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

101–110 of 227 posts

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#101

Post by ben_w »

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.

Environmental impact is not even on the same axis as longevity.

If everyone lived like the average American today, the maximum sustainable population is about 70 million humans (give or take a factor of about 2), even if they’re all mortal.

Conversely one can conceive a green tech and policy future which is compatible with having trillions of ageless humans living comfortably in what are currently deserts while the rest of the world is maintained as a nature reserve.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#102

Post by radu_floricica »

camillomiller wrote: post #91
radu_floricica wrote: post #66

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…

Please explain to me and try to convince me why we should. I’m serious, I just can’t understand why extending our individual lifespan should be a goal of our age, instead of focusing on making our life much better when it’s more worth living.

They go hand in hand. In most professions you need to be about 40 to be competent. When you're young this doesn't seem likely because you don't see many competent middle aged people: that's because they're up in management actually running things. Unfortunately we start aging mentally around the same age, and at 60 we're not really capable of creative work anymore.

So we live 80 year lives, but with only about quarter of that really giving all we're capable of, and a fair share is being dedicated to raising children. Living an extra 20 years isn't a perk - it literally doubles our most productive years. Living an extra 40 years with most forms of dementia fixed? That's almost unimaginably more productive, and unimaginably richer. Both on an individual level (working+learning more = earning more), but as a society.

You mentioned "when it's more worth living". Not sure what context you're coming from, but life is a lot more worth living in its second half, simply because you know more about how to live it, and have the means to do it. The only problem is you're getting old and senile.

Edit: please don't downvote somebody asking questions.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#103

Post by spacebanana7 »

vmception wrote: post #33
14 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if we get a single human who, without dispute as the oldest woman has some controversy as to the validity of her age, lives past the age of 120 will that be proof the bible is untrue and all it’s writings are false? Because I have a funny feeling now that people are much more documented we will pass the 120 year mark any time.

Goalposts, if you want to know what they will move to: “It wasn't literal [, where convenient]” “The New Testament retcons this, ignore inconvenient or contradictory things in the Old Testament” “It was translated wrong in ye olde English from Greek and Hebrew” and finally conclude “it’s open to interpretation” there, I saved you the whole conversation.

Most of those are valid responses in textual criticism.

For example, in law one could fairly comment that:

1. Literalism isn't absolute - e.g the old British legal tradition of using England to refer to England & Wales

2. Laws supersede one another - new laws overriding old ones, constitutional laws taking primacy

3. Translation challenges occur - when documents like birth/death certificates, immigration papers, college transcripts, police clearances, marriage licenses, divorce decrees and etc are submitted in foreign countries for acceptance by courts and other institutions as legal record.

4. There is space for interpretation - See laws deliberately leaving room for interpretation with phrases like "reasonable force"

Despite these challenges, textual critics of legal writings are often able to successfully decide whether a given statement about a text is correct/incorrect.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#104

Post by kiba »

radu_floricica wrote: post #97
kiba wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be people who comes out to say we shouldn't do this because it means dictators will live longer or that old people will remains in power longer, as if old people are a blight on society. I would consider it good news if old people had to live with their decisions and problems they created instead of leaving it to the next generation.

Change of generation is a thing that used to stump me. It's a valid problem, from older people having weird political choices to scientific research counting on fresh blood (yes it does). Until relatively recently when I switched to believing that there's actually a biological cause for this: sub-clinical forms of dementia. We just get old and lose capacity for meaningful change. We keep functioning, but the decision…

Which means it's fixable. I don't want a world where I replace my father and am replaced by my children. I want a world where my father starts acting like a valedictorian again, but with a life of experience behind it.

As we move through life, we inherit bias and experience and no longer have fresh perspective. It's possible to get wiser with age, but it's also likely we will gain experience that hold us back, such as hatred and trauma.

Here's the thing: the newer generations are also going through this process too! They are not necessarily better. They might have less trauma, but they also have less hard won experience.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#105

Post by ttcbj »

My grandparents are now 95 and 96 (just shy of their 75th wedding anniversary). They are wonderful people, but it is clear that life is hard for them now. They have chronic pain and nothing can really be done about it. They have very limited opportunities for enjoyment or activity.

Watching them, and also my mother struggle with health issues at 73, has really changed my perspective on aging. I am very focused on enjoying my health now (at 47). Some people are spry and enjoying life up to their early 90s (my grandparents), but some experience health declines much earlier.

The stoic idea that "there will be a last time for everything" in your life (last time you go for a jog, last hike in the mountains, last time you can move without pain, last time you can travel, etc etc) is how I think about aging. I really try to enjoy the physical health I have now, and keep in mind that it will not last forever.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#106

Post by Flankk »

School-Cotton wrote: post #22
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

The Bible is a loose collection of different books written by different authors over a period of thousands of years. We shouldn’t be surprised that some of them say different things.

No post body was provided.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#107

Post by Enginerrrd »

paulcole wrote: post #100
Animats wrote: post #27

And hundreds of people reached the rarefied ranks of the supercentenarians — aged 110 or older — although demographers have validated the records of only a fraction of them. Um, yes. A few years ago, the city government of Tokyo sent people to visit everyone who reported an age over 100, to see what they were doing right. What they found was a lot of pension fraud. "To date, the authorities have been unable to find m…

The whole Blue Zones thing is pretty funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone Only Loma Linda seems like it might not be the result of fraud — and that’s only because it’s a haven for a kooky religion. The whole life-extension thing is funny. I wonder if people realize what the world is going to be like 70+ years from now and how miserable it’s going to be for anyone over 100 who’s not rich? I think about my 95…

Oh man, you wouldn't believe the flak I got for arguing that 90+ year olds wanting to see their family during COVID restrictions was actually a rational decision for them. They had a much higher annual risk of dying anyway than they did of catching and dying from COVID given the prevalence rates at the time and assuming standard family gathering sizes. I'm not even sure their risk was strictly greater given the affects of isolation on humans, but I can't make that argument numerically since the needed stats aren't quite there. But omg no one wanted me to argue for elderly autonomy.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#108

Post by donkarma »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #72
mongol wrote: post #2

If we consider the average lifespan as say 80 years old, I find it quite interesting that no single human ever has achieved even close to twice that age.

If we consider the average height as say 160 cm tall, I find it quite interesting that no single human has achieved even close to twice that height.

1ft off is pretty close in my books

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#109

Post by e40 »

ttcbj wrote: post #105

My grandparents are now 95 and 96 (just shy of their 75th wedding anniversary). They are wonderful people, but it is clear that life is hard for them now. They have chronic pain and nothing can really be done about it. They have very limited opportunities for enjoyment or activity. Watching them, and also my mother struggle with health issues at 73, has really changed my perspective on aging. I am very focused on enj…

I was surprised at the step down in quality at 59. Definitely worried about other lower qualities of life and thinking about how long it could last.

Yeah, I'd rather money be put into quality rather than quantity of life.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#110

Post by radu_floricica »

kiba wrote: post #104
radu_floricica wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change of generation is a thing that used to stump me. It's a valid problem, from older people having weird political choices to scientific research counting on fresh blood (yes it does). Until relatively recently when I switched to believing that there's actually a biological cause for this: sub-clinical forms of dementia. We just get old and lose capacity for meaningful change. We keep functioning, but the decision…

Which means it's fixable. I don't want a world where I replace my father and am replaced by my children. I want a world where my father starts acting like a valedictorian again, but with a life of experience behind it. As we move through life, we inherit bias and experience and no longer have fresh perspective. It's possible to get wiser with age, but it's also likely we will gain experience that hold us back, such a…

No, no, I'm not talking about psychological baggage, but a very concrete biological mechanism. Take a look at this for a good description: https://scholars-stage.org/public-intellectuals-have-short-s...
Post reply on HN