. Are you asserting that 100% of babies born to mothers that died out died? Because that would contradict your contradiction. Birth is more important than anything else, including the mother's life. Though a 1:1 reproduction rate with the mother dying every time wouldn't work for long.

      You'd shit all over someone for such know-nothing pontification on a computer topic, so why do you indulge in it for a human biology topic?

      Just because you know nothing of biology and tribal culture doesn't mean I can't know something on the topic.

    31. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The interesting thing is when researchers did plots of estimated ages of paleolithic skeletons, the population showed exponential decay from the age of maturity. For modern populations in advanced societies the # deaths vs. age of death curve is relatively flat until you start getting into the 60s and 70s.

      What this tells you is that paleolithic people didn't die from age related causes. They got picked off by accident, mishap, violence or infections that cut down people in their prime, so it made no difference whether you were 16 or 30, your chances for surviving another year were the same.

      So this kind of makes sense; he's looking to move into a population which does not die from age. It's the kind of thing that makes intuitive sense, but often doesn't pan out. What *might* make sense is a counter-intuitive move: fasting, or intermittent fasting where you fast on alternate days. This reproduces the way paleolithic people consumed calories: not three meals a day on the clock, but feasting after a kill and making

      Taking HGH is just proof that having money doesn't make you smart or well-informed. He is going to need that cancer cure soon if he keeps that up. His plan is like pouring oil on a smoldering fire and hoping they develop really good fire extinguishers soon. It also seems very un-paleo to me. Paleolithic people went through periods where they had plenty of HGH (feasting) and periods with low HGH levels (fasting). Some researchers believe the fasting period confers many aging related health benefits.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    32. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adults didn't usually drop dead at 30 from poor nutrition.

      Not per se, though it's technically true. They dropped dead at 30 [perhaps more like 40] from poor nutrition because of their teeth.

    33. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You forget that this is the "presumed average" ... nothing prevented anyone at that time to become 100 years old.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    34. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Puberty does not start with 8-12 ... it is rather 12-14/15 with 14 likely the average.
      The cases where kids came into puberty and fertile even before 10 are extremely rare, perhaps 10 per year on the whole planet.

      It's only been about 100 years since the number 1 killer of women was childbirth.
      Yes, and you ever wondered why? The answer is super simple. Around that time "medical" doctors still experimented with corpses of the dead. And they had no clue about bacteria and sterilization.
      There is a reason why women giving birth preferred nurses from female abbeys as midwives over "high decorated medical doctors" who infected them with bacteria from rotting corpses.

      The rest of your post is only an attempt to be on conclusion with your start ... both parts are wrong.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    35. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Just because you know nothing of biology and tribal culture doesn't mean I can't know something on the topic.

      Actually correct, but obviously as your posts show, you don't know much about it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    36. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Humans and our food have co-evolved for thousands of year, the food evolving dramatically. The plants and animals that were available to paleolithic humans are not the same as you can get in the supermarket. We have been selectively adapting both the plants and animals to our needs for a long time.

      We are also evolving. Lactose tolerance is the perfect example. A mutation for continuing to produce lactase past weaning is beneficial in a society with a lot of milk-producing animals. The children drinking and eating dairy will have better nutrition, and grow taller and smarter (just like those stupid commercials). That will improve their ability to mate and raise their own offspring to maturity.

      Now why should I deprive myself of dairy just because my long-dead ancestors couldn't consume it. Milk doesn't give me indigestion and it is a good source of protein, fat, and vitamins. I have evolved to drink milk. What other changes in our food sources and ourselves have occurred that are advantageous? We should research and find out, not avoid such foods due to some philosophical diet.

    37. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      There are actuarial tables that show life expectancy for people at different ages.

    38. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Those are not official and aren't used to compare life expectancy between populations.

    39. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Official? A life-expectancy table has to be government-sanctioned in order to be true?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    40. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Why of course! Only government has anything to do with sanitation!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    41. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When everyone counts "infant mortality" different, then the numbers aren't comparable. They are all true, but all measuring different things. You also (stupidly) presume only governments can officiate/sanction something. So when you figure out what "official" and "comparable" are, feel free to try again. And try to respond to what I write, not what you (mistakenly) think I mean.

    42. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So every time a baby is born, everyone else in the village dies?

      Yeah, that's exactly what I meant!
      God you are a dumbfuck. Every single point you make is premised on a black and white world.

      > Just because you know nothing of biology and tribal culture doesn't mean I can't know something on the topic.

      Actually I minored in biology, so let's restate a more accurate description. Becaue I do know something of biology means you don't know shit about it.

    43. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Paleo w/dairy is the way to go.

      Why?

      Because sharp cheddar.

    44. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Don't be fooled by the cartoonish, strong worded presentation -- this is 100% true. I went through it myself and the way to solve it is exactly that diet plus probiotics

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [BTW, one I am Bulgarian and very well know the difference between yogurt in the supermarket and the real deal and two, I live in Amsterdam whose mayor said refined sugar is a class A drug in his opinion]

      also this

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Just to mention that in my case I was advised to go to the diet by "real doctor" [not a "loony"] after being diagnosed with systemic stomach candidosis. Just one of the side-effects is that I got the physique I had when I was 17....and they say obesity is an issue number 1, well there is your solution...

    45. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Isn't HGH illegal unless it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition? This sounds like a [at best] "I paid a doctor a bunch of money to prescribe it for me" situation.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    46. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      that at some point in the past mankind was somehow in sync with their environment, and their diet at that point was perfectly aligned with their nutritional needs.

      When was this "perfection" alleged, exactly? The idea behind Paleo and other low-carb diets (Atkins, Mediterranean) is that humans evolved as hunter/gatherer/herders, not consumers of processed carbs/starches.

    47. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      meanwhile, in real life the life expectancy of someone 20 today is vastly different than someone being 20 even just 100 years ago.

      unless.. unless.. you count out premature deaths due to disease, warring, breaking your leg, getting random infection from a splinter and all number of other ways to die including malnutrition - or maybe you don't think that 30+ extra years is vastly different or that the population boom of last century just happened only because people wanted to fuck more without condoms. hunter gatherers didn't exactly have that much to eat - in fact, by definition, they ate all they could and still didn't have enough and that's what kept the population numbers low - and more importantly they didn't have a choice in what they ate, they just ate what they had - and paleo diet freakos don't seem to mind too much that there's some tribes that eat the paleo diet and fuck.. they aren't living long at all.

      as to this guy living to 120+. sure, why not. but I'l believe it when I see it, right now he is just a kook and on the edge of going just full crazy and has just picked up stuff to support him to live so long with gut feeling.

      besides the life topic.. a floating elitist country with no minimum wage laws, implying imported slave labor because the no minimum wage laws is meaningless without such? then why the fuck doesn't he just move to saudi arabia and be done with it. it's already mostly accessible by sea and air anyways and runs a society where if you have money you can do whatever the fuck you want and can buy maids from a mall.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    48. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. All those pesky health and safety laws are nothing more than interference with The Invisible Hand.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There are actuarial tables that show life expectancy for people at different ages.

      What, including the Paleolithic Era? I'm impressed.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    50. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Isn't HGH illegal unless it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition? This sounds like a [at best] "I paid a doctor a bunch of money to prescribe it for me" situation.

      The word "illegal" applies only to sheeple. This guy's a fucking Randian superman: he's going to live forever, he's paid his guys to find a cure for cancer and his primary residence is almost certainly inside a hollowed out volcano.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Official enough for you. Doesn't make for a good talking point in an article, but it's out there and it's in common use by those who actually do things.

    52. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Isn't HGH illegal unless it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition? This sounds like a [at best] "I paid a doctor a bunch of money to prescribe it for me" situation.

      The word "illegal" applies only to sheeple. This guy's a fucking Randian superman: he's going to live forever, he's paid his guys to find a cure for cancer and his primary residence is almost certainly inside a hollowed out volcano.

      He's going to live as long as he can afford bodyguards. I can't believe that this joker doesn't comprehend the intrinsic disconnect between being able to stay healthy until the age of 120, and simultaneously escalating class warfare through "no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

    53. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      That was my thought. I want to know the location of his sea steading city so that if I'm forced to be a pirate, I know where to raid for supplies.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    54. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Official enough, yet, apparently useless. That's apparently US-only, and despite SOA ostensibly being international, every event and office they have is in the US or Canada. When you can use that to compare US and Liberia, then it will meet the requirements I stated. Or are you saying that the table you gave applies to every country in the world? Or it's useless (when you exclude all natural and unnatural causes of death, we expect an 18 year old male will live another 63 years). The table just says "you'll live to 80-85, unless you are older than 72 when you ask the question, so long as you never get sick or injured." Again, not holding useful information to people, just insurers

    55. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      God you are a dumbfuck. Every single point you make is premised on a black and white world.

      And it appears that you are arguing because you don't like me, not because you have something to say.

      Actually I minored in biology,

      And biology explained that "wet nurses" have been around for longer than recorded history? Because society creates answers to biological problems. You might know the problem, but that doesn't mean you've heard of the common answer, used thousands of years ago (and before). Or, to call on your *vast* knowledge as a biology minor, how many babies can one lactating woman sustain? That'll be your limit. But it's obvious from your posts you haven't looked at this on a biological level, but don't like the societal answer I gave, and are twisting it to meet your personal agenda, upset that I know more biology and history than you.

    56. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Neolithic people dying at age 20? So that gives humans at the time only a few years from when they hit puberty until they die to have and [begin to] raise children? I can hear the kids now: "My parents were so old when they died, I actually vaguely remember them!"

      Well, if they use average age, that figure idoesn't mean you hit 20, and you're dead.

      But back in the day, infant mortality was pretty high, and there wasn't much in the way of treatment for things we consider NBD now. So average age was a lot less than likley maximum age.

      As for the business of having offspring, reproduction happened pretty much as soon as it was possible. Our present day belief of getting married and starting a family in our mid-30's or even early 40's is a completely artificial construct. This is why I have always questioned the modern day truism that it is better to wait maybe 15 years after you can reproduce to start to reproduce. Hard to imagine all that evolution providing that for us.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by JezmundBerserker · · Score: 1

      Are you a doctor? you state with seeming authority that puberty is extremely rare under 10... stating "10 per year on the whole planet"? I'm not a doctor so maybe I don't understand female biology enough, but I was under the impression that a woman getting her period is the beginning of her fertile years... if this is true then I married one of your 1 in 10 women on the planet as my ex-wife got her period in the 3rd grade (8-9 years old). Addtionally my girlfriend's daughter just got her period at 11, which is surprisingly close to your extremely rare 10 year old proclamation.

      Being that I'm a slashdot reader the sample size of female humans I've been exposed to is pretty small... so am I off on this?.

    58. Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The youngest children getting pregnant ever recorded are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
      and here: http://www.therichest.com/rich...
      No idea how reliable the links are, as certainly not everything makes it into "the news".
      My point is, getting the period etc. and being in puberty before twelve is extremely rare, especially in industrialized nations. Before ten is rarely heard of, especially for boys.

      Bottom line for girls being fertile and being in puberty is not even the same ... a girl can have her period and become pregnant before she even has breasts: breasts grow through the puberty, their growing basically is the definition of puberty.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. And who will collect the trash? by cjonslashdot · · Score: 2

    And no doubt they will import labor and pay them subsistence, since no one in this floating nation will be willing to collect the trash. So we will have floating favelas.

    1. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They'll dump it overboard and let the market incentivize cleanup.

      mh

    2. Re:And who will collect the trash? by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They wont need to collect the trash since they will be floating in international waters with no regulations, they will just throw it overboard and let us deal with it.

    3. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for generated trash, you can either use it as fuel http://www.sierraenergycorp.com/ or automate the process to central processing... it isn't that hard to use your imagination is it?

      Additionally, properly designed, the floating cities will collect ocean garbage, all the wasteful nations pollute the oceans with, and use it as a resource for building larger islands.

    4. Re:And who will collect the trash? by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

      Indeed! And when they eventually abandon their fake city, it will combine into the trillions of tons of floating garbage that we already have!

    5. Re:And who will collect the trash? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah. Another Slashdot circle jerk.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    6. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tacokill · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? Every discussion is a /. circlejerk. You must be new here.

    7. Re:And who will collect the trash? by spyfrog · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lets all hope that they lax building codes bring the houses on their little island crashing down on them.

      The big problem with these kind of rich a**holes is that don't want to contribute to society but they want society to help them. Personally I am praying for a pirate attack on this island or something else. Then they will cry for a state to help them. We ordinary people is only a tool for this kind of persons.

      Wanting to live to 120 is something we don't want for these kind of people. That gives them more time to use their fellow man. The only fair thing today is that even the super rich dies. If they don't, then we ordinary people will suffer even more under even more dysfunctional 500 year old people with to much money.

    8. Re:And who will collect the trash? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      :-) thanks for the reminder

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    9. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, I think we, as good little wage slaves should be as helpful as possible in bringing this vision to life. I'd want to build a truly wonderful place where all of the super-rich could live, free from the worthless scum that is the 99%. Once we're sure they're all on board, then we blow up the nukes. I'd volunteer.

      Sic Semper Tyrannis

    10. Re: And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be willing to pick up your trash when your neighbor shoots your dog for failing to do so! Dammit!

      I wonder what the average lifespan will be on his island utopia?

    11. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      They'll import everything, this isn't going galt ... this is putting your throne outside the country your ruling. I doubt too many other 0.001%'ers will want to paint a target on themselves as much as he does though, so this will go nowhere.

    12. Re:And who will collect the trash? by zlives · · Score: 1

      only thing I got out of it... circlejerk should be represented somehow without words /.O^ ?!!

    13. Re:And who will collect the trash? by enigma32 · · Score: 1

      Some of us try our best to live up to the standards set by the society we live in without being forced to, because it's in our own best interest.
      And sometimes that means you collect your own trash.

      Socialism has been tried in the "modern era" and it failed-- why are so many people against trying the opposite? (To my knowledge it's never actually been tried in modern times, especially with only people who give a damn.)

    14. Re:And who will collect the trash? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      They wont need to collect the trash since they will be floating in international waters with no regulations, they will just throw it overboard and let us deal with it.

      So basically no different than all the ships coming from China carrying all the stuff you buy... and by "let us deal with it" you mean deal with it the same way we are dealing with it now... which is to say not dealing with it and just letting it wash up on beaches and sit in the middle of the ocean until it finally sinks.

    15. Re:And who will collect the trash? by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

      True, if you have a group of people who are filtered based on their attitudes, then socialism could work. A good example might be the Burning Man festival. In that case, I think there is an implicit filter in that those who go to the trouble to attend are like-minded ?

    16. Re:And who will collect the trash? by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

      Actually, I meant cooperative anarchy - not socialism. I think that is what you were referring to, otherwise known as self organization.

    17. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      This isn't really trying the opposite, it's just a gated community.

    18. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're not one of the crazed wingnuts that mistake civilized society for something bad, and derp about "socialism."

      Smart people aren't going to give up on civilization just because of deranged Conservatives and arrested-development Libertarians.

    19. Re:And who will collect the trash? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      So, Metro City, the movie version.

    20. Re:And who will collect the trash? by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      After you blow yourself up killing them the new 1%, who rise from and to dominate the rest of the old 99%, will imortalize you as the hero who liberated them. That's just how humans work as a species.

    21. Re:And who will collect the trash? by enigma32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not at all. But civilization doesn't have to always be the bureaucratic mess it is today, as perpetuated by the established "liberal" and "conservative" (that is, entirely anti-freedom and advancement of society on both sides) incumbents.

      Socialism in particular fails because the only motivation inherent in the system is to improve the lives of others. The cool thing about making a society more democratic and less restrictive (that is, moving toward the libertarian sense of what a government should be) is that it makes it really obvious how you can benefit from the self-improvements of others, and how they can benefit from your own self-improvement at no cost to yourself.

      Why does everyone always think that a libertarian ideal is completely geared around making money? It doesn't have to be. My ideal would be as much humanist as libertarian, and I expect that's more of what is being talked about with the "seasteading" project as well, since it seems to come from the Randian vision of how to define a model person.

    22. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know what get's me about people who dream of building these Atlas-Shrugged inspired libertarian paradises? Such places already exist. They tend to be shit holes because that's what you get with no civic cooperation.

      I've been to a few of them. Guatemala is, surprisingly, a true a libertarian paradise. There is, theoretically, a limited government, but in practice it does... nothing. Everybody has to provide for their own security, which leads to some interesting sights. Like AK-toting private guards at MacDonalds. I shit you not, this exists. People die pretty regularly when shoddy buildings collapse. It's not because Guatemalan engineers are too stupid to build sturdy buildings, it's just they don't have to... so why bother? Communities terrified by judicial impunity have banded together to form self-protection rings, and the result is regular lynchings. Clean water? forget it. Oh, and now flooding is an annual issue because there is no land management and the forests were all cut down (arg! evil environmentalism!).

      He can build his floating libertarian paradise. It will suck, just like every other libertarian paradise. Then these dumbass Randians will simply forget it, and their new dream will be to build... A LIBERTARIAN PARADISE IN SPACE! Yeah, that'll work. A system of government that's been an abysmal failure everywhere it's been tried on earth will definitely work out IN SPACE!

    23. Re:And who will collect the trash? by imnotanumber · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes. But if you do it, for a few iterations, the new 1% could be more careful when dealing with the rest of us...

      (That could be better or worse, of course...)

    24. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Socialism in particular fails because the only motivation inherent in the system is to improve the lives of others.

      Socialism "fails" because it has made most of society's lives better? You have a pretty deranged version of "fails". You definitely have the same mental illness as the libertard of the article.

    25. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're afraid that Thiel will prove that their religion is stupid.

    26. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanting to live to 120 is something we don't want for these kind of people. That gives them more time to use their fellow man. The only fair thing today is that even the super rich dies. If they don't, then we ordinary people will suffer even more under even more dysfunctional 500 year old people with to much money.

      Nature will take care of this problem. See, when people deem themselves so important that all resources should be used to maintain their lifestyle and they should be sequestered from the "common man," they will not be willing to mate with anyone except those on the island. So while Thiel may enjoy his 120 years, in breeding will soon kill his ilk off.

    27. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates won't really be their problem if they have automated manufacturing capacity and the desire to build weapons.
      what is a pirate supposed to do when they get a clone of a Harpoon Missile shot at them?

    28. Re: And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Thiel hope to isolate himself and all his like minded zillionaires from? Whatever it is, it's only a temporary respite unless it's self-supplying, self-repairing, and self-defending. Even then, isolation doesn't necessarily work out well over time. The Ottoman Empire organized itself out of technological superiority, as did the Chinese Ming Dynasty. They were overtaken as conditions evolved around them. Thiel and his band can have their island, but they can only disassociate themselves to the degree they can create a virtual placenta between their embryonic fantasy and the soup of humanity that surrounds them.

    29. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      So basically no different than all the ships coming from China carrying all the stuff you buy...

      Some of us are a little more selective in our purchasing...

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    30. Re:And who will collect the trash? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      They will never need an external attack to sink their fantasy floating island, they will inevitably do it to themselves. They all want the freedom to do, what ever they want to do, when ever they want to do it and of course no group of people ever can do that at the same time. So they want their forever teenage libertarian floating island as long as they are the ones in charge. We already have that it's called Freewind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... (never been a more doublespeak title for a ship ever) and the only people free are the fakers at the top ruthlessly taking all the freedoms away from the ones down the bottom. Should they ever be able to build that crazy vessel it will inevitably devolve to an organised crime haven.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    31. Re:And who will collect the trash? by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      "Why does everyone always think that a libertarian ideal is completely geared around making money?"

      Because that is the ONLY way libertarians have demonstrated their ideology ever. Also, freedom in the libertarian sens is only freedom for the rich. The poor will not enjoy freedom in your libertarian dream world. In fact, they will have less freedom than now since they will have exactly NONE influence since there will be no power to control the economic might of the rich.

    32. Re:And who will collect the trash? by enigma32 · · Score: 1

      You either have extremely poor reading comprehension skills or are just an idiot. Either way I'll take the bait.

      Socialism does not fail because it "has made most of society's lives better". It failed because it DID NOT do that, and worse, always seems to result in an oppressive regime with the only goal of keeping itself in power.
      That is a failure. Don't you get frustrated when you can't do anything to fix whatever lousy situation you happen to be in? Now imagine it were legislated specifically so that you were unable to.

      Next time try reading what I wrote, instead of twisting it to fit your bigoted, uneducated, and perhaps brainwashed view about opponents of socialism.

      To be fair, there could be an example of an amazingly successful government (perhaps beaten into the ground by the evil freedom lovers somewhere in the world) that I'm unaware of, so please give me an example of a thriving socialist paradise where everyone is happy living out their lives for everyone else's benefit, since they're unable to influence their own lives through their own effort.

      I'm waiting.

    33. Re:And who will collect the trash? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      So they want their forever teenage libertarian floating island as long as they are the ones in charge.

      What part of "libertarian" do you not understand?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    34. Re: And who will collect the trash? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Think of Hong Kong before the Chinese takeover. A superproductive entity without natural resources, in no sense isolated from the world at large.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    35. Re:And who will collect the trash? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The big problem with these kind of rich a**holes is that don't want to contribute to society but they want society to help them.

      They are creating their own society, and they'll be paying a great deal of money for the physical plant. That does not qualify as not contributing.

      Personally I am praying for a pirate attack on this island or something else.

      This is precisely the sort of hateful bullying to be expected from a government apologist. "They won't give me their production! They won't follow my orders. KILL! KILL! KILL! "

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    36. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Uncle Sam is going to tolerate a missile boat right off the coast of California, you are delusional.

    37. Re: And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...with a huge, unrepresented underclass that devolved into organized crime until the government had to step in.

    38. Re:And who will collect the trash? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      the economic might of the rich

      Pray tell, what does "the economic might of the rich" consist of?

      The rich can buy and sell among themselves, in which case it doesn't involve the poor. Or, they can buy and sell goods and services with the poor, in which case

      1. The poor are free to trade with the rich or not
      2. The poor gain from the transaction, or they would not engage in it.

      they will have less freedom than now since they will have exactly NONE influence...

      Incomprehensible grammar notwithstanding, you have no understanding of libertarianism. Influence has no significance if influence doesn't lead to the use of force against someone. That force only exists in the context of a coercive government, i.e. a non-libertarian government.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    39. Re:And who will collect the trash? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Guatemala is 18 years out from decades of political turmoil in the form of armed revolutions. Recovery takes time, although it doesn't seem as if they're recovering very well.

      The Guatemalan government's expenditures are in the range of 10% to 14% of the GDP. That's not bad by libertarian standards. Military expenditures are 3.4% of government expenditures, which implies that over 90% of government expenditures are waste. Guatemala has a "social security" system, which is explicitly not libertarian, and if it is like other SS systems, it is a burden on the poor.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    40. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Prune · · Score: 1

      It will be for the worse. While the level of resistance of a system of inequality (hierarchical civilization) to revolutions that remake the social order has not been increasing monotonically throughout history, on average it has been increasing. In recent times, sufficient corrective feedback mechanisms have been integrated into human society that, in my opinion, successful revolution is impossible. Save for a global catastrophe (whether manmade or natural) that decimates the population, the current trends will continue. The endgame I would bet on is that advanced robotics will make poor people obsolete; what happens to them at that point is going to be something akin to what Marshall Brain wrote about in his story "Manna", minus the happy ending. So, you can't beat them, and chances are against you joining them. Upward mobility is mostly a game of luck no matter how skilled, dedicated, and intelligent you are. However, playing this lottery is the only hope, small as it is, that you, as a representative of the non-elite, have to create a decent life for yourself and your offspring.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    41. Re:And who will collect the trash? by able1234au · · Score: 3

      > The poor are free to trade with the rich or not

      Indeed. They are free to starve.

      Freedom is easy when you can afford it.

    42. Re:And who will collect the trash? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The hypocritical delusional that all members of a libertarian society can be free to do what ever they want to do when ever they want to do it without impacting everyone else trying to do the same thing at the same time and that economic freedom (the right to exploit anyone and everyone) has anything to do with social freedom (the right not to be exploited) or that ownership of the majority of the environment by a minority somehow does not impinge upon personal freedom of the majority or how libertarians don't show any shame when they abuse the word liberty when they talk about wanting to use their capital to deny others their liberty or how libertarians always hate government services except when they use them, then they are great. Seriously, it really is a teenage political philosophy with all that it implies and has no basis in reality with regard to a social species, we must share pretty much everything it is our normal mature genetic nature and the means by which we prosper as a species.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    43. Re:And who will collect the trash? by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sigh. "Socialism in particular fails because the only motivation []is to improve the lives of others."

      You need to go talk to people who work in a co-op business. A co-op is The People Owning The Means Of Production. Socialism. And it's awesome. It's not about making life better for others. It's about making life better for YOU. Imagine if you can, owning part of your workplace. Being able to have a say in how it's run. Being able to share in the gains. That's a LOT better (and a little riskier) than being a wage slave like you are now. It's also Totally Worth It.

      I hate it when people make sweeping generalizations about something they have no practical knowledge of. Slashdot Armchair Philosophers, oh, socialism fails... You should go experience it and see just how awesome it can be.

      Also, socialism isn't the best way. Neither is pure capitalism. The countries that have the happiest people in the world are mixed economies, and embrace that idea. Anyway.... I just wanted to gripe.

    44. Re:And who will collect the trash? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      It's only natural to equate the extreme with the moderate. After all, all libertarians are anarcho capitalists and all liberals are communists!!

    45. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 9/11 I think it's safe to say: "for the worse."

      As a whole, society gets worse(not better)*.

      *Think of it as a force like gravity(and some key point in the past is the "event horizon"). Noble savage fallacy aside, IMO, all evidence points to farming as the "catalyst" in this collision course with destiny.

      I think "neo-eugenics" is probably the inevitable conclusion. IE: At some point social institutions will no longer be the only solution to human nature available, and human nature itself will be possible to change through gene therapy/criminalization of "parenting"(as an "anti-social tradition").

      Logan's Run/Brave New World etc.

    46. Re:And who will collect the trash? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 2

      Well bullies exist.
      And who is going to protect you from them, especially the ones who can afford more and better weapons than you can?
      Let's see, has 10 letters, starts with "g", end with "t",...

    47. Re:And who will collect the trash? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      no no... no in the uhh.. the FREE market. uhh... someone wants that trash. yeah... don't worry.. its FREE!!

    48. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With no weapons control and 'libertarian' management they'll sink in a few weeks. Cf. Jules Verne's 'Propeller's Island'.

    49. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So they want their forever teenage libertarian floating island as long as they are the ones in charge.

      What part of "libertarian" do you not understand?

      I think GP understands libertarianism pretty well. It is a system where the rich and powerful have absolute freedom to do what they want, in precisely the same way that an adolescent dreams of being freed from the constraints of his parents.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    50. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you're a vulture capitalist, you are most certainly dependent on the society you prey on off to support the roads that take the workers to your factories, and so on.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:And who will collect the trash? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      This is precisely the sort of hateful bullying to be expected from a government apologist. "They won't give me their production! They won't follow my orders. KILL! KILL! KILL! "

      No. This is actually perfectly consistent with libertarian ideals taken all the way to their logic conclusion: every man for himself. People who think that make themselves fair game. And this is exactly what happened to the libertarian utopia on the Minerva reefs.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    52. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Some of us try our best to live up to the standards set by the society we live in without being forced to, because it's in our own best interest.
      And sometimes that means you collect your own trash.

      Socialism means that the poor old crippled lady who lives next door is denied the freedom of carrying her own trash out to the nearest dump, and is forced to rely on Evil Government employees to demean her by helping.

      Socialism has been tried in the "modern era" and it failed

      That depends on your definition of "socialism". The USSR is not the same as Sweden or the UK in the 1940s.

      -- why are so many people against trying the opposite? (To my knowledge it's never actually been tried in modern times, especially with only people who give a damn.)

      I really don't see what is stopping you from trying it, there are already Russian oligarchs who basically live on their yachts and pay no tax anywhere.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    53. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Socialism in particular fails because the only motivation inherent in the system is to improve the lives of others

      The idea behind socialism/communism (depending on your point of view" is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

      You are motivated to do the best you can for yourself, while knowing that you are not letting other people starve or die on the streets.

      It is a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist begging of the question to say that socialism is bad because economic self-interest is the primary motivating factor for most people. It clearly isn't, or else everyone would be trying a lot harder to be a billionaire, and they wouldn't be wasting their time and money on enjoying themselves.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    54. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Influence has no significance if influence doesn't lead to the use of force against someone. That force only exists in the context of a coercive government, i.e. a non-libertarian government.

      So what happens when I ask my rich boss for a pay rise and he sacks me on the spot owing me a month's pay?

      Or the factory next door dumps toxic waste into my water supply?

      Or gangsters threaten to burn down my shop unless I pay them protection money?

      Do you really believe that there is no use of psychological, economic or physical force apart from Teh Evil Government?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    55. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      He can build his floating libertarian paradise. It will suck, just like every other libertarian paradise. Then these dumbass Randians will simply forget it, and their new dream will be to build... A LIBERTARIAN PARADISE IN SPACE! Yeah, that'll work. A system of government that's been an abysmal failure everywhere it's been tried on earth will definitely work out IN SPACE!

      FFS don't encourage the bastards.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:And who will collect the trash? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Guatemala has a "social security" system, which is explicitly not libertarian, and if it is like other SS systems, it is a burden on the poor.

      I can only conclude that libertarians read "Alice Through the Looking Glass" on a regular basis, and think of it as a How-To manual rather than a work of fiction.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    57. Re:And who will collect the trash? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      They wont need to collect the trash since they will be floating in international waters with no regulations, they will just throw it overboard and let us deal with it.

      And they will claim that if the free market desires cleaning this stuff up, it will find an optimal solution.

      Because they'll be just as deluded on their floating Ayn Rand Utopia as they are in real life.

      Ayn Rand ... providing a manual and justification for being an epic douchebag and a rabid moron for decades.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    58. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      As I remember, the "happy ending" in Manna was only available to those whose ancestors had the foresight to invest in the libertarian Australia Project.....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    59. Re:And who will collect the trash? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      So, Metro City, the movie version.

      or "L. Bob Rife's Raft, a flotilla of ships circulating the in the pacific, bringing immigrants in search of a better life from the Third World to the California coast. These immigrants are known as Refus. The Raft is a lawless, sprawling, entangled mess of boats of all sizes, all connected eventually to the aircraft carrier piloted by L. Bob. Rife himself, which has only a tangential influence on the actual navigation of the Raft." https://mslinder.wikispaces.co... Crash by Neal Stephenson-Plot Summary-The Raft

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    60. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 0

      We live in a time where the opportunities afforded to the rich and poor are innumerous. The ubiquitous access to information allows those willing to work hard to move up the social ladder pretty quickly.

      The poor are unambitious.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    61. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      The poor are unambitious.

      hahahahahhahaahahhahahahahhaahaah omg that's awesome, do you do standup or just pithy comments on the internets?

    62. Re:And who will collect the trash? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Socialism has been tried in the "modern era" and it failed-- why are so many people against trying the opposite? (To my knowledge it's never actually been tried in modern times, especially with only people who give a damn.)

      I seriously hope your fucking joking. Lazzie Faire capitalism has been tried once, I presume thats what your talking about, in the 19th century in both Europe, and in the United States, and it didn't last long before the owners requested and demanded a large state to protect themselves and property from unhappy workers and a growingly dangerous underclass.

      Order was only restored by implementing tiny bits of socialism, and the biggest problem in today's society isn't socialism, but the non-socialist parts of society, i.e. those operated for greed(capitalist/liberal), or those operated by some stuck up self-appointed wanna be despots(third position/fascism),

      Unless you want to call your newly concocted version of capitalism with misappropriated language and terms from early libertarian socialist movements a completely diffrent thing(along with all our favorite authors: Paine, Spooner, Orwell, Proudhoun, Baukin), you've got this almost completely backwards.

      Now, I don't care what you choose to believe in, but please, lets get facts straight, or at least be honest in terms. Or at very least, Socialists where the first to scream "not really socialism", again, something that "libertarian" capitalism more or less adopted.

    63. Re:And who will collect the trash? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      which is a type of socialism acutally. Its not a bad thing either.

    64. Re:And who will collect the trash? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      The rich can buy and sell among themselves, in which case it doesn't involve the poor.

      bullshit, someone needs to do the work. That someone are workers. There is no way around this. No one ever got in a position of power without manipulating people into doing work, and taking most of the value of the labor for themselves. Things don't "just happen", but the answer I always get, is the only thing that really counts as "work", in the sense it should be universally rewarded, is capacity for investment. This is the only real "work" in capitalism

      That force only exists in the context of a coercive government, i.e. a non-libertarian government.

      try institute private property, especially with a pretty large gap between haves and have nots without a pretty large coercive government, because thats what it takes. Capitalism is not compatible with Libertarianism.

    65. Re:And who will collect the trash? by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

      It is. But it works best if there is a filter on who can join. Bad apples spoil most utopian social constructs.

    66. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      I grew up dirt poor. I know a lot of poor people and I have never met someone making minimum wage that wasn't unambitious.

      Example, I know a woman who has worked at minimum wage for 5 years at 39 hours a week. She never asked for a raise and she never tried to be a full time employee. In those five years, she never tried to find a different job, improve herself or learn a valuable skill set. Now she's just had a kid and realizes her job wont pay enough for her and her child.

      Since the day I joined the work force at fifteen, I have not made minimum wage. My first job was at McDonalds and when they hired me I told them I want $X.XX, so I wouldn't be making minimum wage. I've worked hard since then and am now comfortably in the upper middle class.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    67. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      That's also the description of every other system of government once put into practice.

    68. Re:And who will collect the trash? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      It seems the largest part of the communication problem when talking about libertarian ideas is the misconception that "libertarian" means "no government." There are those who attach themselves to libertarian causes who would like to see "no government," but a libertarian government would exist with the mandate to protect people from exactly the sorts of things you just questioned.

      Being against the initiation of force is not, in any way, the same as being against all uses of force at all times.

  3. Bioshock, eh ? by romiz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, at least if it turns wrong no one will say it was unexpected...

    1. Re:Bioshock, eh ? by tfufu · · Score: 1

      yeah HGH is pretty popular for strength training and bodybuilding and a well known (side)effect is growth of ALL organs which tends to give people a massive bloated looking belly( filled with enlarged organs) and most likely decreases life expectancy.

  4. I plan to live forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I expect a cure for death within the next 15 years.

    1. Re:I plan to live forever by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      You don't necessarily need that. If we can figure out how to extend our lives by 15 years, then we've got another 15 years to wait for another advancement. Rinse and repeat.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    2. Re:I plan to live forever by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Eventually the treatments will have cutoff ages. Many sci-fi stories told about how the longest-lived person will die, and the next generation will live much longer than they did, because the "early" treatments were incompatible with some of the later ones. Only rarely is there a Niven-style AutoDoc that can repair anything, including previous age extension.

    3. Re:I plan to live forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Achilles and the Tortoise isn't actually true you know.

    4. Re:I plan to live forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually the treatments will have cutoff ages. Many sci-fi stories told about how the longest-lived person will die, and the next generation will live much longer than they did, because the "early" treatments were incompatible with some of the later ones. Only rarely is there a Niven-style AutoDoc that can repair anything, including previous age extension.

      Singularity

    5. Re:I plan to live forever by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      I vaguely remember one story where someone was traveling in space at near light speed, and expected to outlive everyone back on Earth because of the time dilation. Instead, the people on Earth had a cure for old age, but it had to be administered before the age of 50. The returning astronaut was just over that age, meaning he'd be the last person on Earth to die of old age.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:I plan to live forever by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You don't necessarily need that. If we can figure out how to extend our lives by 15 years, then we've got another 15 years to wait for another advancement. Rinse and repeat.

      Yeah, in another 15 years' time, we'll have found the secret of immortality, just like we'll have cold fusion, Artificial Intelligence and time travel.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. Nothing can go Wrong Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons"

    How could this possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cheap building holding the ammo fails apart and a fire starts.

    2. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      "no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons"

      How could this possibly go wrong?

      It's just nonsense - to build on a sea platform would require tremendously strong buildings and no owner of such a platform would permit shacks to be built there as crumbling buildings would threaten the platform and its other occupants. The notable difference between a seastead and local building codes is that such agreements on a seastead would be entered into voluntarily, not by fiat backed by violence.

      The people who would live and work there would need to be attracted to live on a sea platform, so low-paid workers and destitute beggars aren't even an issue. This isn't a model for society, it's more of a Galt's Gulch.

      I still think it's silly to get all the anarchists on a platform that can be sunk by a torpedo (see the Free State Project for a more sensible option) but TFS is written as if by a seventh grader who's heard something about libertarians.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re: Nothing can go Wrong Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Combied with the limited space of a floating island... It sounds like an idea from someone who hasn't lived in the real world for awhile.

    4. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Thiel also plans to launch a floating sovereign nation in international waters, freeing him and like-minded thinkers to live by libertarian ideals with no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.

      ...and then his plans to live to 120 are spoiled when he's mugged by a starving beggar with an assault rifle, or is attacked by pirates or the warships of a rogue nation, or maybe just when his house falls down on his head.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    5. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by khallow · · Score: 1

      ...and then his plans to live to 120 are spoiled when he's mugged by a starving beggar with an assault rifle, or is attacked by pirates or the warships of a rogue nation, or maybe just when his house falls down on his head.

      Or maybe none of these things happens and he achieves the goal.

    6. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      It's no more or less voluntary than agreeing to the social contract of any other sovereign nation ... and you will be held to your contract with violence too.

      The only difference is that the contract is explicit instead of implicit.

    7. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cheap building holding the ammo fails apart and a fire starts.

      Don't forget the part where the lowly fireman making .01 Thielbucks an hour decides to just jump in the water instead of trying to put out the blaze.

    8. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It also ignores the (not exactly minor) problem that, as their owners can attest, a boat is a hole in the water into which one pours money.

      There are some commercially viable things done on boats (fishing, offshore drilling, etc.) and some recreational ones; but few things done on land get cheaper when done on water; unless you have in mind some straw man comparison between costs in some ultra high end urban center and the scungiest refurbed cargo ship you can get your hands on.

      They are welcome to try, of course, it's their money; but I've yet to see a 'seasteading' plan that doesn't appear to be a fairly uncomfortable yacht club.

    9. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the Bioshock scenario here. That would be far more sensational.

    10. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and then his plans to live to 120 are spoiled when he's mugged by a starving beggar with an assault rifle, or is attacked by pirates or the warships of a rogue nation, or maybe just when his house falls down on his head.

      Or maybe none of these things happens and he achieves the goal.

      Or maybe no one likes a story that ends the exact way you think it will from the start, with nothing interesting happening in between. Sheesh! Haven't you ever been to the movies?

    11. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      I fully expect Peter Thiel to be shot on his island by someone who thinks he's an asshole. Paddy Roy Bates only made this work because he was a bad-ass.

    12. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Will they be passing around the drugs you take on the island as well?

    13. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as a social contract. That is just twaddle your religion spouts.

    14. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The people who would live and work there would need to be attracted to live on a sea platform, so low-paid workers and destitute beggars aren't even an issue.

      You could say the same of Qatar. All you have to do is offer the job that sounds fair to entice the desperate worker to come, then you have complete control over their lives and can change the terms and abuse them as slaves as much as you like. It's not as if they can swim for shore from international waters, or appeal to a fair legal system. A sea platform is the perfect system to exploit trapped workers.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because I present the fantasy of "Things Go As Planned"? Here's my suggestion. Take as much of this hardcore shit as you can and then start operating heavy machinery.

    16. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as a natural right to enclosure either ... but the concept of rightful land ownership is convenient, as is the concept of a social contract.

    17. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Many things on boats are cheap: no property tax, no insurance requirement. Ofc the maintenance costs money but lots of the stuff can be done by yourself.

      A floating island on the sea however is another story altogether.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by srobert · · Score: 1

      "I still think it's silly to get all the anarchists on a platform that can be sunk by a torpedo"

      More likely wrecked by a typhoon, at which time, I'm sure all these Randian Galt Atlases will cry for public assistance to save their sorry asses.

    19. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If you pick your location right, the same is true of various terrestrial locations ( if you know how to work the 'development incentives' game your tax rate can easily approach zero, and insure vs. self-insure is mostly a question of cost effectiveness for everyone except those who simply couldn't afford the latter.) That's honestly why it's a bit surprising to see Thiel hanging out with these guys.

      If you have interests in some industry with brutal externalities(extraction industries, some chemical synthesis and heavy industrial processes, certain types of power generation, among others) there's a strong pragmatic logic to being a 'libertarian' at least where the EPA is concerned. If you are basically small-time, and don't have access to most of the best just-not-actually-paying-many-taxes strategies, there's a certain ideological and pragmatic attraction to libertarianism. Somebody playing at Thiel's level, though, could likely do better by making government work for him, rather than by fretting about its heavy hand. Must be a hobby, I suppose.

    20. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The most fundamental right, upon which all other rights are based, is the right to life.

      From the right to life derives the right to activities to maintain life. From the right to life derives the right to voluntarily trade for the goods (tools, food, clothing, real estate, etc.) necessary to maintain life. From the right to life derives the right to voluntarily trade for the goods that make life worth living, and real estate is also among those goods.

      In such manner (with considerably more detail required) is the right to land ownership demonstrated. It is not just "convenient", it is a necessary component of the right to life most places on earth.

      --

      Social Contract, on the other hand, is a problem to discuss. First, it's not a contract, which (among its other properties) is a voluntary agreement, and there's nothing voluntary about something imposed on a person at birth. Second, the "social contract" isn't the same everywhere, and the social contract of North Korea requires the murder of Christians. --- Too often, "social contract" is a verbal fog that sneaks in hidden restrictions against the life of an insufficiently careful thinker.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Or maybe Santa Claus rescues him, or the Great Pumpkin, ...

    22. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I strongly disapprove of equating anarchists with Libertarians. Although there are issues with anarchism, it is a serious political philosophy, unlike Libertarianism which is just an excuse for rich fucks to get richer and not have to bother with a conscience.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The most fundamental right, upon which all other rights are based, is the right to life.

      And that right only exists because human beings have developed civilisation and society and, gasp, government and the rule of law.

      A gazelle on the African plains doesn't have a right to life, at least in any meaningful sense. If a lion catches and eats it, there's nothing wrong with that .

      From the right to life derives the right to voluntarily trade for the goods that make life worth living, and real estate is also among those goods.

      The ability to "own" a piece of land rests entirely on an artificial concept with the force of the law behind it (as opposed to the simple ability of the individual to defend it). Again, lions don't "own" the land they hunt on, they're just able to fight off other lions who want to be there too.

      That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's no more a natural right than my right to own an iPhone.

      Too often, "social contract" is a verbal fog that sneaks in hidden restrictions against the life of an insufficiently careful thinker.

      The term "social contract" is used to emphasise that human society is something other than everyone doing what they want, that there is give and take, mutual responsibilities and so on. The term "social compact" is perhaps more accurate, since as you say, a contract is voluntary.

      As in any agreement, yes there are restrictions involved. In a rational human society, I am not free to murder you. If we were lions, I would be entirely free to try to kill you, and if I succeeded there would be no repercussions.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by khallow · · Score: 1

      Given that people actually have lived to 120, I'm going to have to say his plan is more realistic than yours.

    25. Re:Nothing can go Wrong Here by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Nope, circular argument ... to trade it you have to own it. You can't use that line of reasoning to justify owning it in the first place.

      Even considerably more detail won't save Rothbard&co's arguments either, they can try to bury Locke's Proviso beneath a mountain of detail ... but it won't fool anyone but the naive and the stupid.

  6. Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Seriously, he's going to die like the rest of us. I've seen how far we've come in medicine and I see how far we haven't gotten yet. The body starts failing one way then another way and it just keeps piling up as you get 70-90 years old. Cancer is just one of many, many things that are likely to kill you before you're 120.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Cancer is just one of many, many things that are likely to kill you before you're 120.

      Yup... and its not even the worst of the bunch. I'd put Alzheimer's on the top of the list; maybe advanced Parkinson's after that. Or a bad stroke...

    2. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by abies · · Score: 1

      Most other things are possible to treat given enough money. Cancer IS the biggest issue. Trick is that cancer is not a single thing. Cancer is an envelope word for hundreds of different diseases, which behave in similar way (uncontrolled cell growth), but have very different causes and behaviours. There is no such thing as 'cure for cancer'. You need to find out 300 different cures. I highly doubt that we will find that many in next 50 years, not to mention 10.

    3. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cancer is what kills you if everything else fails. Well until we cure it obviously, but i don't expect that to happen any decade soon. Once medicine solves cancer the mortality problem is past. There are so many ways to beat death by old age, problem is they all trigger cancer. In that regard eating growth hormone is a bloody stupid thing to do, because like everything else that solves aging - you guessed it, it triggers cancer. So if you want to live a long time avoid anything cancerogenic and hope that universal cancer cure is discovered before you die. BTW cancer cells are in fact biologically immortal, labs around the world use cancer cells from a lady that died in ~1950 to do experiments.

    4. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by khallow · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that we will find that many in next 50 years, not to mention 10.

      I guess you haven't been paying attention. Lot of varieties of cancer are already curable - if caught in time.

    5. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that he's a libertarian whackjob, having him live to 120 but have Alzheimer's so every day he wakes up and has to learn again that he's 100% dependent upon the welfare state to feed him and change his diapers sounds like just rewards.

    6. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's always slips, trips, and falls to take you out even if you are in the best of health.

    7. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cancer is just one of many, many things that are likely to kill you before you're 120.

      Yup... and its not even the worst of the bunch. I'd put Alzheimer's on the top of the list; maybe advanced Parkinson's after that. Or a bad stroke...

      Yeah, I think people underestimate the difficulty of extending life.

      It isn't just one thing that needs to be fixed, some immortality gene that needs to be turned on. It's everything.

      Our bodies are designed to work really well for about 45 years, and decently well for another 15-20 after, but after that we're operating outside of spec.

      None of our systems evolved to work after seventy, they don't all breakdown at the same rate, but they all break down.

      I think we'll hit the singularity or cyborgs before we hit average humans passing 120.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call cutting out a group of cancer cells a cure even though it means you no longer have that cancer. And yes, we can cure lots of cancer, but sometimes the cure is worse.

    9. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, say the Paleo diet adds 15 years to your life, you still have to take them at the end...

    10. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by asc99c · · Score: 1

      But exactly why do all these systems start breaking down? I agree we're not getting particularly close to 120 year lifespans with our current approach, which is tinkering with treatments for the ailments of old age. But I suspect there actually is a simple magic bullet somewhere - something to stop us getting old. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but I think at some point a switch will be found to turn off aging.

      To clarify, by 'simple', I mean compared to fixing cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cataracts, osteoporosis, atherosclerosis, stroke, and so on ... We are still evolved to have a finite lifespan, and changing that will still be difficult in the extreme. But it can potentially be a lot simpler to fix the root cause and avoid being old, than fix the million and one knockons of getting old.

    11. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      My wife's grandfather died of Parkinson's. His body slowly betrayed him and simple acts like putting one foot in front of the other became more and more difficult. At a certain point, dementia set in and he would talk to us like it was 50 years ago. When he finally died, we were actually relieved because he was suffering at that point.

      Cancer and it's ilk are scary, but Alzheimer's - where you slowly lose everything that makes you you and might be aware of it yourself at the beginning - and Parkinson's - where you slowly get trapped in your own body - are horrible ways to go. I hope that whoever comes up with a cure (or even a good treatment) to these gets a giant sack full of money.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Alzheimer's at 90 so you can't run your island nation anymore? Liked that story better when it was it Roy Bates on Sealand.

    13. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      The cure for cancer is toxic (chemo, radiation) and often does more damage than the cancer. What we really need is a breakthrough in the Prevention of Cancer.

    14. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by greg1104 · · Score: 3, Funny

      “Smoking takes ten years off your life. Well it’s the ten worst years, isn’t it folks? It’s the ones at the end! It’s the wheelchair, kidney dialysis, adult diaper years. You can have those years! We don’t want ‘em, alright?” - Dennis Leary

    15. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Our bodies are designed to work really well for about 45 years

      Our bodies weren't designed at all, I really wish people would stop using that turn of phrase when they know better.

    16. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I think people underestimate the difficulty of extending life.

      This.

      Of course, you could put evolution back on the proper track of life extension by only allowing females who had family histories showing all second-gen forebearers living past 90 to bear children, and then only by being inseminated by the sperm of men similarly sired and then only collected past the age of 75 or so to make sure their "stupid genes" didn't weed them out. Wash, rinse, repeat with cutoff ages increasing. The rest is simply culling of the herd - it might take a few hundred generations, but I'm pretty sure there'd be a few tricks left in the old genome that would let us get to be 120.

      --
      That is all.
    17. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by khallow · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call cutting out a group of cancer cells a cure even though it means you no longer have that cancer.

      I would.

    18. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by khallow · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, these are cures. And they're likely to get better over the next ten years as well as the next fifty.

    19. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Sketchly · · Score: 0

      "Cancer is just one of many, many things that are likely to kill you before you're 120." There are a few other things, too - lightning, buses......

    20. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      But exactly why do all these systems start breaking down? I agree we're not getting particularly close to 120 year lifespans with our current approach, which is tinkering with treatments for the ailments of old age. But I suspect there actually is a simple magic bullet somewhere - something to stop us getting old.

      I doubt it. Nature doesn't work that way. Getting to 120 is going to take a LOT of engineering. You are going to have to manipulate the immune system in a fundementally more complex way than we're doing know. You will need to have better organ transplantation and you're going to have understand the brain. You're going to have to understand human biology at a much deeper level that we currently do. And you will be swamped with details.

      Aging isn't just one thing. It's the pileup of a lifetime of little things going wrong until the bridge collapses.

      You may be able to DELAY aging with some sort of magic bullet but that is likely to have a whole raft of unintended consequences. Not to mention, you're going have to start on it when you're about 20 years old.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prevention? Umm...it's called fruits and vegetables. Haven't you read the news regarding broccoli, spinach, almonds, kale, blueberries, garlic, olives, etc.?

      The reason everyone wants a cure for cancer, not a prevention, is because the prevention tastes icky and is inconvenient.

    22. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by quantaman · · Score: 1

      They break because there was no selective pressure that made them work. Cartilage doesn't regenerate because it lasted as long as we were mobile, veins don't clear plaque because that wasn't an issue with the ancestoral timeframe and lifestyle, neurons don't regrow much because they lasted long enough to keep up, our cancer defences are limited because the cell division errors generally don't go crazy until later life, etc.

      There's not one root cause, each system fails because it's just not designed to keep going past that point. You can fix one system, and that might buy you a couple years if that was the thing that would kill you, but there's still dozens of others all ready to fail in their own unique ways.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    23. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      Why? Because there is no biological reason for a human to live for 120 years. Most women becomes infertile when they are around 40 old. So anything beyond 60 is really unnecessary in a biological sense - then you have had all the children you should have and helped them grown up.

    24. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to count the years spent with lung cancer, throat cancer, higher chances of colon cancer, etc. and the fact that it destroys so much of the Y chromosome that smokers have no Y left in their blood if they smoke long enough, yeah it mores like smoking makes life miserable for a few decades (and that doesn't add the cost of the cigs, surgeries, chemo treatments, sitting with a colostomy bag, etc.)

      So, if you really want to destroy your Y chromesome, give your kids higher chances of leukemia, psychological issues, autism, and pretty much screw up their health and chances of a happy life, yeah definitely continue to smoke.

      If you do continue to smoke, which includes MJ, etc, than consider sterilizing yourself to prevent your kids from having higher chances for all of the all the above.

      Sincerely,
      Your friendly AC

    25. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of our systems evolved to work after seventy, they don't all breakdown at the same rate, but they all break down.

      That's why you should always have your timing belt changed at 50.

    26. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telomeres - those handy little caps on your DNA get worn down after many transcriptions causing many of the signs of aging. If your telomeres were longer or were replenished you could likely keep on trucking until cancer ate you.

    27. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been a parade of the rich and powerful attempting to extend their life, for millennia. The one thing they all had in common was that they spent a lot of time and money and got nothing for it. Many drastically shortened their lives in a fool's errand.

      While I wish Mr. Thiel no ill will, I view this quest, as well as the Libertarian floating paradise, as originating from the same fount of selfishness and ego. If the Libertarian paradise was even partly workable it would be in widespread use today, on land. Mr. Thiel seems not to have noticed this logic flaw. Also, if life extension was in any way achievable millions would be doing so. It would be more popular than the various "erectile disfunction" potions widely available.

    28. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your high population incidence rate of autism, anchondroplasia dwarfism, Turner syndrome, et al.

      Eggs aren't the only thing that goes bad as the body ages. Even though sperm are constantly generated, the stem cells in the germline are still subject to degeneration and studies have already linked "old man sperm" (read, 40+ years old) to those defects. No doubt they will find others.

      If you want eugenics, you had better be willing to go full Aktion T4.

    29. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonetheless, these are cures. And they're likely to get better over the next ten years as well as the next fifty.

      Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Read about the cognitive impairment effects of radiation therapy for brain tumors. I, for one, would rather be dead than to lose my cognitive functions... I consider dementia to be a fate worse than death.

    30. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The cure for most cancers is toxic, involving killing cancer cells more effectively than healthy cells. The other widely used successful treatment is surgery. There are nontoxic cures in some cases, including selective immune enhancement. Rarely, some cancers are cured by removing the irritant causing the cancer and/or general health improvements.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    31. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The evidence for HGH causing cancer is scanty. Far more likely is HGH encouraging the growth of cancer cells, since what HGH does is encourage the growth of those cells ready to grow. HGH is highest in youth, but youth is not when cancer is most prevalent.

      There's lots of accumulated cell damage in old age, and in old age the mechanisms for removing damaged cells are weaker. HGH may make it more likely that a bad cell reproduces out of control.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    32. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comedy aside, it's more like file compression than a buffer. It shaves the 10 years by aging you at an accelerated rate, although I doubt the relationship is linear. Probably closer to a periodic function.

      It's not a step function at the first(or last) cigarette so: put in a low pass filter.

      We know that quitting isn't able to 100% reverse the damage so it isn't a symmetric relationship either. Some sort of polynomial maybe?

    33. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

      So what? You could always just not do that.

    34. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      But I suspect there actually is a simple magic bullet somewhere - something to stop us getting old. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but I think at some point a switch will be found to turn off aging.

      Hmmm, do you also believe we'll have cold fusion in less than twenty years' time? Maybe time travel in another ten?

      A lot of people on slashdot seem to look at the computer industry in the last 50 years and extrapolate from this that everything gets exponentially better.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    35. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call cutting out a group of cancer cells a cure even though it means you no longer have that cancer.

      I would.

      It depends for how long. If you simply cut out a group of cancerous cells, and next week you've got a new lot, it's not a cure.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by khallow · · Score: 1

      I quoted "even though it means you no longer have that cancer". There's no "next week you got a new lot".

    37. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by asc99c · · Score: 1

      There is no extrapolation from the computer industry. But quite simply there are a number of animals that don't appear to age significantly (they die of natural causes but without the death rate increasing with age), and plenty of even more extreme examples in the plant kingdom, of trees apparently thousands of years old. So there doesn't appear to be a fundamental problem with maintaining cells in working order, indefinitely.

      Over evolutionary timescales though, organisms that evolve and adapt will always tend to outpace biologically immortal organisms, and as the other respondents correctly state, there is no evolutionary imperative to survive much beyond childbirth (and it is likely even a negative in evolutionary terms to linger around competing for resources with your children).

      However, if people decide that regardless of the above, they want to live forever, I think it is biologically possible, and once someone finds some real traction on that problem, it will happen.

    38. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's adorable. You're like a little Hitler.

      Firstly, sex cells also develop errors. So while you may be "breeding" for longevity your first generation is likely to have tons of neat genetic errors like high rates of schizophrenia and autism. You may think you're breeding for longevity, but you wouldn't be.

      There's also quite a high likelihood that what you're referring to as stupid genes are also "huge balls" genes, You would have people that were less willing to do things that people would normally fear. The "huge ball" phenotype could come about through the males having less testosterone or maybe they have a more established prefrontal cortex that makes them inhibited and not take risky behavior. Unfortunately, risky behavior can be anything from "hey, watch this! *dies*" to going up to a random girl and striking up a conversation. One is not good for the gene pool, and...well, neither is the other.

      Your dream society would likely die in the second generation when the psychopaths outbreed all the socially retarded pussies that you tried to create. I imagine somewhere down the line we transform into Morloks.

    39. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      I never said I approved of this solution. It does, however, have a higher probability of working than other alternatives, if life extension of humans is your goal.

      --
      That is all.
    40. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Cancer isn't the biggest killer in the US. Heart disease is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eugenics, in other words.

    42. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by abies · · Score: 1

      Question is, how many of these heart issues are solvable if you can spend billion dollars on yourself?

    43. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collecting sperm from men 75+ would have a very different impact on the gene pool than you seem to think it would. That would be like only allowing women 40+ to have children, but worse.

    44. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read Larry Niven's _Ringworld_ for a SF exploration of a slightly different experiment in controlled breeding.

    45. Re:Hahahahahahahahaha LOL by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Some things can be dealt with. When I had my heart attack, the doctor removed the clot that was causing the blockage fast enough to avoid permanent damage. It still took a long time to recover having circulation blocked temporarily to a relatively unimportant place on my heart. I know of no way to reverse coronary artery disease (and I'd expect my cardiologist and general doctor to tell me if there was one). I'm not an expert (except in those specific things that have directly affected me or people close to me), but it doesn't seem to me that heart disease is more treatable than cancer, given unlimited money. (I have seen several people successfully treated for cancer, usually by surgical removal.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Does money buy a cure for hubris? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't cure stupid, that's for sure.

    1. Re:Does money buy a cure for hubris? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't cure stupid, that's for sure.

      Yep.

      With the 70 plus years remaining him and inspired by "Atlas Shrugged," Thiel...

      Atlas Shrugged? Really?

      See, back when they were starting PayPal, there were quite a few online payment systems vying for market dominance. Who was first with the idea? Pfft. Serendipity - i.e. no one.

      PayPal, Thiel and Musk, just happened to know the right people and have been at the right place and happened to be at the right time to make their billions.

      Of course, they would not see the luck involved and of course consider themselves to be the hardest working and the smartest and that they deserve all of their wealth and power. And being a fan of that piece of adolescent economic propaganda by the phony Ayn Rand just shows me the type of person he has and reinforces my opinion of him.

    2. Re:Does money buy a cure for hubris? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are neck elongation, skull reduction surgeries to help with sticking head up ass, available to the rich :)
      then again being a giant asshole probably takes care of it all by itself.
       

    3. Re:Does money buy a cure for hubris? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who lose always see the winners as lucky. Those who win (and are at all competent) see them selves as deserving. The answer is always somewhere in the middle. Most lose because that is what they do. They lost long before they entered the contest (or even before if they didn't enter). Some few had the possibility of winning and it is between them that luck really plays out. Your life, is probably exactly what you made of it.

      "...fortune favors the prepared mind." Dr. Louis Pasteur in 1854

    4. Re:Does money buy a cure for hubris? by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      And that is true for all rich humans. They simply are people who had luck. There is at least a million persons for each rich dude who is as intelligent and as hard working and who isn't rich - because he/she wasn't lucky. The rich needs to come down from their high horses and realize that they are not special. People who admire them should realize that they isn't special.

    5. Re:Does money buy a cure for hubris? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more reason to have a negative income tax or guaranteed income in this country. To help those who aren't lucky.

    6. Re:Does money buy a cure for hubris? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There is at least a million persons for each rich dude who is as intelligent and as hard working and who isn't rich

      Clearly, you aren't one of either group, because simple math from your claim limits the number of rich people on earth to 5000.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  8. This all sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But hell end up dying in a small plane crash or some other accident, and that's long before he starts building Rapture. Wish him the best and all, at least he's going all out.

  9. No worker rights as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must rent your desk, and more like the old company store days.

    they better have a good army for themselves also what happens when some get's layed off and can't pay to get off they can lock them up? shoot them? kick them overboard?

  10. Another paleo-wanker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sick to death of hearing "paleo diet" every time I turn around. Here's an idea: eat a BALANCED diet in amounts that don't put back more calories than you burn in a day and *gasp*, you'll be healthy! No fad diet bullshit, no magical thinking, no yearning for the days when we were chasing down rabbits and screaming at our own shadows during a thunderstorm.

    1. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by Immerman · · Score: 0

      And stay mostly off farmed meat. The fatty, chemical-ridden shit produced in modern meat factories bears very little resemblance to anything our bodies were ever designed to eat.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 0

      I don't know why you're so bothered about it. If you don't like, you don't have to follow it (I don't). Look at it this way, the "paleo" people are testing if the paleo diet works and after several years we should get some free statistics on whether it makes any difference to health.

      But yes, you're right about eating a balanced diet. That's the easiest, healthiest diet we know of for now (or maybe eat Japanese food; they seem to live a long time).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    3. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ultimately, you can't be a slave to any ideology or fad. You have to actually have some self knowledge. You need to observe yourself and adjust accordingly.

      We are not factory stamped duplicates. We are each a very complicated machine each a fork of some very complex bio-mechanical software. The idea that we are not all the same should be obvious to anyone on this site.

      The idea that some of us thrive on habits that would be bad for others should be not terribly controversial.

      You just have to be methodical and make the observations and sort yourself out and not blindly follow anything else.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Informative

      One of the issues of the paleo diet is which paleo tribe will you follow. While this Scientific American article is a bit antagonistic, the research on the variation of diets was interesting.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    5. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how one can give up sugar and drink red wine?

    6. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it's such a success is because people are always looking for guiltless glutony, and paleo brings that on in spades. Also in this camp are atkins, IIFYM, heck even 4HB tried to get a fad going by adding cheat-day to an otherwise clean diet of "slow carbs" aka mostly plants. In practice I've seen people ruined by cheat days, because they don't just eat pizza/fries, they eat ALL of it. One gal I know ate several loaves of bread on her cheat day. People don't get epicly fat without an epicly bad glutonous streak. When they find a diet that means they get to keep some of that, they'll latch onto it, especially if they are very leptin resistant.

    7. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Part of the problem is the paleo enthusiasts and other fad diets are that they don't have the courtesy to test these things on their own, which can end up influencing the food supply for the rest of us. Full fat content yogurt can be nigh impossible to find in some places because of years of preaching about the dangers of fat.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how one can give up sugar and drink red wine?

      Duh, only white wine is sweet, don't you know anything?

      I think more to the point is what evidence do they have that Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were also wine buffs?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I get farmed meat but it isn't from the typical farmer and you won't find meat like it in a grocery store. I find the regular store bought stuff just lacks taste but has wonderful marbling but that is about it. After going back to getting meat from a family friend several years ago it is just night and day the difference. There is flavor in the ground beef so you don't need to add a bunch of seasoning so it tastes good and has a course grind and hasn't been treated with ammonia because the processor can keep their shit clean to prevent e-coli. The beef is also a wonderful dark reddish purple color and when you unwrap it once thawed has a wonderful aroma instead of being bright pink and lacking any smell like the store bought meat. Also it is a lot cheaper then store bought meat with this year's purchase cost about $4.28 per lb after paying the processor and farmer and that includes everything from ground beef to prime rib and tenderloin.

      The farmer I get beef from maintains a small herd of 12 to 14 head on 35 acres of alfalfa and the cattle just roam around living the good life for 2 years. They don't need antibiotics because they aren't knee deep in their own filth and the farmer isn't trying to increase their growth rate so also doesn't use growth hormones. Add in that he grinds about $100 worth of minerals into the silage a week to ensure that the cattle are getting everything they need and they really are healthy cattle. In the 30 or so years of raising cattle the farmer I go to has only lost 2, one was back in 1996 during the really bad cold spell when it got down below -40 and the other one was a calf about 5 years ago that wolves got.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    10. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sounds like some good meat that bears at least a passing resemblance to the wild game we're designed to eat. I envy you your source.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:Another paleo-wanker... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      If you look around it should be possible to find a farmer doing similar things, you may want to go down to a meat processor and ask as they may be able to tell you. I get whole live chickens from a gal that I went to highschool with who raises them and has become kind of a hippy who wants to raise animals in the most humane and natural way possible and does fairly well with her organic free range chickens and eggs business. She lives about 2 miles from my house so when I feel like roasting, frying, or making beer butt chicken I go and pick one up on the way home from work. So if you are in an outer ring suburb there may be some local farmers you could just talk to, they often have signs at the end of their driveway.

      I eat wild game as well and get the deer processed at the same butcher that does the cattle since while I could do it my self it would be a real hatchet job and I also don't have a flash freezer. At a $1/lb processed weight for steaks chops and roasts, $0.25/lb grinding fee for the trimmings, and $20 bone and hide disposal fee it is worth it to get it professionally done as I get all the best cuts instead of what ever I would end up creating. It is actually funny how when we have friends or relatives over for dinner and they see me cooking and wonder why the meat looks so strange but then are amazed at how it tastes, even if I just made a cheap roast like a chuck or round. I refuse to buy meat at the regular grocery store because none of it looks good to me anymore so as far as they are concerned I am a vegetarian who buys only components of food and occasional some chips.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  11. Peter Thiel Plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to be a nob.

  12. Dementia will get'm long before 120 by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Or many of the other old age related diseases of which there is no treatment. Wishful thinking.

    1. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by pjpII · · Score: 1

      Honestly, based on TFA, it has already.

    2. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Or many of the other old age related diseases of which there is no treatment. Wishful thinking.

      He's 47. He's got more than two decades before those are likely to affect him. I'll bet that in 2034 we have effective treatments for most all of them, with genomic analysis and gene therapy being available at the shopping mall, next to the place that does nails. OK, probably not FDA-approved (possibly even banned in the US due to costs of welfare if people don't die off) but that's what medical tourism is for. You might need to fly to Theil's boat to get it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by everett · · Score: 1

      ... I'll bet that in 2034 we have effective treatments for most all of them...

      I'll take that bet, $1000?

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    4. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > He's 47. He's got more than two decades before those are likely to affect him.

      That's just a guess. He could be caught off guard by something manifesting before the "designated time". There probably isn't even enough suitable diagnostic procedures to screen for all of the possibilities.

      Just because something usually hits after people are 65 doesn't mean that it will necessarily only hit YOU after you're 65. Those are just averages and people fall outside those averages.

      On a certain level we are all unique snowflakes. We are all one-off forks of a massively complex biological code base. We don't understand that entire code base yet.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by FirstOne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dementia cured in 20 years, I wouldn't bet on that. The blood brain barrier is not an easy thing to get around. The most likely thing that will slow down brain impairment is a diet rich in the appropriate short and medium chain fatty acids and mental exercises. I.E. not the Paleolithic diet.

      He is also missed two other significant factors that contribute to significant life extension, A calorie restricted diet and fair amount of exercise(which lengthens Telomeres). A large early death factor centers around people not taking care of their kidney's.

      And then there is are number of man made environmental factors. Poorly tested chemical additives.. GMO crops and the ever increasing amounts of glyphosates that goes with them. Other classes of Pesticides, Modern artificial sweeteners, etc Ingestion /inhalation of man made radioactive isotopes. Any one of which can sink his life extension plans before he knows it.

      Next on the hit list is family history of long lived relatives(genetics) or just being a bit too tall or fat. A Large body mass has a tendency to were out organs, and shorten lifespan.

      My bet he'll be dead by 75, maybe 80. Most rich persons aren't willing to make the appropriate life style changes to really slow down the aging process.

      .

    6. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the fuck is this rated a fucking 4

      GMO crops? Glyphosate? 'man made' radioactive isotopes?

      You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you're just inserting buzzwords to make it sound like you do.

    7. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's disappointing that this is the only post in the thread that touches on a research-backed approach to life extension!

      The most reproducible way of extending an organizations life span is through caloric restriction. You can test it at home if you want.. get couple mice, and the one you feed less will live longer. The effects are more pronounced than anything else you can do (including exercise).

      It's also simply and makes sense -- historically, famines were a regular thing, but being "alpha" doesn't propagate your genes when females can't conceive. Instead, it's the male who can go into the best approximation of "suspended animation" and outlive the famine (and outlive other males expending entergy and telomeres on fighting).

      The best "hack" would be alternate-day-fasting. You eat ad lib one day, then skip breakfast/lunch/dinner the next day (and go to bed hungry). Repeat. It seems to have the same benefits as CR except with no muscle wasting.

      I've been doing it for ~6mo so far.. it really isn't hard once you get used to it.

    8. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's disappointing that this is the only post in the thread that touches on a research-backed approach to life extension!

      The most reproducible way of extending an organizations life span is through caloric restriction. You can test it at home if you want.. get couple mice, and the one you feed less will live longer.

      Except it hasn't been proven to extend the life of humans, and it doesn't seem to work in rhesus monkeys. You'll get some health benefits, but probably not live much longer.

    9. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it hasn't been proven to extend the life of humans, and it doesn't seem to work in rhesus monkeys. You'll get some health benefits, but probably not live much longer.

      It will never be proven in a randomized trial to extend the life of humans, but only because such a trial will never happen. It does seem to work in rhesus monkeys, but the benefit depends on what the monkeys were eating already. If you are already fit, lean, and eating a nutritious natural diet ("Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.") then further restriction probably doesn't add much. But if you eat and live like 99% of the Western population, lowering your risk of diabetes from medium/high to zero alone will most definitely extend your life.

    10. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      A calorie restricted diet and fair amount of exercise(which lengthens Telomeres)
      Neither exercising nor a low calory diet lengthens telomeres ... how do you come to that idea?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by FirstOne · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yea sure, I expected to get a scientific article :D

      No idea why you believe the bullshit you linked to.

      Telomerase only works (naturally) in 3 kinds of human cells, none of them is affected by exercising ... it is left up to you to figure which cells that are, or just google it, rofl.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He's 47. He's got more than two decades before those are likely to affect him.

      The greatest risk to his health is his ego. All of his posturing and pseudo-intellectual nabobbing (yes, I do understand his is quite smart) is simply an educated and sophisticated way of saying, "Hey y'all, watch this!"

    14. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      Telomerase only works (naturally) in 3 kinds of human cells

      Not once in the article I quoted nor my posts have mentioned Telomerase, shifting the focus of the discussion, instead of admitting your error.

      Finding a study is a simple task by googling "diet and exercise telomeres", yielding Scholarly links

      But nooo, you insist on being an a irrational poster, changing the subject and complaining I haven't met your requirements. If you really want a science links here, but the Prostrate cancer study, (5yr follow up, Blood cell telomeres lengthened by +10%, verses -3% control group) is behind a pay-wall. I suppose you'll complain about that as well.

    15. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I did not change the subject.
      I pointed out that Telomerase only works in very few kinds of human cells.
      So it is very unlikely that muscle cells or what ever cells got tested in your studies lengthen their telomeres.
      It is much more likely that more stem cells are produced and help in muscle growth so that other cells dont split (and lose telomere) so that bottom line perhaps in an excercised body the average length of the telomeres is longer than in an non excercised one.
      In no way does that imply or make any sense in hinting that existing cells with telomeres of length X get longer telomers by excercising (that is what you implied, and AFAIK that is impossible in a human body ... not so in Chameleons or Eals e.g. )

      Next try?

      The blood cell telomere length is a no brainer, as one of the three strands of human cells that can perform telomerase are bone marrow cells, which produce: ..... think think think ? ... think more ... think more ... wow: blood cells!
      And an excericing persons forst body reaction is? Think ... think ... think more ... think more ... what do you think? Producing more Blood Cells! Right!

      Wow, that was easy ...

      So: afaWk excersising has no real effect on telomeres, not in your brain, not in your liver not in your heart or anywhere else. However your sperm quallity is increasing ... if you are into that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Dementia will get'm long before 120 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMO crops don't have any ill health effects. You may be right about some of the rest of this, but most people reading that claim will stop reading.

  13. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's gonna need that cure for cancer with all the HGH he's taking, assuming he's taking it intravenously. Otherwise, he's just flushing money down the toilet. I do look forward to his building a real-life floating Rapture. Hopefully all the super-rich will go down to the murky depths together during a violent storm.

  14. Been there, Done that, Own the t-shirt by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
    I plan on living forever

    Got to love people's plans - Of course there is nothing stopping him from being hit by a bus, or other random thing that can get people.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  15. Is that it? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    What's he going to get to do in 120 years that he - with all his money - can't do in 80?

    Aim for digital immortality.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Is that it? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Should one of these guys succeed, half the denigrating posters in this thread will immediately demand the government seize the technology and roll it out to the masses.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Is that it? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not die for an extra 40 years? Such hubris is rarely accompanied by any interest in accomplishments. It's all about self indulgence (and/or fear of death), and you can't indulge yourself in the grave.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Is that it? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > What's he going to get to do in 120 years that he - with all his money - can't do in 80?

      I'm thinking, prove that it can be done. That would be a good thing. And what techniques were used, of course.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, succeed? What do you mean, the technology? He's hoping that there will be a cure for the cancer that he's probably going to give himself by taking HGH. Hoping! If someone finds that cure, he's going to be in line to buy it like everybody else, only he'll have the money, unlike some poor schmuck who got cancer the old fashioned way, by working in hazardous environments. More likely though nobody will find that cure, at least not in time to cure that prick, and he'll leech from the mountain of publicly funded research and facilities to indefinitely treat his self-afflicted ailments and still die like the rest of us.

    5. Re:Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I always read about these "cure for cancer" treatments. Having cancer, you go to the best doctor, at the best hospital, where money is literally not an issue, and you become severely disappointed at the cure rates and treatment options that are likely to be successful.

      If you get it, don't expect the doctors to be able to help much unless you were lucky enough to get it completely surgically removed before stage 4. If that isn't an option, there really isn't much they can do other than making you hang around a couple of months longer.

      It is interesting to go through stage 4 treatment and then hear people like this saying it will be cured in a couple of years. This is a case where reality does not conform to delusions.

    6. Re:Is that it? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are confused. His goal is not to improve humanity by creating cures for all of the things that will kill him before he turns age 120. His goal is to give a big "f*ck you" to the society that will create all of those cures for him.

      He intends to benefit from society without contributing to it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re: Is that it? by jxander · · Score: 1

      My guess : See the world. Think about how far we've come in the last 40 years.

      40 years ago, Pong was first released on home console. And now I'm using a device with orders of magnitude more computational power than all of the pong consoles ever created combined. I just asked this device where I should go for lunch. It gave me a few suggestions and helpfully drew me a map.

      40 years ago, Voyager was still in the planning phases. It wouldn't be launched for another two years. And now, it's exited the heliosphere, and taken the most amazing Family Portrait ever captured.

      And I can't begin to imagine how much better life is for women, minorities, homosexuals, or really anyone that's not a 'normal' white male, compared to 40 years ago

      Given the option of dying at 80, or living to see what another 40 years might hold... well ...

      --
      This signature is false.
    8. Re:Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably, but chances are slim to none without some profound advance like nanotechnology.

      This guy strikes me as somebody who thinks that because he was in the right place, at the right time, with the right connections that he's some kind of Randian uberman who can defy biology just with his virtue alone.

      I forget which documentary I was watching when I originally heard about the concept of a building manager gene, but if he doesn't have it, his body will fall apart like everyone else's when he gets to 70/80-ish. If he does have it, he's not making it past 115.

      Well, ok, it's possible, but I doubt Jeanne Calment did any of this paleo nonsense or screwed around with her endocrine system with HGH. From wikipedia:

      Calment's remarkable health presaged her later record. At age 85 (1960), she took up fencing, and continued to ride her bicycle up until her 100th birthday. She was reportedly neither athletic nor fanatical about her health.[9] Calment lived on her own until shortly before her 110th birthday, when it was decided that she needed to be moved to a nursing home after a cooking accident (due to complications with sight) started a small fire in her house. However, Calment was still in good shape, and continued to walk until she fractured her femur during a fall at age 114 years 11 months (January 1990), which required surgery.[5][14]

      Calment smoked cigarettes from the age of 21 (1896) to 117 (1992),[2][16] though according to an unspecified source, she smoked no more than two cigarettes per day towards the end of her life.[17] After her operation, Calment needed to use a wheelchair. In 1994, age 119, she weighed 45 kilograms (99 lb).

      Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil[4] (which she also rubbed onto her skin), as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. She also credited her calmness, saying, "That's why they call me Calment."[18] Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.[4]

      So, she wasn't a sedentary alcoholic like yours truly, but waiting until your 117th birthday to quit smoking! I find that fascinating.

    9. Re:Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we don't have to worry about him succeeding, we can just sit back and wait for the day when he gets cancer and dies or his floating Randian city hijacked by pirates. Either way, comedy gold awaits.

    10. Re:Is that it? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      That is certainly what it sounds like from TFA.

    11. Re: Is that it? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Except there is no real reason why it should continue that way. If you look around you, there are lots of anti-science movements, less interest in academia, less investment in long-term ventures. The "easy" problems are solved, and the hard ones are still there. Sure we should continue to make progress, but also we could face disasters like never before (cue global warming, energy crisis, new cold or hot wars, etc). Personally I work harder than ever before I and I see lots of unemployed people around me. Not a good combination.

    12. Re:Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the guy who co-created paypal and invested in numerous other startups and has written books on starting companies is contributing nothing to society?

      I think he's creating jobs and teaching others how to create jobs. I think that is incredibly valuable for society.

    13. Re:Is that it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What's he going to get to do in 120 years that he - with all his money - can't do in 80?

      Die of a heart attack while removing a bra with his teeth.

    14. Re:Is that it? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      So eh did he not pay taxes on his earnings to date? Is he not going to pay money for the cures which will also benefit everyone else? Do you feel you have the right to somehow demand more?

      How did a comment this ignorant get modded up?

    15. Re: Is that it? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The "easy" problems are solved, and the hard ones are still there.

      Andrew Wiles might disagree.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:Is that it? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Should one of these guys succeed, half the denigrating posters in this thread will immediately demand the government seize the technology and roll it out to the masses.

      Yes, I'm sure "these guys" are both funding and performing all the scientific research into ageing themselves. They own all the research hospitals in the world, as well as all the universities doing practical and theoretical research.

      If they will succeed, it will be a singlehanded piece of brilliance by one of these Randian supermen.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re: Is that it? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      40 years ago, Pong was first released on home console. And now I'm using a device with orders of magnitude more computational power than all of the pong consoles ever created combined. I just asked this device where I should go for lunch. It gave me a few suggestions and helpfully drew me a map.

      Am I the only one who finds this less than awesome, in the scheme of things?

      If I'd been working forty years ago, I'd have talked to a colleague, or read a newspaper or just walked down the street or something, and found a place to go for lunch.

      Mobile phones are cool, but they aren't curing cancer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. He's doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ray Kurzweil's got this ultra-longevity thing figured out

  17. And so it begins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so it begins. Again.

    The rich attempt to defeat death once more.

    Here's hoping their success and eventual failure is well documented so it can be used to improve medical science in general.
    Any attempt to extend medical science is always useful, even if it is highly destructive in nature.

  18. Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    That would teach him how much of his life depends on the poor people doing their part. If pirates attack is Galt's Gulch island or the mercenary soldiers he had hired to protect the island, imprison him and take over all his wealth, would he just shrug and accept his fate?

    By the way whats wrong with John Galt? Supposedly brilliant chap, and just because one stupid railroad executive refused to build a railroad track to his pet project he just gives up? For all that brilliance could he not build a railroad? John Galt was an idiot, so are the people who mistake that fiction to be their guiding philosophy.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Informative

      What? You didn't read the book did you? Galt "gave up" because he didn't want the owners of the company to take his idea. It had nothing to do with railroads.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      Your drooling makes no sense. A proper response would include no fewer than 37 "First of all..."s.

      But first, one must pass it through a debabbelifier to see what you are saying.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by khallow · · Score: 2

      If pirates attack is Galt's Gulch island or the mercenary soldiers he had hired to protect the island, imprison him and take over all his wealth, would he just shrug and accept his fate?

      The most successful pirate, Ragnar DanneskjÃld was a founding member of Galt's Gulch. You just make sure the people with the guns are on board and that they aren't all under a single point of control.

      Supposedly brilliant chap, and just because one stupid railroad executive refused to build a railroad track to his pet project he just gives up?

      Sounds like you ought to read the book sometime. You could alternate it with something like Das Kapital, if you're afraid of picking up Rand cooties.

    4. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      would he just shrug and accept his fate?

      No, because those mercenaries would be acting like a government that is taxing him, and that would make them evil. He'd have to make a second Galt's Gulch island to protest his first island's statistism.

    5. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His life is much better when he co-operates with other people. He doesn't want to be anyone's victim, or to victimise anyone else.
      If pirates attack Galt's Gulch he'll defend it if he's able. If he knows their is a threat, he'll prepare to meet that threat.
      I don't know which book you read, but no railroad executive refused to build a railroad track to his project.
      He doesn't give up. He goes on strike.
      It wouldn't be impossible for him to build a railroad, but other people would be relatively better at it than he would. He wants to trade.
      The philosophy came first. The novel is one projection of the philosophy to show life as it could be and should be.

      So many errors in such a short post. Perhaps read the novel and learn something of the philosophy before criticising it.

    6. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite sufficient to just defend the first Gulch. You have a right to self defence.

    7. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people want to read childish trash, they'll just read something like the Twilight series.

    8. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Perhaps read the novel and learn something of the philosophy before criticising it.

      I'm pretty sure everyone already knows plenty about the "I've got mine so fuck you" philosophy of the Randroids. If I wanted to read juvenile fiction to bore myself some day, I'd just read a Stephanie Meyer novel. At least she eventually gets to the point.

    9. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently what you "know" about Rand's philosophy is not what Rand thought.

      "I've got mine so fuck you" is the opposite of Rand's philosophy.
      She thought the only type of moral relationships were win-win relationships - "I can only get mine when you get yours".

    10. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Apparently what you "know" about Rand's philosophy is not what Rand thought.

      It sure matches how she acted and that's all that really matters.

      "I've got mine so fuck you" is the opposite of Rand's philosophy.

      And yet all the Randroids espouse such a philosophy.

      She thought the only type of moral relationships were win-win relationships - "I can only get mine when you get yours".

      Thanks for the laugh.

    11. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to read juvenile fiction to bore myself some day, I'd just read a Stephanie Meyer novel. At least she eventually gets to the point.

      But without most of the emotionless, pointless BDSM sex. Wait was that in the Twilight books too?

    12. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ridiculous to criticise a book you haven't read. Totally second-handed.

    13. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not how she acted, and nobody's perfect.

      It's not Objectivism, it's not what Rand thought, it's someone else's caricature you've bought into without knowing anything about the topic yourself.

      Laughing doesn't change your ignorance, or reality.

    14. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough, I read Atlas Shrugged when I had nothing and really knew nothing (but it struck a chord). As I've grown older and endlessly watched all the leeches and hangers-on in society team up to ironically make it harder and harder for hard working people to sustain them, the story appeals to me more and more even though I haven't read it in 25 years, Amazing what you can learn from someone with actual life experience, eh?

    15. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me again. I forgot to mention, it really isn't the "I've got mine" crowd that Ayn Rand appeals to. It's the "I'd like to work on mine and it would be nice if you would get out of the way" crowd for whom her message really hits home.

    16. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      I read it. That's the reason I'd never read it or any other Ayn Rand trash ever again.

    17. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by enigma32 · · Score: 1

      Yes! This!

      It's frequently all too obvious that people critical of ideas that originated (or were perpetuated by) that woman have absolutely no understanding of the ideas and frequently haven't even read the books.

      Love that phrasing, btw: "I'd like to work on mine and it would be nice if you would get out of the way".

    18. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Poor people are poor for a reason. I've seen people who are poor because they have nothing to offer. In that case, his life would not be helped by a poor person. That also applies to those who can work but refuse to do so.

      Just to fill out the list of reasons that people can be poor, there are those that are spendthrifts, and those that have had so much stolen from them that they can't recover.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And what about the pirates who aren't initially on board, and decide to take everything at gunpoint after it's fully developed?
      Is Thiel planning to have a navy as well?

    20. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you posted about a rail executive refusing to build a railway to John Galt's project being the reason John Galt gives up, you've got the plot wrong and John Galt's basic motivations wrong. Then you responded to someone suggesting you read the book with what amounted to "everyone knows her philosophy. If I wanted to read "juvenile fiction", you'd read something else'. That's why it looks like you haven't read the book.

      You could be lying about having read the book, perhaps you skimmed it and have forgotten it or perhaps there's some other alternative. Whichever it is, when you start posting on a topic and then start making basic errors about that topic, then imply that you don't even need to read the thing your criticizing, you look like a total plonker.

    21. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by khallow · · Score: 1
      You make an example out of them with your vastly superior firepower. Galt's Gulch wasn't just a bunch of rich dudes hiding out, but also the greatest technology center in the world along with a very competent military force. Thus is the power of science fiction.

      Is Thiel planning to have a navy as well?

      Sounds like he'll lean on some developed world navies. But if he's planning to go it alone, yes. They could always just not put these things right off the coast of Somalia or North Korea. Pirates aren't found everywhere. Don't put them next to poor people or authoritarian states. That leaves a lot of ocean.

    22. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You make an example out of them with your vastly superior firepower. Galt's Gulch wasn't just a bunch of rich dudes hiding out, but also the greatest technology center in the world along with a very competent military force. Thus is the power of science fiction.

      You do know the meaning of the last word in that paragraph, right?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes.

  19. Uh huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that.

  20. Dying of boredom by rmpotter · · Score: 4, Funny

    With so much of his time devoted to maintaining the caveman diet, there's a good chance Thiel could actually die of boredom. He's kinda boring me already.

    --
    Is this sig nificant?
    1. Re:Dying of boredom by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 1

      We all know that cavemen lived to be at least 150 years old due to their superior diet!!!

      Seriously, though, I have no doubt that there are some health benefits to eating more leafy greens and fewer starches, but this guy is whacko.

      --
      "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    2. Re:Dying of boredom by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      On the other hand, if I only had 6 months to live, the first thing I'd do is to get back together with my ex-wife.

      That would be the longest 6 months ever.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  21. I am a scientist in real life (IAAS?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I actually am a scientist, and coincidentally, I work for the National Cancer Institute (a part of NIH). While I don't want state anything in absolute certainties, I seriously doubt we'll be able to "cure cancer" in 10 years. Other than the exercise, I fail to see how any of those things will help him live to 120. They may give him a high chance of reaching 80, or something like that, but most of his approaches are probably being used for the wrong purposes. I mean, cavemen (and women!) didn't live very long lives, even accounting for frank injuries from dinosaurs, sharktopus, and whatnot.

    Disclaimer: Didn't watch the video.

    1. Re:I am a scientist in real life (IAAS?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what cool-aid the NIH is feeding you, but for people that are rich enogh to have custom drugs made for them, cancer is already cured provided they seek treatment eairly enough (Steve Jobs was a moron and waited too long). Peptide, dendritic cell, and T-cell vaccines all work quite well once you sequecne the turmor.

    2. Re:I am a scientist in real life (IAAS?) by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware cancer was cured for the rich.

    3. Re:I am a scientist in real life (IAAS?) by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      For a scientist you know pretty few about cavemen's and dinosaur's diets ... but well.
      You are very right about the other stuff, though.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:I am a scientist in real life (IAAS?) by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The average life expectancy for a white male aged 40 in the United States is an additional 38.6 years. This guy looks to be in good health and is actively maintaining his health. That gives him an excellent chance of getting well past his mid-eighties, even without the heroic measures that his wealth makes available to him.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:I am a scientist in real life (IAAS?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually am a scientist, and coincidentally, I work for the National Cancer Institute (a part of NIH). While I don't want state anything in absolute certainties, I seriously doubt we'll be able to "cure cancer" in 10 years. .

      Wait, that's not what you told me when I donated.

  22. He will never truly die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    As long as he is in our memories, he'll live on in our hearts.

    .

  23. You can't "cure" cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't work like that. It's like saying we'll cure every virus ever. There may be ways to get the body to fight it, but there isn't a cure.

  24. perhaps a better title by nimbius · · Score: 0

    bloomberg magazine reports that rich people are still crazier than a shit-house rat. This guys hopeful pledge is fundamentally pointless on a number of levels.
    HGH: enjoy an increased risk of diabetes and Hodgkins lymphoma. HGH, or human growth hormone, is basically a recreational steroid for the well-to-do. its effectiveness in extending life has never even been correlated, let alone proven. At worst, its an example of just how broken the american medical system is.
    Paleo: all meats in america are processed to some level, and red meat has been directly correlated with an increased risk of prostate and colon cancer. various additives like nitrites and processing methods such as using carbon monoxide to improve meat color, actually involve carcinogens or cancer suspect agents in their execution. Factory farming and the prolific use of sterroids and hormones in all american meat have virtually guaranteed an increased risk of cancer. enjoy significantly elevated levels of cholesterol, and supporting a fundamentally unsustainable concept of factory farming that contributes to everything from climate change to aggressively resistant bacteria and viruses.
    Cure for cancer: yes. yes you will need this if you seriously think gobbling hormones and sterroids will prolong your life to 120. But if you think its coming in 10 years, you're out of your mind. Cancer is still a gruelling disease that we hardly understand. We have to throw some of our most advanced, and destructive, medical treatments at it just to ensure remission and even thats not guaranteed.

    where this nut job really fies off the rails is the soverign nation at sea for 'like minded' individuals who also happen to be coincidentally filthy fucking rich and totally disinterested in normal society to the point that gated communities no longer cut it. Have fun defending it from cruise missiles and guided tactical nuclear arms once one of these 'like minded' people pisses off a foreign nation.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:perhaps a better title by afidel · · Score: 1

      Paleo: all meats in america are processed to some level, and red meat has been directly correlated with an increased risk of prostate and colon cancer. various additives like nitrites and processing methods such as using carbon monoxide to improve meat color, actually involve carcinogens or cancer suspect agents in their execution. Factory farming and the prolific use of sterroids and hormones in all american meat have virtually guaranteed an increased risk of cancer. enjoy significantly elevated levels of cholesterol, and supporting a fundamentally unsustainable concept of factory farming that contributes to everything from climate change to aggressively resistant bacteria and viruses.

      This is a specious argument, a man of such extreme wealth will have zero problems acquiring whatever form of meat his heart desires. Should he want only American Bison filet every day then he can afford an immense herd where one individual is killed to provide him his daily cut of meat.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:perhaps a better title by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      all meats in america are processed to some level

      You've neither hunted nor fished, nor gone to grade school to learn the rules of capitalization.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:perhaps a better title by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      all meats in america are processed to some level

      Yes but only if you mean butchered by a professional, wrapped in butcher paper, and flash frozen. Granted this isn't common and you are correct that most meat is packed in carbon monoxide and/or treated with ammonia as well as being pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones all while being fed a crap diet. It is however possible to get good meat that hasn't had all of that done to it but you won't find in a regular grocery store. Go to a small meat processor in a small town that sells to the public and you would be amazed at what you can get when compared to the crap at the grocery store.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  25. I'm planning to live 120YO by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    It takes 40 years to figure out life, 40 years to save up for retirement, and 40 years watch everyone else die. At 45-years-old, I've completed one-third of my life. I'm too sexy to die young. If 120 years was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for me.

    1. Re:I'm planning to live 120YO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40 years of wandering in the desert...

    2. Re:I'm planning to live 120YO by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      saving for retirement = wandering in the desert

      FTFY

  26. Contradiction by perry64 · · Score: 1

    Having served in the Navy for over a decade, I've got to say that "floating in international waters" and "looser building codes" seems to be a inherent contradiction in their plan.

  27. Oh look, more "I'm rich. Fuck you." libertianism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope his semi-mortality works out well what with disgruntled low paid workers with easy access to weapons operating his Raft.

  28. He will die... by Skiron · · Score: 1

    .... but then be put in a suspended state where no matter HOW many phone calls, e-mails, or other contact will you be allowed to get him back - even his Mother will be REFUSED until the investigation is completed, which incidentally will be 120 years. Only then will you get the body, minus interest and taxes.

  29. Real plan: by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    In the words of Billy Joel, "Only the good die young". So being a venture capitalist should be a good head start on a long life.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  30. Why Paleo? Why always Paleo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people think this is a healthy diet?

    We have very VERY well and very current medical evidence that suggests what the best kinds of diets are, and are still commonly eaten in many countries.
    If you are wondering, it is Mediterranean diets and East Asian diets.
    But diet isn't all there is to it, either.

    He has the physical side down, more or less, but does he have the mental side down? Who knows. He hasn't mentioned anything about the general stresses he goes through, his overall emotional state and so on. Those play a HUGE part in it as well.
    Being annoyed at things is enough to shave a couple years off you. Yes, just simple seemingly harmless annoyance. Being around people you actively get annoyed by, or things you are annoyed by, all of these contribute to that.
    His annoyance at not being where he is could very well cut him short of 120.
    His bodies eventual failures that start to pile up will annoy.

    Of course, he isn't even half way through his hopeful life-span.
    In that time, we most certainly will have solved the majority of cancer problems.
    Already we have found the metal used to form the key to unlock how secondary tumors spread. It is only a matter of time before the biggest threat cancer poses is reduced to basically nothing. Secondary cancers are the ones that kill most of the time since they form over and over in ever-increasingly complex places and it is not long before it becomes a serious issue where it begins forming in vital organs.
    Cancer in general, that will likely take longer. Cancer is a very fundamental issue. It lies at the heart of multicellular life. It might take understanding the genome and physics behind biology in order to prevent it entirely. Actually understand it, that is.
    Body transplants. Cloning body parts. Stuff like that will probably be commonplace for the rich in 40 odd years.
    Nanotech, that likely won't come for a while. We are getting there though, so fingers crossed.
    However, stem cell treatment and future treatments that can break brain plaques down could allow him to potentially even go past that 120 mark.
    The brain fails because of plaques. It is the eventual doom we all face if we live that long. And we know that sleep actually is the process that clears the brain of plaques as best as it can. But it has obvious failures. Humans, hell, most life, has never lived long enough to have experienced brain failure on any reasonable time scale with respect to evolution. There hasn't been any chance for it to develop any more efficient system of clean-up beyond the usual sleep.
    Long long before that has ever happened, offspring has been produced and life goes on.
    Evolution has no purpose other than to continue, just like the hands of time. Tick tock.

  31. Let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon Musk wants to retire on Mars.

    And Peter Thiel wants to establish a floating sovereign nation and live to be 120 yo.

    Personally I'm betting on Musk.

  32. Bioshock feels oddly prescient by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    His secret — taking human growth hormone (HGH) every day, a special Paleo diet, and a cure for cancer within ten years. "[HGH] helps maintain muscle mass, so you're much less likely to get bone injuries, arthritis," says Thiel. "There's always a worry that it increases your cancer risk but — I'm hopeful that we'll get cancer cured in the next decade [...] a modern nutritional diet designed to emulate, insofar as possible using modern foods, the diet of wild plants and animals eaten by humans during the Paleolithic era. [...] investing in a number of biotechnology companies to extend human lifespans, including Stem CentRx Inc., which uses stem cell technology for cancer therapy. [...] plans to launch a floating sovereign nation in international waters, freeing him and like-minded thinkers to live by libertarian ideals with no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.

    If anyone played those games and thought "well how could all this batshit stuff all happen in the same place?" now you have your answer.

  33. Who wants to live forever? by faedle · · Score: 1

    I've been thinking long and hard about this concept lately. I'm getting old(er), and I'm noticing that I'm starting to slow down. I've still got 20, maybe 30 years of good life left, but really I don't see the point of living much beyond my 60s.

    Logan's Run had the right idea. People increasingly just "get in the way" of progress at a certain age. It does vary for some of us, but I'm already seeing that in some ways I'm holding society back by extending my life. The next generation is more tolerant, more enlightened, and certainly more technically competent than I could ever hope to be.

    1. Re:Who wants to live forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well, I'm not quiet ready to say goodbye to my only remaining parent just yet.

    2. Re:Who wants to live forever? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Wait until you are looking death in the face. You may change your mind.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Who wants to live forever? by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      The problem I see you having is not with living for ever but with becoming decrepit. Increasing age and decreasing health and ability are not intimately linked. Some people deteriorate at relatively young ages, like yourself, but others are healthy and vibrant into their 80's, 90's and even 100's. If you weren't feeling like you were slowing down you might feel like living longer.

      Personally, I have a lot of things that I still want to accomplish so I'm willing to give immortality a try. At the end, perhaps we can compare notes if you believe in the afterlife...

    4. Re:Who wants to live forever? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      The sooner you pop off the better, it's poisonous little shits like you that make humanity look bad tbh. Age brings experience and knowledge of the mistakes that were made by others, mistakes like believing whatever the nearest demagogue is trying to sell. This is knowledge that must be passed on to young people so they don't end up making the same mistakes.

    5. Re:Who wants to live forever? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As a 60-year-old, I'm very interested in living beyond my 60s. Most of the older people I know were reasonably healthy through their 70s, although the 80s got iffy, and I'd be just as happy missing what happened to them in their 90s. There really isn't that much shortage of resources, so by dying at 60 you're not giving a 20-year-old a chance to live.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Who wants to live forever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? In reality old people are the most backward, ignorant and are the ones holding back society with their bigotry, hatred, and denial of science. They are not the pearls of wisdom you think they are.

  34. Wow, such a surprise! by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another childless, rich, white male plans to live(practically) forever - STOP THE PRESSES!

    Dude, have a kid. It's cheaper, more reliable and far more fun.

    1. Re:Wow, such a surprise! by enigma32 · · Score: 2

      So... you had a kid recently then?

    2. Re:Wow, such a surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another childless, rich, white male plans to live(practically) forever - STOP THE PRESSES!

      Wow, personal attacks and dismissive tone? How convincing!

      Dude, have a kid. It's cheaper, more reliable and far more fun.

      And also completely irrelevant. This may come as a shock to you, but your subjective aspirations are not inherently superior, nor even necessarily gratifying to others.

    3. Re:Wow, such a surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone is willing to fund the research I'm not going to scoff at them.

    4. Re:Wow, such a surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and it will help with the global population shortage!

      Oh... wait....

    5. Re:Wow, such a surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You underestimate how much fun being rich, white and childless can be.

    6. Re:Wow, such a surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the most annoying thing about parents is their assumption that everyone else would love to be one as well.

    7. Re:Wow, such a surprise! by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Dude, have a kid. It's cheaper, more reliable and far more fun.

      Not a fan of Thiel or his stupid island, but if a guy doesn't want to have a kid, more power to him. The last thing we need is yet more kids from couples who don't want them.

  35. 70 years by quantaman · · Score: 1

    That's a long time to live with a tenuous connection to reality.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:70 years by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. I've already lived over half of that with a tenuous connection to reality. I intend to continue eating fatty foods and with luck, I'll go out in a single massive heart attack around that age.

    2. Re:70 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me about it. I've already lived over half of that with a tenuous connection to reality. I intend to continue eating fatty foods and with luck, I'll go out in a single massive heart attack around that age.

      Well, that'll help, but it's really the carbohydrates that increase your risk of heart disease, not dietary fat.

  36. Humans aren't supposed to eat animals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hence our revulsion at the sight of a human being killing an animal with their bare hands and teeth, and ripping their flesh apart with their teeth...

    Oh, wait... that doesn't even happen - which proves my point.

    Yet the 'intelligent' Slashdot crowd will still insist that they aren't vegan because they thought it all up for themselves, and it was nothing to do with societal brainwashing from birth. LOL.

    1. Re:Humans aren't supposed to eat animals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as universal revulsion to the sight of killing or anything you're claiming. That is a myth in your mind. Children are naturally curious about killing, dismemberment and such. They enjoy killing until you teach them otherwise. You learned to be repulsed by indoctrination but that was nurture, not nature. You've been brainwashed.

    2. Re:Humans aren't supposed to eat animals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we like to believe when kids hit that stage that they torture the neighbors cat that the kid should be in therapy or on pills, but actually that's when he should be introduced to hunting. Disclaimer: I'm not a gun nut nor have I ever actually hunted anything. I just realize the sadistic treatment little boys do to animals is not because they are "bad", but because their instinctual needs are not being met.

  37. My Dream by BadPirate · · Score: 1

    I was going to find a way to make the money to buy a section of land out in farm country, and build 2 giant old world style castles. My friends and I would go live there and we would fight paintball battles all day. There would be no "work" or "jobs" or parents, only paintball.

    Then I turned 10 and realized that was kind of ridiculous.

    Just like the suggestion that 10 million people will be living in floating Ayn Rand cities by 2050, and that the secret recipe to immortality is steroids and the most recent diet fad.

    --
    - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
  38. Libertarian My A** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a third world navy, or simply pirates takes over his island tax haven paradise, he will beg some non-libertarian state to protect his pampered A**. Pure libertarianism, like anarchy, capitalism and communism, works so much better in the pages of a book than in the cold harsh light of the real world.

  39. Killed by an artificially intelligent car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he should also invest in car automation companies because
    they are the most likely to actually kill the dude within the next 70 years.
    If you don't control them, they will control you.....

  40. Another clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be interesting what it is that will get him well before 120. Steve Jobs also had crazy ideas about longevity and dieting, and the latter very likely contributed to his early demise from pancreatic cancer. We'll see how history laughs at this clown and Kurzweill, another clown, when they kick the bucket helped by their own stupidity.

  41. Side effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about side effects? Even the most basic drugs have them.

  42. Junk Science, Fad Diets, and the work of ofthers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what it boils down to. Maybe Dr. Oz helped him devise the plan, though I'm not sure you can legitimately call it a plan, since it includes "somebody cures cancer" as on of it's key steps.

    Maybe the underpants gnomes can help him out too.

  43. Steroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because professional wrestlers live really long lives taking steroids... Oh wait, no.

  44. No guarantees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luke 12:15

    1. Re:No guarantees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As he dies, his last thought will be "If I had not made something of myself, I would still be alive and well".

      YHWH:1 Human ambition: 0

  45. it had to happen eventually... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    all this money floating around had to start making interesting headlines like this eventually.
    See headlines from 2008, 1999 also.

    --
    -
  46. Silly hippy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no doubt they will import labor and pay them subsistence, since no one in this floating nation will be willing to collect the trash.

    Subsistence?! You will never make a good Libertarian.

    "Another day older and deeper in debt" sound familiar? How about "I owe my soul to the company store"?
    You make sure they are in debt to you and can never quit, you never let them subsist. If they can subsist they can leave (hint: if you can make sure they cannot leave or contact the outside world, you do not pay them at all). Ideally when they die you dump them overboard, then you go after their family for the debts they accrued during their employment with you.

  47. sad little man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some random things pop into my head reading this:

    1. why would you want to live to be 120?
    2. cancer's not going to be cured in 10 years

    1. Re:sad little man by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you're enjoying life, why would you want to stop enjoying life?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  48. Running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Running really isn't that good for you. Sure it can increase your muscle mass (lift weights instead), cardio endurance (play a wind instrument instead), and releases dopamine into your brain (do anything fun or fulfilling), but there's lot of side effects. Your joints wear out faster, you will get foots injures eventually, and it puts your body under massive stress. Your body thinks you're running to save your life so it temporarily shuts down your digestion system, your immune system, and everything else that's using energy that could be spent on getting away from whatever is attacking you. That dopamine is so you don't feel the ill effects and instead keep running because running is the only thing keeping you from being eaten. There have been meta studies that show runners actually die sooner than those who don't run. Body stress matters.

    However with "no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons" I expect his island would turn into some type of slavery state. Something in that type of society with unreliable buildings (in the middle of the ocean no less) will kill him way before 120. Hopefully one of his young sex slaves will do him in.

    1. Re:Running? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Welfare: inefficient government-run money stealing program that discourages the creation of goods.

      Building codes: Are you aware that in one of Boston's tonier regions, vinyl window frames are illegal? Residents must use wood. Not all aspects of building codes are good.

      Minimum wage: If you're 5 years old and want to buy a comic book, you probably can't do anything that anyone is willing to pay you minimum wage for. But you might find a neighbor willing to pay you $2 an hour to pull weeds from a garden, and you might even be worth that much. Why deny the child the ability to earn a comic book? Why deny him the training that may help him to be more successful later in life?
      It's also well established that the effect of minimum wages in the United States especially hurts young Negros. Minimum wage laws are racist.

      Weapons: weapons laws in the U.S. are capricious at best. Limitations of the caliber and firing mechanisms on firearms are silly. Laws on garrottes, brass knuckles, and knives vary by state and in some cases by city.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  49. Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... inspired by "Atlas Shrugged"

    Reading this is on my to-do list but I get the impression that this novel is the foundation of neo-liberalism: The belief that a corporation is more righteous and valuable person than a natural person. No, a corporation is an artificial identity created by law to limit the liability of employees and owners. Corporations don't pay for judges and jails.

    ... plans to launch a floating sovereign nation ...

    There was a floating strip mall in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. It sank after 18 months.

    A nation implies a government with standing at the UN plus a military. Without these, the 'nation' will be at the whim of wandering pirates and police boats. No, arming the peasants and letting them fight to keep their bit of land causes civil war, not national defense.

    ... looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.

    So a lot like Somalia. It would be far easier to use maritime law: Notably the one saying a ship at sea is a state under its parent nation. Then these idealists get their chosen parent nation to exempt ships from those pesky construction codes and labour laws.

    ... looser building codes ...

    Where is the electricity and fresh water to operate a building coming from? So a building without foundations or beaches to protect it will have less structural strength against wind and waves. What could go wrong?

    ... no minimum wage ...

    Hands up those serfs who want to go to another 'nation' and earn less money? Maybe if the boss has a monopoly (who is going to enforce that?), the serfs will make a wage from sales volume alone. Do employees get evicted as soon as they lose their job, a la 'The apprentice'?

    ... few restrictions on weapons.

    I think the 'world police' AKA the world's biggest Navy will have something to say about the sale of boatloads of weapons by private businesses.

    1. Re:Won't work by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      A nation implies a government with standing at the UN plus a military.

      Sorry, just wrong. There's nothing about being a nation that requires that the UN recognize it. And one of the Central American or northern South American countries has no military, just a police force. Apparently, its neighbors aren't evil enough to consider it worth invading.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  50. Not in like a "that's wrong" way by kwiatkotomx · · Score: 1

    I mean, I kinda get it, but there's always going to be something undeniably hilarious about declaring "I want to live somewhere with looser building codes."

    1. Re:Not in like a "that's wrong" way by kwiatkotomx · · Score: 1

      "I'm selling lots on my man-made floating island nation. I can see you're skeptical, but don't worry, it's not up to code."

  51. Wow, why are paypal founders so childish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone see that ridiculous bad sci-fi induced rant from Elon Musk about AI? Really makes you wonder if the Paypal guys just got lucky as far as their startup went because they seem a bit idiotic.

    1. Re:Wow, why are paypal founders so childish? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I'm with you, I'll go with lucky.

  52. Life of the Caveman by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Cavemen didn't live all that long...

  53. As a cancer researcher... by nashv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    someone needs to give this guy a primer on cancer and its 'cures'.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    1. Re:As a cancer researcher... by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Better Thiel uses his $s for medical research than a stupid non-controlled experiment on himself.

  54. Yeah, well im going for 950 by PaddyM · · Score: 1

    got 2x2 of every animal in my ship, global warming making the oceans rise. growing a beard. still my discussions with the architect of intelligent design were insistent that since I still see rainbows after it rains, the age covenant is still in effect. I need to find a lawyer, but there aren't any in libertarian fantasy land. otherwise I think I have it all figured out.

  55. "Many brave hearts are asleep in the deep" by westlake · · Score: 1

    Thiel also plans to launch a floating sovereign nation in international waters, freeing him and like-minded thinkers to live by libertarian ideals with no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.

    Looser "building" codes?

    Traditionally, the sailor's greatest fear has always been fire, not water, but there are countless ways a poorly designed and engineered boat can kill you. Not that drowning is a particularly easy way to go.

    No welfare? No minimum wage?

    The Potemkin School of Maritine Management:

    Rampant incompetence at very top, Long hours. Hard Work. Low Pay. Bad food, Unforgiving and hazardous environments. Not a trace of concern for the sick, injured or aging.

    No wonder all those upper-class libertarian idealists on board are packing a rod.

  56. just what the world needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more elderly white people with too much money, and not enough remaining neurons to do anything useful with it

  57. Hilarious, but sad by HuguesT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So let's summarize this. Some rich person think they are smarter than everyone else and that they have the ills of the world figured out. Namely: a cure for cancer is just around the corner (based on what evidence?), so they choose a diet that is totally unproven to do anything good or bad, they plan to live forever and they will retreat to some mystical artificial island where they can do what they want and not be bothered by anyone not of their own kind. So far so good.

    What I don't get is why they think welfare is bad. Obviously they don't need it, they're rich. But not everyone can be rich, this would be the same as everyone being poor. So given that in any society there will be richer and poorer people, welfare simply ensures that even the poorest get some minimum access to services, typically health care. This does not prevent richer people to get better services. Explain to me why this is bad? Given that rich/poor status is mostly a question of luck, being anti-welfare has always struck me as being selfish.

    1. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you almost had an argument, until you resorted to lying to bolster your cause:
       
        I am completely and consistently against any form of slavery

      you have repeatedly supported slavery. you endorse treating people like merchandise to be purchased, sold, abused, and discarded. the world recognizes that what you embrace so enthusiastically is indeed a form of slavery, you try to change the meaning to make yourself look like you are not a slave trader but you fail. your nonsense about the government being the only one capable of inducing slavery is nothing better than just that - nonsense.

    2. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: "...why they think welfare is bad."

      To some libertarians it's bad simply because they have to pay for it. To others it is bad because they assume that everyone can "make it", or at least make a living. I have always suspected that a certain sector of the population is hyper-sensitive to the failings of the poor (eg. welfare fraud) and selectively blind to the failings of the rich (ego, abuse of others with less money, etc.).

    3. Re:Hilarious, but sad by byuu · · Score: 1

      > Given that rich/poor status is mostly a question of luck, being anti-welfare has always struck me as being selfish.

      The problem is that the rich never think it's luck. They're deluded to the point that they truly believe in their own greatness, and that anyone could do the same things they have done (like be born in the right family, and have access to the right people), and be just as successful.

    4. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Given that rich/poor status is mostly a question of luck..."

      There's your problem, the hyper-rich never accept that. The more rich the more militant they are about their fortune being due to personal talent and no one else having a right to benefit from it. Apparently it causes major cognitive dissonance or something to digest the idea of being astronomically lucky.

      http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/24/the-rich-are-different-more-money-less-empathy/

      Somewhere there's a series where some guy interviewed people at exponentially increasing levels of wealth. The quasi-rich (half-million, a few million, tens of millions) were pretty generous about things, but the billionaire on top (started some storage facility chain in CA) was just a real outrageous, militant asshole.

    5. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So given that in any society there will be richer and poorer people, welfare simply ensures that even the poorest get some minimum access to services, typically health care. This does not prevent richer people to get better services. Explain to me why this is bad? Given that rich/poor status is mostly a question of luck, being anti-welfare has always struck me as being selfish.

      A couple thoughts:

      #1. Supply/demand pricing means that ensuring universal access to services necessitates price controls. IE. If you do not cap the price, then 100% availability is impossible to achieve because the price will be raised until someone cannot afford to pay. If the price has an artificial ceiling, the supply side does not have the incentive necessary to respond to shortages. Hence, price controls inevitably lead to rationing*.

      *This allows people who are disadvantaged in capital to tap their "time" as a fungible equivalent in substitution. Time being the "great equalizer" where all men are (essentially) equally equipped. Very egalitarian. So Marxist! Wow!

      #2. Since not everyone can be equally rich/poor, the philosophical debate seems to be based on what inherited endowment should wealth/quality of life be differentiated based on? IE. Self-discipline, intelligence, access to capital, ethical purity/virtue?
      &/or
      What tactics for achieving "fairness" in the pursuit of life/happiness are "legitimate"?
      &/or
      What metrics/thresholds are considered to be "satisfactory" in terms of measuring a successfully managed economy?

      #3. So we have a control system. The response tactics have degrees of heavy-handedness varying between protest/vocalized outrage, jury nullification, voting, central bank interest rates, etc. With the tautological minimum measurement of "success" being avoiding dead cops in NYC/#Blacklivesmatter/Oakland Freeway closures/#Occupy/Arab Springs/Luddite "Loom Smashing". IE: state monopoly on legitimization of force

      What are the "sensors" indicating destabilization of the system? You can't simplify the analysis to just distribution of wealth because even a slum/highly dysfunctional economy can have a "1%/99%". You end up with wealth-meme fractals/emergent behavior patterns replicating on both a macro & micro scale(with a fairly continuous spectrum between household and planet level economies).

      Destabilization can also be stalled for a good amount of time through oppressive police state tactics and propaganda(as seen in North Korea).

      Anyway, I don't know the answers. The "Rand-ian" approach seems to be a recipe for resentment, wealth concentration, and disenfranchisement resulting in violent/fascist clashes with the common folk/masses.*

      *Where the share-cropping/indentured servant classes clash with law enforcement; When the advantages of inherited wealth make it readily apparent(to even the most uneducated) that some form of economic "Calvinism" has damned them to lives no better than a Filipino servant in the UAE/Dubai.

      "Just-world-fallacy" and appeals to guilt based on "marshmallow experiment" level-virtue eventually ring hollow in pacifying people's sense of injustice when they begin to wonder if the "marshmallow experiment" has more to do with "food security" instincts related to poverty than some self-evident virtues of discipline.

      I don't need to contrast these evils with those of socialism/communism in English speaking countries where the inadequacies of "from each.../to each..." are so readily indoctrinated for the purposes of legitimizing the injustices of the status quo. What seems clear is that the level of insight required to understand the nature of the problem, is the same level of insight required to profit from it. That perverse incentive to participate in the ills plaguing society should give all of us pause in recognition of the fatalist outcomes it implies. Race to the bottom/tragedy of the commons/crab-mentality/etc. At some point: there is a problem when the most effective way to get ahead is to exploit the flaws in the system. Perhaps that is the end-condition of market efficiency? When there are no more arbitrage opportunities remaining within the boundaries of the "efficient market hypothesis" then the only way to "win" is to cheat...

    6. Re:Hilarious, but sad by dkf · · Score: 1

      Of-course I am against slavery and initiation of force by anybody, however it is the government initiation of force that is the most immoral of all, since it is the 'law of the land', so to speak, so you can be born into a system that prearranged your slavery within it.

      So, in effect you're denying that there is such a thing as society, as comprised of the bulk wishes and desires of the country that you live in, and consequently the use of taxation as a redistributative economic measure? That's a morally/politically consistent position, even though I thoroughly disagree with it.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    7. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Your batshit insane religious fanaticism is showing again.

    8. Re:Hilarious, but sad by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Don't post anon, this is great ! Thanks.

    9. Re:Hilarious, but sad by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Thoroughly agree with you. Also to the list add failure to pay taxes (aka tax havens), hugely costly mistakes without repercussion (think subprimes).

    10. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your conclusion is that libertarians are selfish? Thanks for the insight.

    11. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not rich, but I happen to live among many of them and have many as close friends. There are exceptions, but for the most part (in my experience), the very wealthy are paranoid, fearful of losing their advantages and having to step down the social ladder. They also have a lot of experience with laborers stealing from them, treating valuable property as disposable or something to be abused, and generally not caring about the order or organization their employer has worked hard to create. Some have had businesses driven into bankruptcy because the employees simply would not follow simple procedures (sorry for the vagueness, I don't want to risk exposing any specific identities).

      Of course, there are good, attentive and concerned people too, but they are the minority (anyone who has tried to manage unskilled labor knows this) and the bad examples tend to stick in our minds. You're more likely to vividly remember the time you got hurt doing something than all the times you didn't get hurt doing the same thing. Likewise, the wealthy are more likely to remember that all lower "classes" of people are like animals and don't really deserve anything better than what they can provide for themselves. The more experience I have with people who came up from low incomes to higher incomes, the more respect I have for Orwell's Animal Farm. We are all pigs, just at different levels.

      So how do we fix this? I dunno. Probably through some kind of suffering. How did the European countries break free of tyranny?

    12. Re:Hilarious, but sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not Peter Thiel

      Why? Why are you poor?

  58. He'll die like everyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Randomness will get him and he will die a statistically insignificant death.

  59. He will really need that cure for cancer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he keeps taking daily doses of HGH.

  60. This Reads Like A Villain Backstory... by SomewhatRandom · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does this read like the intro to a Bioshock game or the backstory for a bond villain?

    Years of HGH abuse twisted his mind and caused cellular mutation granting him super-human abilities while his body became riddled with cancer. He built a city to be free from regulation, he built an army to protect his city, and then...

    Would you kindly license this story to Marvel?

  61. What the hell? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    How the hell does a guy who doesn't need it get a prescription drug like HGH? If he orders it from overseas, why isn't it seized when coming into the country? Why isn't the doctor whose pad the prescription came from being investigated?

    Bottom line - this is just another example of a rich fuck who doesn't seem to think the rules for rest of us apply to him and a government all too willing to let the whole thing slide if you're rich enough.

    --
    That is all.
    1. Re:What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell does a guy who doesn't need it get a prescription drug like HGH? If he orders it from overseas, why isn't it seized when coming into the country? Why isn't the doctor whose pad the prescription came from being investigated?

      You can get anything you want if you are rich enough or know the right people. It's not illegal for a doctor to prescribe it for off-label uses, so you could get it yourself if you convince your doctor you needed it. Or you could go to an "anti-aging clinic" and pay thousands per visit to get the snake-oil from them.

      Bottom line - this is just another example of a rich fuck who doesn't seem to think the rules for rest of us apply to him and a government all too willing to let the whole thing slide if you're rich enough.

      Well, quite. The super-rich have suborned the rule of law and the process of government for their own goals. You can accept this and get back to looking for the cheese they stole from you, or you can do something about it. Sic semper tyrannis.

    2. Re:What the hell? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you're rich, you can buy the services of a chemist to manufacture HGH, or buy the services of a chemical engineer to build a machine that produces HGH. Or you can sail your yacht to a place where it's legal, and hide it onboard. Or buy it on the black market. Or create a company that legitimately manufactures the stuff, and siphon off some of it for personal use. Or get some from a buddy who owns a plant that manufactures it. Or slip your doctor a few extra large greenbacks. Or if you're really smart and persistent, learn how to make it yourself.

      Why the hell do you care? How is he hurting you?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:What the hell? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Because if laws apply only to some, they finally apply to no one. That hurts me, because I count on laws to be a first line of defense against those who might wish me (or my property) harm.

      --
      That is all.
  62. Re: Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the reason lifespan has extended is that sabretooth tigers are extinct now.

  63. Mmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he'll live to found the Weyland-Yutani corporation. Or maybe he'll live to 66 and drop dead of throat cancer.

  64. Floating Sovereign Nation by turkeyfish · · Score: 2

    With his libertarian-no regulation ideas, no doubt his floating nation will simply discharge raw sewage directly into the ocean. Just the kind of thinking we need to save marine ecosystems and humans from extinction.

    At the heart of every libertarian is the notion that "I want the freedom to sh*t on you". No wonder there are so many corporate sponsors.

    1. Re:Floating Sovereign Nation by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      With his libertarian-no regulation ideas, no doubt his floating nation will simply discharge raw sewage directly into the ocean.

      There are 2 answers to this. One is, it won't happen because no multi-millionaire wants to live in the middle of a sewer. The other is, if he's far enough off shore, so what? Who's hurt? It might even encourage beneficial ocean life.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Floating Sovereign Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really funny part is that libertarian seasteaders are all about the lack of building codes.

    3. Re:Floating sovereign nation by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Anyone with enough money to build a private, self-contained floating city has enough money to not worry about the cost of securing it against most any attack short of that launched by a national military force.

  65. Mr. Thiel by jgotts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mr. Thiel,

    You were born rich to obviously rich parents who could afford to send you to Stanford for your undergraduate and graduate degrees.

    You're still rich today.

    Congratulations. You did not lose your fortune, something almost impossible today due to favorable taxation for the wealthy.

    Once you're rich you stay that way forever in the United States unless you're a very stupid person.

    Sincerely,
    The 99%.

    The fact that he has wacky ideas does not surprise me. Rich people are born that way, being given every advantage in life. People don't get rich by being particularly intelligent. They pay people to do everything for them, and unless they're very stupid they get much richer in the process.

    1. Re:Mr. Thiel by nyri · · Score: 1

      Mr. Thiel,

      You were born rich to obviously rich parents who could afford to send you to Stanford for your undergraduate and graduate degrees.

      You're still rich today.

      Congratulations. You did not lose your fortune, something almost impossible today due to favorable taxation for the wealthy.

      Once you're rich you stay that way forever in the United States unless you're a very stupid person.

      Sincerely,
      The 99%.

      The fact that he has wacky ideas does not surprise me. Rich people are born that way, being given every advantage in life. People don't get rich by being particularly intelligent. They pay people to do everything for them, and unless they're very stupid they get much richer in the process.

      Please make even some rudimentary research before posting stuff like this. I know that social mobility is not that large in US but to imply that Mr. Thiel doesn't owe his fortune to his smarts and character is just silly. He's been making good bet pretty consistently, been optimistic about future and exemplary in his way of trying to achieve something by his own work. You can disagree with him on certain matters but if you are willing to read what he writes, you will have to admit that he's pretty smart guy. Also, his family was just a normal middle class family with father doing chemical engineering.

    2. Re:Mr. Thiel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to the process of reversion to the mean, what typically happens is there is a very smart person (Vanderbilt or Rockerfeller) who makes a shitload of money, and their kids are closer to the mean, which means they lose their money over time. Then, somebody else comes along (Gates, Zuckerberg), and the process repeats. In the process, they used to have lots of children (About 16 Million people have Genghis Khan's paternity). Sadly, now, it isn't really possible to do that, so they have to be content with the money. So, I guess it is better now.

      This is why Royalty are typically a bunch of morons. The smart one was 300 years ago, and they've been living off of that ever since.

  66. Yeah, so far... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    A king who's been dead for 5000 years from Egypt is out in front in this race. We still know THAT guy's name! This guy, I have to scroll back up to the top of the article to remember this one. Sounds like he wouldn't mind having 10000 slaves build him a pyramid, but might be having some trouble motivating them to. His efforts, of course, will be as useless as that dead king's. People have been trying to cheat death as long as there have been people, and all those people are dead. At each point along that time line, they've always used the most modern technologies money could buy. Didn't matter. Dead, every one of 'em. I'm not a bettin' man. Well, actually, I am. And I'll put my chips on Death every time. Will this time be any different? Obviously HGH and The Paleo Diet are WAY more advanced than the humors and mercury the last guy shot himself full of. Oh... heh heh heh, sorry, sometimes I kill myself...

    Here's an idea, why not try actually living for a while instead of cowering in fear of the reaper? Why waste your entire life living in fear of something you can't do anything about? Just take what you have, squeeze everything you can out of it and laugh in Death's face when he comes for you.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Yeah, so far... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The pyramids were not build by slaves but ordinary workers.

      In ancient Egypt slavery did not exist, except for rare cases of criminals that where convicted to quarries and prisoners of war.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  67. Please someone explain to Mr Thiel by avivgr · · Score: 1

    Please someone explain to Mr Thiel that you cannot take your money with you into the underworld

  68. I'll take the bait too by rsilvergun · · Score: 3

    Socialism is doing just fine in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Canada and anywhere else it's really been tried, thank you very much.

    Fascist dictatorships who borrow socialism's rhetoric to excuse stealing everything for themselves (China, USSR, North Korea) don't work so well, but then again they're not socialist, so it all evens out.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'll take the bait too by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Germany, France, Netherlands, Canada are mixed markets trending from freedom to socialism. To the extent that they abandon freedom, they lose their well-being.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:I'll take the bait too by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Socialism is doing just fine in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Canada

      None of these countries are socialist. Socialism means government ownership of the means of production. High levels of taxpayer financed redistribution is not socialism.

    3. Re:I'll take the bait too by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Socialism is doing just fine in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Canada and anywhere else it's really been tried, thank you very much.

      Fascist dictatorships who borrow socialism's rhetoric to excuse stealing everything for themselves (China, USSR, North Korea) don't work so well, but then again they're not socialist, so it all evens out.

      And of course the "no true Scotsman" fallacies immediately follow.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:I'll take the bait too by tehcyder · · Score: 2
      As anyone on slashdot should know the words "free" and "freedom" need to be used with care.

      It is circular reasoning to say that the closer to free market economics you have, the more freedom you have, and that therefore socialism is anti-freedom.

      There are other sorts of freedom than economic freedom. Anyone is free to dine at the Ritz. I am free from worry about falling ill and being given a huge bill to pay. Linux is free even if you buy it. People are free to sleep on the freezing streets at Christmas. And so on.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:I'll take the bait too by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      How so? The "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply. You know, people _can_ lie and misrepresent themselves. It can happen in the real world. And you don't get to just yell "No True Scotsman" to make it go away. The hilarious thing is you're actually quoting a fallacy that doesn't apply to misdirect the conversation away from the dirty little secret: that socialism works; and that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that it's alternatives do not.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    6. Re:I'll take the bait too by NewYork · · Score: 1

      China + Voting in elections = America;
      Feudalism + Voting in elections = India;

  69. Target by pellik · · Score: 1

    A bunch of rich guys on a private island in international waters with no laws? How long until a drug cartel with boats decides to make a quick buck?

    1. Re:Target by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      What part of "with no laws", or for that matter "private island", makes any difference to an attacking drug cartel?

      While we're on the subject, why do you think he specified "few restrictions on weapons"?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  70. palumboism by jblues · · Score: 1

    Many amateur and professional body builders feel suspect that excess HGH leads to palumboism, which caused disfigurement and early death. The observation is that 70s and 80s generation body builders, who took a lot of anabolic steroids, but not much else didn't get it. While several 90s gen body builders, who took HGH did.

    --
    If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
  71. Floating sovereign nation by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Sovereignty means you are capable of defend your territory. Perhaps he will be killed by pirates before growth hormone cause him cancer.

  72. censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this link is censored in a kingdom just north of Malaysia
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024761/Atlas-Shrugged-Silicon-Valley-billionaire-reveals-plan-launch-floating-start-country-coast-San-Francisco.html
    got forwarded to http://203.113.26.210/
    I wonder why !!!???

    Just happen to have some vacation there, will see later....

  73. Dust in the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your money wont another minute buy.

    1. Re:Dust in the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are using the arts (2nd level in philosophy) to invoke the transcendent. These people here are devotees of Space + Time + Matter + Energy + Chance. Prepare for grief.

  74. floating island of rich people in international wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the phrase sitting duck mean anything to anyone.. i am assuming since they will have their own government. They wont be needing our navy... they might want to think about life outside of their rich beverly hills gated community.

  75. Lost me at Atlas Shrugged by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    If you're going to try to justify your utter selfishness you need to try harder than citing some third rate novelist and amateur "philosopher".

    For those of us not in the US, name-dropping Ayn Rand is analogous to saying you've read the great philosophers like Norman Vincent Peale (in Tom Lehrer's words).

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  76. A floating sovereign nation, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nice easy target then.

    Nuke it from orbit, don't have to worry about fallout.

  77. 2nd law thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i suspect that cancer is process intrinsically linked to the 2nd law and thus is an irreversable process. but maybe it's effects can be delayed and controlled to who know's what degree. there's my crackpot's worth

  78. Growth Hormone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone being treated for acromegaly, he should go careful with the GH. That stuff may cause lean muscle mass, but those muscles do not necessarily increase in strength as they increase in size. It causes enlargement of soft tissues as well as bone structures, leading to increased risk of some cancers or organ failure around the 50's. If not that, he might end up with a face like Arnold Schwarzenegger...

    I've also never heard of a completely water-borne paleo society, but hey, we can only learn from others' attempts, even if they fail.

  79. Ideas for better tools to make sense of health by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    My suggestion: https://www.newschallenge.org/...
    "When confronted with a health issue, many people turn to their doctor, the internet, or friends for advice. But then what do you and your family do with all the advice you receive? What do even health professionals do with all the often conflicting information out there when they research a patient's health issues? We want to create software that helps with that challenge by making it easier for individuals and communites to collect health information (from whatever public sources including the internet), organize it, prioritize it, reason about it, act on it, and feed back the results of action into a next iteration as a learning experience. "

    To add to your list, more vegetables, fruits, and beans can help, too. See Dr. Fuhrman. He may have become too commercial and may also miss a few things (Salt vilified too much? Too low on iodine? A bit low on vitamin D? Discarding some psychological aspects? Overoptimizing a few things? Trusting too much in some studies that are still to mainstream? Ignoring some possible benefits from animal products? Ignoring genetic issues like difficulties synthesizing some things? Not enough emphasis on the microbiome?). But overall he gets a lot ("make the salad the main dish") and his approach is based on science studies -- even if there is a risk of how you interpret limited studies and conflicting studies.

    Also see Dr. Weil on lifestyle issues (like stress, sleep, music, community, and so on) as well as herbal remedies.

    And see Bluezones for community level issues like sidewalks and walking clubs.

    Vitamin D from some source to make up for indoor living is essential too.

    Anyway, I'm writing other software right now for my wife (related to her free Working with Stories book) but I hope I can use the infrastructure (JavaScript/Dojo/Node.js/Pointrel) to use for other things like such tools. Probably would be an excellent life-extension choice by Peter Thiel to fund time for several developers to work on such FOSS software though. :-)

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  80. Michael Jackson, anyone? by Mondor · · Score: 1

    I remember Michael Jackson, in his pre-WASP era, was sleeping in oxygen-filled tent and was hoping to live till around 120 years or more.

    There is nothing bad in desire itself, but it's less laughable when you brag about the actual achievement, not the super-optimistic plan.

  81. Crazy knows no borders, whether you're rich or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing about being rich that keeps you from being a "nut-case".

  82. What an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people will believe anything.

  83. Socialism versus Capitalism by NewYork · · Score: 1

    In Socialism, Govt exploits your NEED.
    In Capitalism, Govt exploits your GREED.

  84. Just goes to show by s13g3 · · Score: 1

    *Facepalm* It just goes to show that being wealthy is not corollary with being intelligent.

    For example, while certainly possible, a "cure for cancer in the next ten years" is wishful thinking at best, and in light of engaging in a behavior that increases cancer risk, is dangerously naive.

    Another example is the fact that he's subscribing to another idiotic fad diet with absolutely no credible scientific backing, and like all fad diets (ala, any diet besides "eat a healthy, well-rounded diet and exercise") is likely to actually do more harm in both the short- and long-run than good.

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  85. IOW, the Howard Families by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody just read Heinlein's Time Enough For Love.

  86. Your own island by tribeca.kaji · · Score: 1

    This is a fantastic idea until pirates show up. Now what have you? The plank, aye!

  87. Longevity of low-carb high animal protein dieters by ashSlash · · Score: 1

    Background: Data on the long-term association between low-carbohydrate diets and mortality are sparse.

    Objective: To examine the association of low-carbohydrate diets with mortality during 26 years of follow-up in women and 20 years in men.

    Design: Prospective cohort study of women and men who were followed from 1980 (women) or 1986 (men) until 2006. Low-carbohydrate diets, either animal-based (emphasizing animal sources of fat and protein) or vegetable-based (emphasizing vegetable sources of fat and protein), were computed from several validated food-frequency questionnaires assessed during follow-up.

    Setting: Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals' Follow-up Study.

    Participants: 85Â 168 women (aged 34 to 59 years at baseline) and 44Â 548 men (aged 40 to 75 years at baseline) without heart disease, cancer, or diabetes.

    Measurements: Investigators documented 12Â 555 deaths (2458 cardiovascular-related and 5780 cancer-related) in women and 8678 deaths (2746 cardiovascular-related and 2960 cancer-related) in men.

    Results: The overall low-carbohydrate score was associated with a modest increase in overall mortality in a pooled analysis (hazard ratio [HR] comparing extreme deciles, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24]; P for trend = 0.136). The animal low-carbohydrate score was associated with higher all-cause mortality (pooled HR comparing extreme deciles, 1.23 [CI, 1.11 to 1.37]; P for trend = 0.051), cardiovascular mortality (corresponding HR, 1.14 [CI, 1.01 to 1.29]; P for trend = 0.029), and cancer mortality (corresponding HR, 1.28 [CI, 1.02 to 1.60]; P for trend = 0.089). In contrast, a higher vegetable low-carbohydrate score was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.80 [CI, 0.75 to 0.85]; P for trend â 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.68 to 0.87]; P for trend http://annals.org/article.aspx...

  88. So, he made something of himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  89. Invoking the Transcendent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do remember the parable about the rich man and the barns. At the risk of appearing as a dystheist or misotheist, I suggest that the text be understood as standard operating procedure of the Divine.

    Remember, He has toys, therefore he has death to cheat. Stay tuned for a truly freaky accident, yes, the kind that provides overwhelming existential relevance to the existence of some Other that HATES when people reach goals that they set for themselves.

    Stay poor lest the Eternal slay thee.

  90. Huh? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    businesses flock to Canada because their socialized medicine is so much cheaper than America's employer based system. Germany's Unionized car manufacturing is the envy of the world. Meanwhile the UK, who implemented American style policies under Thacher, has been in a nose dive for decades. Where in the world have you been?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  91. You're just splitting hairs by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's the old "No True Scottsman" argument. At any rate what you're describing is called _communism_. You can have socialism (large scale involvement by a central power in the well being of the common man along with wealth distribution) and still have ownership. You just don't allow ownership to become power at the expense of people's well being. As soon as you do that you've just crossed over to socialism.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  92. Immigrate to by NewYork · · Score: 1

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html?countryname=Japan&countrycode=ja&regionCode=eas&rank=3#ja

  93. Choose your environment by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "You are a product of your environment." --Clement Stone

  94. Recipe for disaster ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    a floating sovereign nation in international waters [...] looser building codes

    That's really going to work well.

    "I think I'll just dig myself a basement. I have the freedom to do that."

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  95. Wrong by burbilog · · Score: 1
    Why? Because there is no biological reason for a human to live for 120 years. Most women becomes infertile when they are around 40 old. So anything beyond 60 is really unnecessary in a biological sense - then you have had all the children you should have and helped them grown up.

    You ignore the fact that people live in families. Thus grandchildren have much better survivial chances when grandmother provides care for them and teaches them while still young and much healthier mother gives more births and performs heavy house work. If older women had their own kids then they would not love grandkids as much as they do. That's why humans developed menopause.

  96. Savages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's revolting how gleefully people cheer on disease, decrepitude, and death to destroy us all, as long as it gets the rich guy too.

    Yay, Death! Get the rich guy!

    You people are savages.

  97. Waterworld by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    It will be like Mad Max, except set on the Ocean, and with Senior Citizens...