71–80 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for whales so YMMV.
It's not consistent across species because different species have different mechanisms for averting tumor growth. But within species (certainly among humans, and I'm pretty sure also among others), more cells means more opportunities for something to go wrong and so more cancer.
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
What a wonderful fable. I enjoyed reading it and wish there was more research occuring in this field. Still, I'm impressed from what I hear in the news from time to time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane conditions only to die early.
I think medicine gave a good hit to the dragon over the years. At first only rich people beneficiated from it. But thankfully today medicine advantages are better distributed. We are not equals by any means and some countries are lagging behind, but it is better. Link to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39080399 I have good hopes the same pattern could occur here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Altered Carbon brought up the most chilling view of a world without death. In that exploration only the rich are immortal, because the poor can’t afford immortality. Someone being rich for hundreds of years will only cement their their power, position, and their perspective. How do we feel if Rockefeller were still alive and powerful? What if our old kings never died? If any of them had a sexual perversion, w…
I wonder if people really would ossify after hundreds of years or eventually learn to be hyper-adaptable. Current centenarians are a bad example, because their brains and bodies are falling apart. Some sci fi suggests that the fact of our living and dying in just one century means we die as immature children. Maybe it takes a thousand years or ten thousand years to “know thyself” to any useful degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if people really would ossify after hundreds of years or eventually learn to be hyper-adaptable. Current centenarians are a bad example, because their brains and bodies are falling apart. Some sci fi suggests that the fact of our living and dying in just one century means we die as immature children. Maybe it takes a thousand years or ten thousand years to “know thyself” to any useful degree.
In a rather unpopular opinion, I think most people are more of a product of their environments than we like to believe. If you look at the rate at which social change happens and public opinion about certain topics, it happens much faster than new generations replace the old. A good example of this is with same-sex marriage. Opinion changed rapidly and I'm sure many have even forgot all the things said before Obergef…
To the contrary, it happens exactly that fast. https://scholars-stage.org/culture-wars-are-long-wars/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Altered Carbon brought up the most chilling view of a world without death. In that exploration only the rich are immortal, because the poor can’t afford immortality. Someone being rich for hundreds of years will only cement their their power, position, and their perspective. How do we feel if Rockefeller were still alive and powerful? What if our old kings never died? If any of them had a sexual perversion, w…
I wonder if people really would ossify after hundreds of years or eventually learn to be hyper-adaptable. Current centenarians are a bad example, because their brains and bodies are falling apart. Some sci fi suggests that the fact of our living and dying in just one century means we die as immature children. Maybe it takes a thousand years or ten thousand years to “know thyself” to any useful degree.
Jonathon Swift explored this idea in 1726, in Gulliver's Travels, with the Struldbruggs [0] - decrepit immortals. Struldbruggs also popped up in Larry Niven's Known Space universe [1], albeit there as the name of a club for the old and powerful (IIRC with an increasing minimum age to keep out the young whippersnappers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if people really would ossify after hundreds of years or eventually learn to be hyper-adaptable. Current centenarians are a bad example, because their brains and bodies are falling apart. Some sci fi suggests that the fact of our living and dying in just one century means we die as immature children. Maybe it takes a thousand years or ten thousand years to “know thyself” to any useful degree.
In a rather unpopular opinion, I think most people are more of a product of their environments than we like to believe. If you look at the rate at which social change happens and public opinion about certain topics, it happens much faster than new generations replace the old. A good example of this is with same-sex marriage. Opinion changed rapidly and I'm sure many have even forgot all the things said before Obergef…
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
Unfortunately he doesn't address overpopulation. Admittedly, birth rates are declining rapidly.