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

131–140 of 227 posts

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#131

Post by czbond »

ck2 wrote: post #127
hndamien wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can you get NMN?

Don't bother. Sinclair is considered a quack by even some life-extension enthusiasts. He owns part of the company that makes patented NMN which is just another form of NR which is a another form of very cheap Niacin. He also owns part of the company that claims he is rolling back his biological clock. That's not science, that's marketing and profiteering. NAD production slows down with age and illness. All he is doin…

Why disregard someone simply because they own a piece of a company that also supports the goal? I think any rational person would do the same - you believe in something so you start, invest in, or advise a company.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#132

Post by oblak »

swayvil wrote: post #25
okl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. If it is up to the reader to decide which is and which isn't a metaphor that should not be taken literally, than the text is no better than the reader's capability to distinguish metaphors from facts to be taken literally, is it?

Well, yes. It's a failure of the medium. It requires an expert to interpret properly. And most of us aren't that. And some of those in charge of translation and interpretation aren't that either.

Hah. I wonder what of experts you have in mind

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#133

Post by usrusr »

dmd wrote: post #94
camillomiller wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Suppose, right now, normal life expectancy was 200 years. How would you feel about a new program being rolled out to impose disease and death on everyone over 80?

16 billion people stacked on earth?It's a pointless hypothetical because violence would have prevented that scenario long before. And what grand violence it would be! So much easier sending great-great-grandsons into battle than sons and grandsons.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#134

Post by qvrjuec »

superjan wrote: post #51

In a Wondrium lecture on genetics and evolution, this question was also discussed. A compelling (but unproven) explanation for our “age limit” is that any genetic trait that improves your chances before reproduction at the cost of your chances after reproduction (and raising your offspring) will benefit your genes and thus will “win” in the long run. If this is an important effect, it will be very hard to defeat.

It's pretty intuitive to also consider limits on lifespan as a function of conserving resources on a family or tribal level. At a certain point, the utility a population could gain from labor or knowledge of older members is outweighed by the burden of taking care of them and providing for them.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#135

Post by foobiekr »

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…

My parents are like that in their 80s. They now respond to things like, "time is short, if there's anything you wanted to do, do it" with "that time has passed for us." It struck me as characteristic of their accidental lifelong stoicism.

It's sobering and makes it really hard to continue working in middle age.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#136

Post by czbond »

KineticLensman wrote: post #122
anamexis wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't cells constantly being replaced, including their DNA?

Cells are self-replacing under the control of their own DNA; not pumped out of a factory. Slowly accumulating errors in the DNA can compromise the ability of cells to make good copies of themselves, potentially leading to cancer calls instead.

Maybe intermittent fasting autophagy can be the key to elongating life through that continual repair.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#137

Post by Banana699 »

dmd wrote: post #94
camillomiller wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Suppose, right now, normal life expectancy was 200 years. How would you feel about a new program being rolled out to impose disease and death on everyone over 80?

This seems fallacious to me, the scenario you describe has zero opportunity cost for being alive till 200, it's free. Assuming no afterlife, you gain nothing by artificially limiting your lifespan to less than half its amount.

But in reality, there's opportunity cost to trying to extend your lifespan, it's all the money and attention and other resources that could have gone to improving other much more certain-rewards problems.

In other words, your thought experiment is a fully general purpose argument for any investment. It's conclusion is that you should _always_ go for the investment no matter what the opportunity costs.

Example (1) - We should expand the data center from 80 servers to 200 servers

= Why? our loads are not high, we should instead focus on improving the product

- Well imagine if we already had 200 servers in the data center, would you scale it down to 80

Example (2) - We should invest in renewable energy

= Why? nuclear power is much more certain and mature

- Well imagine if we already had renewables, would you phase it out in favor of nuclear?

In both cases, you're completely missing the point of your opponent by the "Imagine if we already had" maneuver, we don't, that's why your opponent is against it, it's a risky investment with uncertain rewards and plenty of same-utility alternatives (in the opponent's view).

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#138

Post by czbond »

tzs wrote: post #80
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?

Asimov had a possible explanation for 6 days: http://www.sumware.com/creation.html

Good read - thanks for sharing

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#139

Post by markb139 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #96
reverend_gonzo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ. In my opinion, life doesn’t really start until you’re 25 or so, maybe even 30. The first 18 years are generally spent at home, following other peoples rules, and learning how to get by. The next few years you get your independence and start finding your place in the world. If you went to college, then you enter the workforce and are probably getting by, still finding your footing. Then the real fun s…

This is a great viewpoint emotionally, but physically you can’t do at 50 what you could do at 25. There’s a reason pretty much every sport (even golf!) has a “masters” class for older players.

I’m in my 50’s and I’m a much better golfer than I was in my 20’s. Partly club technology has enabled me to hit the ball more consistently and partly I now don’t try and hit the cover off the ball each shot :)

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#140

Post by bluefirebrand »

jacquesm wrote: post #92
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.

They'd still leave the problems to the next generation. The next generation just wouldn't be in charge.

This is something we've basically already witnessed with how society is operating right now.

The people inheriting the problems we started making 40 years ago before they were born even, still have very little say.

Post reply on HN