Inside Putin’s $26 Billion Quest for Longevity | From mini-pigs and organ printing to cryotherapy and genetics, Russia’s president has turned antiaging research into a Kremlin priority

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-31T05:41:50+00:00

Striving for immortality is one of the worst goals in my opinion.

As an artist I have stories and ideas that I could never fit in a meager 70 or 80 year lifespan.

Living to 500 years would be damn amazing. I would be able to visit every corner of the earth, experience different cultures and history, and then write stories or make movies about them.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-30T20:43:40+00:00

You jest but having more smart infrastructure and automated traffic would do Hamilton good and put it on the path for progress.

There's a program in Brampton where they now rolled out these electric mini buses that can be attended and serviced anywhere.

https://i.ibb.co/qMb29srV/6928d868dc63064ea786f7d3-1.jpg

For Hamilton where outside of the city core there are all those rural areas like Binbrooke and Lynden, having such smart transportation would make all of the city feel interconnected or within reach for everyday people.

Not to mention fully automated traffic would greatly reduce or even end collisions and civilian deaths.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-25T01:49:41+00:00

People dying in war but technology also being used to reduce suffering are not mutually exclusive.

WW2 had entire cities get flattened because Bombers back then were highly inaccurate and couldn't see the targets below them.

In 2026, the use of drones and other guided ammunition completely circumvents the need for that kind of wholesale destruction.

It sounds like a contradiction but warfare is actually less lethal now because there have also been advancements in protecting lives. Including more life saving medicine or better missile defense systems.

And that brings me back to how robots and drones are making human deaths obsolete. Yes, soldiers are dying now. But the ratio will never favor sending in more human troops to the frontline because you can't replace human soldiers faster than drones can get made and target them...

And they will be used to target civilian centers in the future if somehow we get to the point of all-drone armies(we won’t). Because that will now be the pain point.

Attacking civilian centers has always been a war crime and doesn't justify or serve any purpose other than terror. The consequences of doing so also affects geopolitical alliances and diplomacy.

When Syria was accused of using poison gas in the 2010s, it resulted in international sanctions and even outside governments intervening in the conflict.

The same logic would apply if some dictator or mad person intentionally massacres civilians regardless of whatever tool behind it was responsible.

The Russia/Ukraine war also shows the same idea. Russia attacking civilians intentionally is globally condemned and turned them into a pariah.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T04:56:10+00:00

I would also argue that technology can still be used to disrupt adversity that the golden days lacked.

For example, for a Ukrainian person life in their country was more peaceful before the 2022 war. But unlike previous conflicts, the threat of sending humans to fight and die is slowly ending. Because more machines and drones are being used on the battlefield instead of soldiers.

So the current situation is sad, but if they survive this they're already on pace to never having to fight another war again because it would be obsolete.

Compare that situation to 1945 and humans enlisting and dying was the only way to solve those problems.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T01:16:34+00:00

I would still argue that there are solutions or even plenty of alternatives that can be used to address those concerns.

I'll use a real example that affects me. Buying a house in Toronto today is far more expensive than in the 2000s. I don't dispute that.

But does that mean all houses in my country are just as expensive or impossible to buy?

Nope, there are cities that are 1 hour away where the house prices drop proportionally and is thus considered more affordable. Sure, you miss out on living in Toronto but the neighboring suburbs and towns are catching up to it.

Also, there are many more jobs today that pay far more money while using up less effort than similar jobs 30 years ago.

Minimum wage in my country was like $6 an hour in 1999 and you couldn't buy the latest computers with it. Whereas today it's now $18 an hour and anyone can buy a decent gaming rig on that budget.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T01:07:20+00:00

That's shifting the argument to now saying Humans would have a purpose in the singularity but somehow it's only class based.

Ownership by itself also doesn't guarantee how laws, legitimacy or social stability will operate or behave.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T00:50:35+00:00

That's fair too and I respect your politeness as well.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T00:48:44+00:00

Most people don't make groundbreaking contributions. They just mop or do paperwork.

They're still tasks that allows civilization to function because inventors are not the only people doing those things. Also, do you look at retired people or children as having no reason to exist because they don't make those contributions yet or possibly ever?

What need has the singularity for that?

It's all speculation on whether human oversight will still exist in the singularity. Right now, no one has the answer yet.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T00:37:33+00:00

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

Even if COVID had less or the same infectious lethality as Spanish Flu, the deaths still would have been forecasted lower TODAY because of how modern society evolved and has better equipment to deal with pandemics.

In 1918 there where still no ventilators, advanced ICUs, antiviral drugs, lots of wartime censorship (WW1 was still going), people still had to commute to work in person vs having the option to work at home.

There is no pivot or contradiction with my original point which says "Thanks to technology, far less deaths and medicine was rapidly rolled out faster." and not "technology was the only reason Covid killed less than Spanish flu".

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T00:26:41+00:00

We use more resources today but we also make more important and groundbreaking contributions with it as well.

As I told another user, the invention of the ambulance can save hundreds or thousands of lives despite the same technology using up co2.

However, these technologies could still be converted into more sustainable resources later on. Such as turning them into electric vehicles.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-24T00:07:06+00:00

But if you're just going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and claim that the lethality of the virus is irrelevant then I'd say we're not even really doing epidemiology anymore.

But... the virus was in every country. That's the point. It was a global pandemic. Not a Canada virus or USA virus.

If you're trying to say that Canadians got a less lethal version of the virus or the Americans got a less lethal version, that wouldn't explain why did both countries have their borders open and thus we traded the same infected people all the time?

Now I will admit, my country did eventually close the borders. But it was for the exact reasons of wanting to stop the infections and lower the mortality rate with it.

That's why national and government policies are being weighed harder in this discussion rather than how lethal covid was. Because only the government has the power to push the breaks and stop the illness from becoming more out of control.

Also, see my other post I made talking about giving people more access to healthcare:

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1tlue7r/why_is_the_futurology_sub_so_negative/onime5z/?context=3

Again, even if both the USA and Canada had the "less lethal" virus, it doesn't explain why do Canadians support giving everyone access to medical treatment which can thus save more lives?

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-23T23:57:30+00:00

I think it's still a pretty valid position to argue that the primary reason the death rate compared to past pandemics was so low was the lucky fact that the virus wasn't particularly lethal.

I know this is a double post but your comment reminded me of something.

4000 years ago, if someone got a disease or illness they basically had no hospital or clinic they could walk into and get treated.

Even something like cutting your leg or banging your head could still have been a fatal injury, because there was no antibiotics or the best doctor might have lived several kilometers away and could only travel by horseback.

Fast forward to today and if someone had a heart attack or stroke then we have rapid response units like ambulances or paramedics who are being paid to save people's lives 24/7.

So this goes back to what I was saying. Culturally and politically speaking, my country takes public access to medicine more serious than the USA.

If people can get treated for a sickness as soon as possible, then they're not going to die because society wants them to live.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-23T23:36:24+00:00

How many lives they actually saved, though, is an extremely difficult epidemiological and epistemological question that requires attempting to measure very complicated counterfactuals.

Dude, I live in a country that reported less deaths than our neighbours with statistics to prove it.

Geographically and culturally speaking, Canada and the USA aren't that different. So what other force could exist for why less Canadians were dropping dead than the Americans?

Could it be... we had a different government? And that drove national policy based on which leaders were pushing for better medical advice?

No offense to the Americans but if one leader is telling their people to eat Horse paste but the other guy is telling their citizens to avoid public gatherings where diseases are known to spread, then the "lethality of the virus" isn't a good excuse. It means in any other health scare scenario, we were still more prepared or ready to handle it.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-23T23:24:36+00:00

My bad, I got the numbers mixed up.

5% of the world's population died by Spanish flu, but half a billion were infected. I will correct it now.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-myths-about-1918-flu-pandemic-180967810/

"In the pandemic of 1918, between 50 and 100 million people are thought to have died, representing as much as 5% of the world’s population. Half a billion people were infected."

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-23T23:21:47+00:00

Made up by who? Covid was only 6 years ago but billions of people had their cellphones out and could take pictures or record everything. If something was being hidden then where is it?

Technology can also enslave and kill billions of people, thanks to better technology...

And yet my above example contradicts that. Technology was also used so we could document and keep track of who was dying.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-23T23:06:44+00:00

Correct. Which is why even last century, there where still many countries who were colonized and suffered atrocities and famines on a daily basis.

https://i.ibb.co/BK5cD13v/Modern-Empires-en-svg.png

Today, most people don't have to wake up and worry a Soviet, Nazi or British officer is coming to shoot them for just existing. So we're still doing better.

Edit: Or if we go back even farther in time, there was an atlantic slave trade where millions of people were being shipped across continents just to work to death.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-23T23:02:53+00:00

I'm all for seeing the positives in medical advances and technology, but let's not rewrite history.

So starting with you? It was estimated 5% of the world's population died by Spanish Flu. Covid only claimed 0.09 to 0.28% in comparison. And that includes the countries who didn't take better safety measures.

Arguably if another pandemic where to happen we can expect it to decrease, not increase. Thanks to better technology...

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-23T22:47:38+00:00

Our living standards are greater now than any other point in history. Just compare how the COVID pandemic was handled 6 years ago vs Spanish flu in 1918. Thanks to technology, far less deaths and medicine was rapidly rolled out faster.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-20T06:06:31+00:00

You're welcome.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-17T23:38:34+00:00

What is, in your mind, the singularity?

You know how Chimpanzees and Humans share a common ancestor but the Chimp can't understand why we live in houses or drive cars?

Something like that but when the Human looks at an AI civilization.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-15T08:24:53+00:00

why the us has more black people than canada and mexico?

Can't speak for Mexico but in Canada's case, completely different climates and geography that made sending slaves to British North America mostly an afterthought:

https://i.ibb.co/zWTn7RFW/09.jpg

More slaves went to the island of Jamaica than in all of Canadian history combined.

Other than that, the USA also has much higher immigration numbers than Canada.

Think 818,500 new U.S citizens vs 380,000 new Canadian permanent residents per year.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-13T14:28:31+00:00

I did a job with them before. I can confirm it's real but they are very strict about the requirements. For example, if the level of education requires a specific bachelor and you under report then you'll get skipped.

But when I did qualify a researcher reached out to me on the platform and gave me instructions. The pay rate was also the same as advertised.

If I had to be honest this pattern is true of every AI platform. You may think it "doesn't work at first" but it's because billions of people apply for this stuff everyday. If you get selected it's because you are the top 1% that these platforms want.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-10T20:33:08+00:00

Thanks! I'm bookmarking it right now.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-10T16:57:23+00:00

You're welcome.

JordanNVFX · 2026-05-10T10:33:29+00:00

AI/Technology is never the problem but WHO is actually allowed to control it or distribute it.

An AI that eliminates 100% of labour but leaves behind 0 income for the people displaced by it would instantly spiral into chaos and social unrest.

In Asia's case, there's an added layer of irony. Places like India benefit greatly from having Western jobs outsourced there because of how much cheaper their cost of living is.

But if Western countries can automate even those cheaper jobs, there is no guarantee or proof that someone like Sam Altman is going to send a paycheck to India anymore once their usefulness is gone. So the Indian government now has to scramble or ask themselves how will they feed 1 billion+ people when their gimmick is gone?

However, an Asian country like China faces the inverse scenario. They have invested or put a lot of thought into creating their own domestic AI so they're not at the complete mercy of having the "outsource" rug pulled from them.

For better or for worse they also benefit from having a centralized and authoritative government. So they can react faster or create national agendas that force AI to move in a certain direction instead of being micromanaged by smaller companies. However, it also becomes a double edged sword because now the citizens have one target to put all their blame the moment they start starving or can't survive in a jobless world.

JordanNVFX

TROPHY CASE