Live data from Hacker News

Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

ldeming.com

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#61

Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Imagine life with no kids and the joy they bring, a stagnation in all societal structures, no turnover of ideas (loosely quoting "agendas don't die; people die"). I'm sure such a civilization would be very stable, but won't have any extreme sports.

I don't have to convince you or death-desirers of anything. I simply have to outlive you. (loosely quoting Cory Doctorow)

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#62
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never understood why so many people are so vehemently against anti-aging sentiments. Are they in denial about their own, current mortality?

It’s the same story repeated. I got so tired of listening to people complain I wrote a blog about it 3 years ago so I could hopefully quell the noise. “Death gives life meaning” “It’ll only be for rich people” https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...

Firstly if you accept we are as human life forms, complex real-time chemical reactions, then in the simplest terms this should show you that extending life should be possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire These fires keep burning because there is enough of the right fuel (diet) to keep them burning, their environment doesnt put them out either, even when pathogens (eg us humans) have tried to put them out.

What science is trying to do, is identify what our diet today has or doesnt have in sufficient quantity which can extend life. Take Rampamycin, aka mTor signalling and the role a keto branch chained amino acid can play in extending life. There are so many studies on Rampamycin, mTor, Ketotosis, Leucine, and water only fasting and this is just one component of our diet. https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/131/3/861S/4687154 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22029833/

As we are now at a stage where we can alter what food would normally contain eg supermarkets want marbleised meat, so livestock get fed a Pantothenic Acid (Vit B5) deficient diet as it reduces subcutaneous fat levels and shift the fat into the muscle and around the organs, as well as affecting the nervous system, not a concern for farmers considering the livestocks short life span, but another simple example being popping a multi vitamin pill, it is now possible to alter our diets in drastic ways. The hard part is knowing when something is giving a herxheimer reaction or is genuinely bad for us.

There are a lot of factors to take into account which we just cant measure, the sodium potassium ATPase pump, potassium causes the cell to take up a variety of other chemicals where as sodium makes the cell take up water. Some cells cant handle folded proteins getting inside them for example, yet cooked egg white is a good example of eating folded proteins. We cant measure easily or accurately in-vivo (in the body) what a cell has taken up from interstitial fluid. Thats why radioactive isotopes are sometimes used, or chemicals with an alternated magnetic resonance which can be detected using fMRI scanners. Yet radioisotopes can affect the body, the higher the amount the more obvious the effect as Chernobyl and Fukashima, Radon all demonstrate. Sometimes, studies are portrayed as being negative to health when the lack of understanding means it should have been portrayed as a positive to health in some circumstances and negative to health in the circumstance they carried out the experiment in, but even the year the study was carried out can sometimes account for that lack of knowledge, other times it just wasnt taught or common knowledge in the scientific community. Having done a few of my own experiments, I've already discovered some studys portraying negative health effects, but my circumstances have been different. And as much as we may lambaste the food industry, at least we still have reasonably consistent standardised food to eat which will also help the scientific community. In the past like you see in China, a myriad of things would have been consumed as food with sometimes unknown consequences.

Other inhibitors, include what chemical combinations can be made, you'll never see a zinc-sodium supplement because its either too expensive to make, knowledge to make not obtained yet or its just physically impossible to combine the two. So some supplements focus on one element of the chemical combination, and forgets or simply doesnt mention what else its combined with. When you take all the different types of zinc supplements, zinc ions are often a minority to whatever else its combined with, which can also affect the body.

As for it being just for rich people, its also for clever people who demonstrate innovation. Very few things will break the bank, if you have a bank account.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#63
post #27

Anyone don't want longevity for humans? I think death is a beautiful thing and for a lot of us including myself life has been really tough at times. The fact that there is an equalizer in death makes life comforting at times.

Whilst I've seen this point of view a lot, it strikes me as defeatist. A kind of "I shan't involve myself solving the problems of the world, for inequality now finds equality in death".

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#64
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is in a way, where the beggar does not have to suffer for eternity, and the rich man's luxury also cannot last forever.

And the beggar is supposed to be happy about this? "Ah yeah, life sucked, but at least that other dude died". Who thinks this way?

schadenfreude

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#65

Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Imagine life with no kids and the joy they bring, a stagnation in all societal structures, no turnover of ideas (loosely quoting "agendas don't die; people die"). I'm sure such a civilization would be very stable, but won't have any extreme sports.

> Imagine life with no kids People will still be able to have kids. In fact in many cases people will be able to have as many kids as they normally would. As long as the fertility rate is less than 2 children/woman, the total population will still converge even if no one dies. Places like South Korean have a fertility rate of 1 c/w, which would produce a mere doubling of the total population.

> As long as the fertility rate is less than 2 children/woman, the total population will still converge even if no one dies.

Converge to what? How?

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#67
I stopped reading after seeing the cancer/hearth disease chart. It reinforces the belief that most deaths are caused by cancer, while actually it's hearth disease.

So if you make a chart, please make it accurate.

Therefore I couldn't trust the rest, since it might all be "drawn from the wrist".

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#68
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don’t want to pay taxes but here I am, grudgingly paying them for the benefit of our societal structure. Would I want to live in a world where people don’t have kids, where people can take as much time as they want because time is infinite, a world where you wouldn’t even go out on the street for the chance something would happen to you and deprive you of eternal existence? I’m not sure, and in any case, it wi…

You do you. I want to live 900 years and explore every discipline under the sun. I want to travel the world twenty times, read every book, see a hundred thousand sunsets. Don't tell me I or anyone else doesn't deserve that. Evolution left us with bodies that don't permit it, but we'll escape that limit someday.

Do you have kids? I think my view on this radically changed as a father. I feel like my generation sticking around forever would come at the expense of our children (or their children, which by proxy is the same thing).

With kids around, there’s just something biologically soothing that tells you “you’ve done your part. You can leave this world at peace”.

I know it’s not the same for everyone but on a humankind level, that’s exactly how it works.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#69

Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Imagine life with no kids and the joy they bring, a stagnation in all societal structures, no turnover of ideas (loosely quoting "agendas don't die; people die"). I'm sure such a civilization would be very stable, but won't have any extreme sports.

Do you not want to live longer?

The real question is what kind of life.

I love driving my motorcycle, and I'm well aware of the risks involved.

Now let's imagine a world where they cure aging. When dying in an accident, you could lose a whole lot more than now.

I'm pretty sure we would quickly evolve to a society where we minimize the risk to die to almost 0. I do not want to live in such a oversafely world.

Besides, I'm very happy with 70 or so years here, and try to enjoy all of it. The next generations will inherit it all.

Re: Longevity FAQ: A beginner's guide to longevity research

#70
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shhh. Don't wake them up from their pro-aging trance.

Never understood why so many people are so vehemently against anti-aging sentiments. Are they in denial about their own, current mortality?

Maybe we're atheists that accepted our own mortality.
Post reply on HN