71–80 of 146 posts
Food intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate • Low-protein, high-carbohydrate diets are associated with the longest lifespans • Energy reduction from high-protein diets or dietary dilution does not extend life https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Σ (generation_n)
always converges to some finite number when generation_(n+1) = k * generation_n has k I don’t think that’s a good model, as people who want more offspring will out-reproduce those who don’t, but that’s an argument for another time.
In 1897, philosopher Paul Janet came up with the model that current moments of time in our lives might be perceived by their "fraction of life lived thus far". This would seem to undermine the value of longevity somewhat: according to this visualization of the idea: https://www.maximiliankiener.com/digitalprojects/time/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Food intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate • Low-protein, high-carbohydrate diets are associated with the longest lifespans • Energy reduction from high-protein diets or dietary dilution does not extend life https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)...
Interesting way to display the data but from my understanding this theory isn’t accurate. Having memorable moments is what makes time seem longer. That’s why when we’re younger and try new things all the time that period seems memorable.
Going to the same job in the same place for years makes it feel like time flies by because there is no new experience in that period.
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.
So the tl;dr from what I've found so far is that: * What you eat * When you eat * How much you eat * Exercise Are by far the simplest, cheapest, and most well documented way to extend life by quite a lot. We have lots of evidence to back calorie restriction. We know that eating more earlier in the day vs later means your insulin levels can recover better (or something?). We know eating certain types of fats is bad fo…
I agree with everything you’ve written there, apart from the idea that diet & exercise will extend your life by quite a lot, and the idea that you’ll have to gamble with interventions now if you’re in your 40s. There’s simply no behaviour or treatment today that will significantly extend the maximum human lifespan; unfortunately doing so will require years of scientific and technological innovation. Even caloric restriction looks monumentally feeble as an intervention, especially weighed against the effort involved.
As you say, one big question is how to do a wait calculation for your own personal timeline – at some point (we hope) the interventions will get more efficacious and have fewer adverse effects. The skill (luck?) will be judging when the benefits outweigh the risks for your personal circumstances, as your body ages and your risk profile increases. But at this point in history, there’s no evidence that we’re anywhere near a longevity escape velocity scenario, and your couple of years extra life from present day efforts should be enjoyed on its own terms, not as some sort of key to unlocking immortality.
I think that last part is leaned on heavily by this industry to oversell things to people; it amounts to little more than religious faith at this point in history. They are selling what they have to hand, but when we try to judge those interventions objectively, they’re just not that effective (including diet & exercise).
They are ahead of the beauty-led anti-aging industry in that they are at least doing science, so there is hope for the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people who feel this way should be perfectly free to, but not everyone does, and they should be free not to die as per their preference. I think of it as, if my loved one (or me) were in the hospital with a fatal disease, but there was a cure, I would want the cure. I can't really see myself saying "Yeah, but death is so beautiful..." I see aging the same way, as another fatal disease and I'd cure it if I cou…
I don’t know, I think one of the kindest things an older generation does is die off and let the younger generations take the reigns.
Where is the difference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ye…
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 didn’t like extreme sports when I was young, but maybe if I was 10,000 years old, I’d think screw it and have a go at BASE jumping...