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

111–120 of 156 posts

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

#111

Post by biggitybones »

gnaritas wrote: post #47
biggitybones wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically (my rudimentary math would assume that it would require 10% of the amount of births we have now) or you'd risk overcrowding. We'd end up with government controlling the number of children, possibly even a lottery system. The overcrowding worries of the 70s and 90s were not because of a 1200% increase, rather a 10-20% increase.

> If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically And it would, if you knew you'd live that long most wouldn't tie themselves down with kids while they're still young, they'd wait much much longer and go out and live life. As it stands now, if you don't have kids by the time you're 30 you risk not being able to have them at all and having to suffer though months of fertilit…

The fact is, society would change drastically if this were to happen, so we can speculate all we want :)

People could want kids for a variety of reasons (to pass on their genes, the utility of having children, etc) and you'd have to maintain that you could only have two children max at one point in your life to effectively replace yourselves and not increase the population.

Not to mention if you'd want to have kids 2 or 3 times over, now that they're growth is only a small percentage of your total life.

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

#112

Post by awt »

crystalis wrote: post #23
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.

Why is childbirth a right? Would you accept a trade of a parent's life for a child's life, perhaps with a time delay? There's also several financial methods that could be used to prevent undesirable wealth accumulation.

You may be right -- it is not currently guaranteed under the constitution that I'm aware of.

A trade off would be ok but hard to enforce, as right now we don't even let people want to die, die legally for the most part.

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

#113

Post by jarek »

sardonic wrote: post #57

I can't believe no one has called out the bogus math in the article: "If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000." If you assume 1/1000 chance of death in a year, and 1000 years (1000 trials), your…

You are assuming this based on a mainstream media article. First of all, you have no idea if he knows the right answer and is just dumbing it down for those who don't understand basic binomial probability. Second, the quote says "well under one in 1000", not "one in 1000". The correct value of one in 1415.8 as calculated by Retric in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368664 is, in fact, under one in 1000.

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

#114

Post by kscaldef »

biggitybones wrote: post #45

It's amazing to think that just 500 years ago things were so bad that people awaited death patiently and willingly because they believed life was a punishment rewarded with an afterlife. Now we're trying to extend the amount of time that we live 10 fold because things are so great right now. I'm not saying either is right, just an observation.

Maybe you don't talk to religious folks much, but that attitude hasn't changed all that much.

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

#117

Post by reasonattlm »

jules wrote: post #110
reasonattlm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might look at the mitochondrial work which recently focused on Corral-Debrinski's lab as the most likely prospect for getting the job done. A brief outline is at the end of this page: http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/mitosens and you can look at Corral-Debrinski's breakthrough here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771762 Basically it's now shown possible to move a mitochondrial gene into the…

How much of that money has been donated already? i.e. how much more is needed? It's interesting stuff. It makes me wonder whether I should be studying biology :)

I don't know how much SENS Foundation has raised since it diverged from the Methuselah Foundation. For the period prior to that, you can look at the Methuselah Foundation records:

http://www.mfoundation.org/?pn=mj_donations_funding

http://www.mfoundation.org/?pn=donors

These are just ("just") a few millions - though I'm sure the folk reading HN will appreciate how much work went into raising those funds for a visionary project. By any account, a grand success in putting forward a new idea and bringing on board people who think the same way. Like all grand successes, it's the first step on a much longer path.

(You may or may not know that one of the largest donors is Peter Thiel).

In essence, SENS is still looking for the big hit, the scale up to mid-7-figures. By donating modestly now you add your name to hundreds of others who have already stepped up to help make the ramp needed for that goal.

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

#118

Post by pohl »

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…

Thank you. I added them to my list at givv.org

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

#119

Post by joubert »

crystalis wrote: post #71
joubert wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, and nobody else, own your body. I.e., nobody should be able to say you're not allowed to have children.

You've simply asserted that, though. I own my own body, does that mean nobody should be able to say I'm not allowed to, say, defecate? What if I'm positioned directly above them? Simply being able to do something doesn't make it a right. (I, and nobody else, own my car. I.e., nobody should be able to say I'm not allowed to max out the speedometer?)

You're not allowed to think that way. The committee decided.

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

#120

Post by simonsquiff »

gnaritas wrote: post #47
biggitybones wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically (my rudimentary math would assume that it would require 10% of the amount of births we have now) or you'd risk overcrowding. We'd end up with government controlling the number of children, possibly even a lottery system. The overcrowding worries of the 70s and 90s were not because of a 1200% increase, rather a 10-20% increase.

> If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically And it would, if you knew you'd live that long most wouldn't tie themselves down with kids while they're still young, they'd wait much much longer and go out and live life. As it stands now, if you don't have kids by the time you're 30 you risk not being able to have them at all and having to suffer though months of fertilit…

You're assuming most children are planned :)
Post reply on HN