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

Does the human lifespan have a limit?

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 227 posts

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#61

Post by brnaftr361 »

verve_rat wrote: post #56
brnaftr361 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gilgamesh did it first. On immortality, my thing is actually psychologically framing it were it to become a reality; it's entirely inconsistent with everything we have ever known. I think mortality has a purpose within the context of life. And there's literally limitless implications it would have. To me it seems like the most inhumane pursuit conceivable.

Where as to me, not pursuing it is condemning people to countless years of not existing. Which seems far more cruel than choosing to have a limited life span. What is the difference between not investing in life extension research and just putting a pillow over the face of a million people?

Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering.

On the obverse side, there's a string of unavoidable consequences and complications that are unfathomable. Once such a technique becomes available though, that culpability becomes real. And on many complex levels. It's a fools errand cartooned in the purile mind, and far more responsibility than humanity will ever be capable of justly handling.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#62

Post by verve_rat »

brnaftr361 wrote: post #61
verve_rat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where as to me, not pursuing it is condemning people to countless years of not existing. Which seems far more cruel than choosing to have a limited life span. What is the difference between not investing in life extension research and just putting a pillow over the face of a million people?

Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. On the obverse side, there's a string of unavoidable consequences and complications that are unfathomable. Once such a technique becomes available though, that culpability becomes real. And on many complex levels. It's a fools errand cartooned in the purile mind, and far more responsibility than humanity will ever b…

>Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering.

The trolley problem would like a word.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#63

Post by krapp »

bsedlm wrote: post #60
krapp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) Because this is a myth from thousands of years ago, and "scientific" accuracy wasn't relevant, much less possible. Read any ancient creation myth, or most ancient myth at all, it's closer to dream logic than anything remotely realistic. They meant earth days because those were the only kind of d…

logically plausible and "scientific" and/or "realistic" are different things. Things can be complete fantasy yet logically consistent. > there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that. you seem to be working under the assumption that because they lived long ago it must follow that they are simpler or in some sense "dumber". (i.e. I claim you believe that "in the past every man was a simpleton…

I'm not claiming that ancient people were dumber, I'm claiming the cultural and spiritual purpose of a creation myth isn't served by realism or logical consistency. God creating day and night before creating the sun and moon is par for the course for these stories. The Babylonian myth some people believe Genesis is based on - the Enuma Elish, says the god Marduk killed his nemesis Tiamat, cut him in half and made the sky out of one half and the Earth out of the other.

>alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days?

I don't know why you're being so defensive, or why it's so important to you that Genesis be justified rationally. If you want to believe the ancient Hebrews based the days of creation on galactic rotations, go right ahead. It would just be odd, given that no one back then knew what stars, planets and galaxies even were. The timeline still wouldn't make any sense

And sure, they could probably dream of other varieties of days, whatever that means, but again - why have a narrative about six days refer to that rather than just six days? And why did they never write this dream down, or mention it? Surely they would have considered that a divine revelation from God.

The story says days, it means days. Regular human Earth days. There's no reason to believe otherwise.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#64

Post by brnaftr361 »

verve_rat wrote: post #62
brnaftr361 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. On the obverse side, there's a string of unavoidable consequences and complications that are unfathomable. Once such a technique becomes available though, that culpability becomes real. And on many complex levels. It's a fools errand cartooned in the purile mind, and far more responsibility than humanity will ever b…

>Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. The trolley problem would like a word. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

You're effectively switching the track to "Strangulate the whole planet with humans and their downstream effects!", very cool, or y'know any other disasterous permutation. We've already got population issues if that isn't compelling enough for you.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#65

Post by verve_rat »

brnaftr361 wrote: post #64
verve_rat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. The trolley problem would like a word. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

You're effectively switching the track to "Strangulate the whole planet with humans and their downstream effects!", very cool, or y'know any other disasterous permutation. We've already got population issues if that isn't compelling enough for you.

Because an immortal human won't change their thinking re long term impacts on the planet. Sure buddy.

You want people to die. I think that is horrendous. Our world views seem to be fundamentally different, is there any point continuing this conversation?

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#66

Post by radu_floricica »

There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago.

So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want it earlier rather than later. But some facet of our psychology makes it very hard to think about this in hopeful ways.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#67

Post by dsq »

okl wrote: post #7
FL33TW00D wrote: post #3

Whenever this topic comes up, I’m always reminded of the fact that the bible knew of this long before any statistician. 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3). As a non Christian this always baffles me.

Funny, because there are many bible characters older than 120 years. One of many contradictions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Antediluvian lifespans were order of magnitude greater. Methuselah was, I think, over 900 years. After the flood the lifespans became significantly shorter.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#68

Post by nkrisc »

bsedlm wrote: post #26
acchow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?

why assume that they meant earth days? if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) also, what if a day is a rotation around a body's axis, then what about a solar day (the sun spins around itself once)? what about a galactic day?

It’s all fiction and fantastical accounts of history anyway, I wouldn’t read too much into any of it.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#69

Post by throw8932894 »

dsq wrote: post #67
okl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, because there are many bible characters older than 120 years. One of many contradictions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Antediluvian lifespans were order of magnitude greater. Methuselah was, I think, over 900 years. After the flood the lifespans became significantly shorter.

or maybe they used lunar calendar, 900 years are actually months...

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#70

Post by Retric »

bsedlm wrote: post #26
acchow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?

why assume that they meant earth days? if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) also, what if a day is a rotation around a body's axis, then what about a solar day (the sun spins around itself once)? what about a galactic day?

Any attempt to be logically consistent runs into issues. If you assume the first six days where the equivalent of geologic time then so was the 7th. Thus God would still be resting and not doing anything else biblical in the rest of the good book. Give up on consistency and that problem goes away.

Look if you want to accept the Bible as true then acknowledge what it is warts and all. Old Testament God kills kids for mocking someone’s bald head (Kings 2:23-24), that’s your religious text. Feel free to believe it all happened as written, or do what almost everyone does and ignore most of it.

Post reply on HN