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

We will be able to live to 1,000

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 156 posts

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#11

Post by jules »

MikeCapone wrote: post #2

We might or might not defeat the diseases of aging anytime soon, but if you want to help the people who are trying to make it happen, consider donating to the SENS Foundation (money goes directly to research): http://www.sens.org/ Sadly, because aging isn't considered a disease by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, there is actually very little research being done on it if you take into consideration the fact that…

Before donating you should ask yourself whether Aubrey de Grey is a crackpot or not. I'm not sure myself. Can somebody shed some light on this?

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#12

Post by gte910h »

tyree731 wrote: post #7

Life expectancy has increased a good amount in the past 50 years, raising by ~8.5. That is to say, for the exponentially increasing abilities of modern medicine, we have increased linearly in life expectancy. Maybe there is some breaking point, such as a universal cure for cancers and/or the end of heart disease, but regardless it seems like a huge leap to go from ~78 to ~1000 in life expectancy.

Much of life expectancy gains though are for the area south of 70. Much of SENS research hold's promise for the area north of 70. That's what's exciting. Especially if that we can live a healthy older age, even if it's not any longer.

(Truthfully, some cancer research benefits older people, as cancer has a much higher incidence as you age, however, much research out there is for middle of life diseases).

If my grandmother could play basketball again, she's love to.

Remember, people lived to 70 thousands of years ago.

Remember Ben Franklin lived to 84.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#13

Post by teilo »

I just have to shake my head at this. The only adequate word for this is arrogance. The arrogance to believe that we know enough about the processes of life to extend them indefinitely.

We don't even know what we don't know. How many times have we been at this place in the history of biology, where we honestly believe that we are just "that" close to figuring out the processes of life. We were wrong then, and we are wrong now.

We do not know or understand the over-arching cause of cancer, nor the cause of its radical increase. Similarly with heart disease: after a generation of assurances that the cause is a high-fat diet, the premise itself is being rejected. I could go down the list of major congenital diseases, and tell the same story. Even the most basic assumptions which we have about disease are being overturned. And whatever replaces them will likely be overturned yet again.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#15

Post by pixelbath »

gte910h wrote: post #8
awt wrote: post #5

Just going based on the title here. But if we let people live to 1000, that will deny many people the right to have children. The long term consequences of such a change could be a drastic slow down in technological innovation as the super-elderly are able to accumulate vast sums of wealth. Just think of the advantage you'd have as a 500 y/o over a 25 y/o.

Childbearing age may also be increased though. SO if you can have a kid at 200 who's perfectly healthy, why would you necessarily spurt one out at 20?

I don't think the parent post was talking about childbearing age; I interpreted it as being more of a society-imposed restriction based on the practicality of having a population that can be up to 1000 years old.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#16

Post by sshumaker »

rmorrison wrote: post #4

I don't see how humanity could handle something like mass distribution of a magic treatment that allowed people to live to 1,000. The world would quickly get over crowded, resources would dry up, world wars would follow, and who knows what else.

This is silly.

Everyone was worried in the 1970's that the 1990's would have massive overcrowding and famines, but it didn't happen. Instead, the world population growth rate has begun to level off.

Why? In affluent countries, people no longer have children out of necessity, but of desire. In fact, many first-world nations are actually now undergoing population contraction (Japan, much of Europe).

If you eliminate aging across the world, the necessity of children will go away. People will only have children if they want them.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#18

Post by rauljara »

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years.

This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but the details are nasty. Frankly, I think there's a reason complicated life evolved so that it would age. The standard reason given is that eventually errors in replication accumulate and cancer results. I.e. we age to avoid cancer. But that is a ridiculous reason. There is a chance we might die of cancer if we grow too old, so we trade that possibility of death by cancer for a certainty of death by aging? It just doesn't make evolutionary sense.

I have a feeling that whatever the real reason for aging is, it will take us a long, long time before we find a way around it.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#19

Post by sgk284 »

rmorrison wrote: post #4

I don't see how humanity could handle something like mass distribution of a magic treatment that allowed people to live to 1,000. The world would quickly get over crowded, resources would dry up, world wars would follow, and who knows what else.

Eh... humanity will always find a way. We've done pretty good so far. If nothing else, spending a few years flying to mars seems a lot more reasonable when you've got 1,000 to spare. Space colonization is one solution to overpopulation.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#20

Post by quizbiz »

I heard some interesting insight recently. I am not sure how correct it is but it suggested that while we have made a lot of progress in living longer (allowing us to be old for longer) we have not made much progress at slowing down the process of aging (making it take longer to get old).

If we want to live long and fruitful lives, how do we slow down aging? I prefer that question over, how do we live until 1,000?

Post reply on HN