Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#51

Post by koralatov »

kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #26
nabla9 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I suspect is true but obviously can't prove: Person with completely healthy brain at age 200 would not be well functioning human being in the society. When we grow we gain experience. That experience shows as habits, perceptions, attitudes and thought trains that makes functioning in the society easy. We learn to see the world trough the past experience. All this turns from asset to liability when society where…

Society would adapt. What's with the contempt for rich people in debates like this? Being mad at rich people for living longer is no less silly than being mad at them for having cars, mobile phones, personal computers back in the day.

There are two points that you've conflated and dismissed glibly with one statement: the slightly longer (+5%? +10%) lifespans of the rich today, and the hypothetical doubling+ of lifespans being directly discussed here. They're totally different and can't be treated as one and the same. (Owning a car in 1910 and having a 200 year lifespan is a comparison so disingenuous that I'm not going to spend any more effort discussing it.)

The slight increase that wealth currently brings is unfortunate for those who don't benefit from it, but doesn't seem to draw widespread contempt or criticism. It does, and should, act as a spur to remove or mitigate the factors in poorer peoples' lives that stop them from living to the same age.

The 'contempt' in the parent --- pretty mild, and probably not contemptuous enough to accurately be called 'contempt' --- stems from the fact that the rich living much longer than everyone else would be yet another example of widening inequality in society. If we're talking some kind of treatment or technology that doubles lifespan, why shouldn't people be pissed off about not being able to access that? That's not a slight improvement like we're talking about above: that would effectively be an entire second life. I know for a fact that I'd be angry as hell knowing my fiancée would die at half the age of a rich person simply because we don't have the money to buy whatever it takes to make her live to 200+.

The very idea of some people having that whilst others radically and perhaps fatally undermines current human society, which is implicitly built on the idea that everyone only has one life.

It seems implicit in your comment that you think that this kind of imbalance is somehow fair or just or natural. Why shouldn't the aim always be to let everyone benefit from advances rather than just those who can afford it? You can argue that technological progress will allow life-extension to trickle-down, but that doesn't happened evenly or reliably, and seems a bad assumption upon which to base society's progress.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#52

Post by orangecat »

saiya-jin wrote: post #33
01Michael10 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but no... We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer. You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? Why would that change if you had 150 years? Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... We don't need drugs, technology and genetic engineering to live longer. We need less poverty (better/fairer distr…

these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite. otherwise, this cash would be dedicated to matters you mention (and I fully agree with what you write). Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. Living till 120 just for the sake of living sounds more like a nightmare - that tells me they are terrified of death, meaning a…

these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite

Just like cell phones cost thousands of dollars and will only ever be toys for the rich.

Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects.

That's exactly what we're saying: aging is awful, and we should fix it.

I have my time here, and that's enough.

And that's why you'll refuse all medical treatment after you turn 60, right? (The expected lifespan for 20 year old people in 1850, before our godless and unnatural medicine started working: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#53

Post by cryoshon »

BoppreH wrote: post #44

Just three days ago The New York Times published a piece about immortality through cryonics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/cancer-immortality-cryo... Now BBC publishes an anti-aging piece. They feel like "submarines", paid/encouraged pieces to promote a certain point of view. Yudkowsky, is that you? I'm all for it and I'm glad someone is doing this, but curiosity is killing me.

Yeah, a big PR push for these anti-aging concepts and technologies has been underway since a year or so before Calico was announced.

The idea is that people need to be primed and gradually brought around to believe that these impossible things are worth chasing.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#54

Post by kaffeemitsahne »

koralatov wrote: post #51
kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society would adapt. What's with the contempt for rich people in debates like this? Being mad at rich people for living longer is no less silly than being mad at them for having cars, mobile phones, personal computers back in the day.

There are two points that you've conflated and dismissed glibly with one statement: the slightly longer (+5%? +10%) lifespans of the rich today, and the hypothetical doubling+ of lifespans being directly discussed here. They're totally different and can't be treated as one and the same. (Owning a car in 1910 and having a 200 year lifespan is a comparison so disingenuous that I'm not going to spend any more effort dis…

I don't think there's much wrong with inequality in cases like this. It's a bit like pirated software: someone gets a copy, but the original doesn't disappear. Some people live longer, but the other people don't live shorter. Sounds like plain old jealousy to me.

Anyway, my point with the cars and phones was: innovations will often be accessible only to rich people, at first, and then get commoditized later on. Some people say this is a big flaw in communism: if there's no rich upper class, who's gonna finance the fancy stuff?

I don't give a shit that people are expected to die after 100 years and society is built on that. I would sign for 200 years in an instant. Speaking of dystopia (like GP), robbing people of 100 years because it would hurt your feelings if they lived longer than you sounds like a few not-so-utopian scifi stories to me.

"Why shouldn't the aim always be to let everyone benefit from advances rather than just those who can afford it?"

Of course it should! Didn't mean to imply otherwise (tho I can see why one would interpret my comment that way). If you nip something in the bud (=upper class), you can be sure noone's gonna get it.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#55

Post by xlm1717 »

01Michael10 wrote: post #29
slfnflctd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I completely disagree with you. I would argue that the primary reasons people fail to better fulfill their potential are lack of time, poor health and grief or hopelessness in the face of death. I also strongly believe that the epidemic of disastrous short-term thinking among us (particularly our 'leaders') is directly linked to the fact that each of us knows we're going to die all to…

Sorry but no... We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer. You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? Why would that change if you had 150 years? Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... We don't need drugs, technology and genetic engineering to live longer. We need less poverty (better/fairer distr…

People used to say the same 30 years ago of our current situation. "Who wants to be here in 30 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 7 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world."

Apocalyptic predictions have a very poor record of being right, even those purportedly based in science.

Why would that change if you had 150 years? It wouldn't necessarily change but you would have more time to fulfill your potential, giving you a better chance of doing so.

Yeah, we need all the things you listed for a better quality of life. Being able to live without ageing would help a lot to improve quality of life too. It would definitely help with having less disease, since we would have less age-related diseases, which are the biggest burden on society today.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#56

Post by mdpopescu »

slfnflctd wrote: post #47
01Michael10 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. > I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit d…

> Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first I agree with this in principle. Still, people are going to work on what their unique histories and interests lead them to, and I think it's far more likely that some of those people will discover life extension procedures than that we'll be able to convince everyone who isn't already working on building a beter, self-sustaining world for all to drop what they're d…

I'm actually a religious person who does NOT believe that we keep our memories. Just saying :)

Other than that, yes, not passing on my experiences to my kids (or anyone, really) is something that is starting to annoy me. I know so much freaking stuff that will die with me.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#57

Post by 01Michael10 »

orangecat wrote: post #43
01Michael10 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. > I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit d…

The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. People often go through negative experiences; they generally don't kill themselves in response. I'd like to be around in 2200 even if there's another war and depression between now and then. Build a better, self-sustaining worl…

> Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone.

Huh? That is a response to me?

What I am talking about is --> Hey, we treated your cancer so now you can go back to your .50 an hour job.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#58

Post by 01Michael10 »

Retra wrote: post #46
01Michael10 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. > I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit d…

>Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. Really? Then why are we so adamant on building hospitals and stopping wars? Not dying is necessary prerequisite of having a quality life. What you're wanting is a quality death.

Ummmm No... Sorry, you are confused.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#59

Post by meeper16 »

BoppreH wrote: post #44

Just three days ago The New York Times published a piece about immortality through cryonics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/cancer-immortality-cryo... Now BBC publishes an anti-aging piece. They feel like "submarines", paid/encouraged pieces to promote a certain point of view. Yudkowsky, is that you? I'm all for it and I'm glad someone is doing this, but curiosity is killing me.

Try Google/Calico Labs, Genentech, Aubrey de Grey, Peter Thiel/SENS.org, Craig Venter/Human longevity, GenoPharmix, The Buck Institute, Berkeley Labs, Cynthia Kenyon, Brin, Page, Jack Ma, AOL 2.0.zuckerberg and the list goes on... this is real and it's happening.

“What controls aging? Biochemist Cynthia Kenyon has found a simple genetic mutation that can double the lifespan of a simple worm, C. elegans. The lessons from that discovery, and others, are pointing to how we might one day significantly extend youthful human life.” — http://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hin...

“Google Launches New Company, Calico, to Extend the Human Life Span” - http://goo.gl/2LgUKd “The Race To Extend The Human Lifespan Is Heating Up: Google & Craig Venter Leading the Pack" - http://goo.gl/xrHWgv

“For too many of our friends and family, life has been cut short or the quality of their life is too often lacking. Arthur Levinson is one of the crazy ones who thinks it doesn’t have to be this way. There is no one better suited to lead this mission and I am excited to see the results.” - Apple CEO Tim Cook

“Ten years ago, we thought aging was probably the result of a slow decay, a sort of rusting. But Professor Kenyon has shown that it’s ... controlled by genes. That opens the possibility of slowing it down with drugs.” — Jeff Holly, Bristol University

Also see, "The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences honors transformative advances toward understanding living systems and extending human life. The prize was founded in 2013 by Sergey Brin and Anne Wojcicki, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, Yuri and Julia Milner, and Jack Ma and Cathy Zhang." https://breakthroughprize.org/Prize/2

Real space travel is not solved until aging and extending human life for a bit is solved. This is why I admire companies and individuals in this area over any other area. It's simply the most innovative accomplishment that can be done in the history of humankind and with the largest rewards.

Re: Ageing is not an inevitable fact of life

#60

Post by kolev »

astazangasta wrote: post #50
DennisP wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the article also mentions the naked mole rat, which is about the size of a mouse but lives ten times longer, and Brandt's bat, which weighs as much as a sugar cube but lives 40 years.

Not sure about the mole rat, but bats cheat by shutting down their metabolism (basically hibernating) most of the time.

Why do people try to boost their metabolism (or demise) these days then? I strongly believe that being physically lazy (i.e. not expending much energy and keeping metabolism slow), but mentally active, and walking 30-45 minutes a day is the healthiest lifestyle one could have (if they can afford it).
Post reply on HN