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

What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 137 posts

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#21

Post by femto »

Widdershin wrote: post #6
collyw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientifically I agree with you economically not. We still base our economics system on infinite growth, but that is clearly reaching its limits. People living longer is only going to compound the problems.

I couldn't agree with you more. We have a fundamental culture of constant growth. It is by definition unsustainable. My hope is that if we did manage to ward off death for a bit longer, we might transcend some of our flawed notions. Who knows? Maybe young humans are fools, and that's the problem.

Alternatively, mortality might make us selfless and less prone to flawed notions, as death forces us to eventually pass the baton to the next generation. Does wisdom come from age, or from impending death?

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#22

Post by danieltillett »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #5

It is important to note that the fact "Starvation is also a way to live longer." is probably wrong as some scientist have noticed. The problem is that animals in laboratories are "coach potatoes". They don't do the exercise they naturally do in their habitat searching for food. They live overcrowded in small cages and overstressed. Most lab animals are already ill from their artificial habitat, they have diabetes and…

This is true, but either fortunately or unfortunately humans seem to be resembling lab animals more than wild animals.

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#23

Post by marcus_holmes »

Widdershin wrote: post #6
collyw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientifically I agree with you economically not. We still base our economics system on infinite growth, but that is clearly reaching its limits. People living longer is only going to compound the problems.

I couldn't agree with you more. We have a fundamental culture of constant growth. It is by definition unsustainable. My hope is that if we did manage to ward off death for a bit longer, we might transcend some of our flawed notions. Who knows? Maybe young humans are fools, and that's the problem.

I kinda take issue with the "infinite growth is unsustainable" notion.

If 1 dollar = 1 natural resource then clearly, yes, growth is constrained.

But it isn't. My example for this is clerical work. Banks (for example) used to employ vast rooms of clerks, who spent entire days performing simple, repetitive maths in double-entry ledgers to make sure the bank knew where all the money was. Now all of that is done by computers, and so cheaply that banks now offer massively increased services. More value, for less cost. That's growth.

Given that this is HN and frequented by legions of hackers trying to find problems to solve that create real value (by reducing costs or improving services), then this is the last place I'd expect the "growth is limited" mantra to be trotted out.

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#24

Post by perlgeek »

tarpherder wrote: post #18
perlgeek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you want to die? IMHO this is the wrong question to ask. As long as you continue to age, and your body degrades, you'll eventually not object to dying any more, because living isn't much fun. The much more interesting question is: do you want to age beyond a certain point?

Not aging implies that you won't age beyond a certain point, or do you mean something different? Also, the question you ask is relevant even today with regular aging, and it's already hotly debated looking at euthanasia. I'm guessing euthanasia will have to be legalized if we ever do find a "cure" for aging.

> Not aging implies that you won't age beyond a certain point, or do you mean something different?

I mean that I don't want my 4 year old to stop ageing, please :-)

So "stop ageing" is only good as long as we have some decent measure of control over it.

(I feel like I'm really stating the obvious here, but I don't know the whole discussion well enough to know if I can assume that obvious stuff is well-understood...)

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#25

Post by sanxiyn »

Madmallard wrote: post #19
sanxiyn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing else. Basically, calorie restriction works, and nothing else does. I recommend Fight Aging! if you are interested. https://www.fightaging.org/faq/

I'm not so sure those are the only two. I'm fairly certain high dietary intake of various vegetables, fruits, and legumes over processed foods would probably greatly add to the life expectancy of regular people. Don't have a lot of hard evidence but I have relatives who outlived their brothers and sisters by 10-20 years because they just ate significantly healthier and moved around more.

Healthy diet keeps you healthy, but it does not slow aging. It prevents death from reasons other than aging.

To prove "slowing aging", you need to demonstrate increase in maximum lifespan, not average lifespan. Exercise, diet, etc. increase average lifespan. There is no evidence they increase maximum lifespan, none at all.

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#26

Post by Ntrails »

nicky0 wrote: post #17
sanxiyn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want to die? Of course we will want to. I am sure there will be lots of side effects, but almost anything beats dying.

Do you want to live forever? In a world where everyone lives forever? I'm pretty sure most people will have had enough after the first million or so years. Someone must have written sci-fi of this.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

A brilliant short story by asminov also briefly touches living forever and running out of space as it were.

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#27

Post by waps »

givan wrote: post #11

Aging is encoded in our DNA with a purpose, if we will be able to fully understand how DNA works me might be able to partially disable it but will we want to? maybe when we will reach that level of knowledge we will also have the wisdom to understand the implications.

That purpose may be "kill the old to make sure the world keeps changing, make sure new genetic experiements (ie. kids/offspring) get a chance". As we hopefully all know, nature isn't afraid to kill off a few people to get more useful experiments (how many animals die trying to have sex, for instance. That is not "necessary")

Early animals didn't age, nor did they die. Some plants don't age (they still die due to illness or trauma, but not through old age). Even "mortal" animals today are offshoots of a central cell-line that doesn't age (ovi in women get their age reset upon birth then no longer age. Sperm get their age reset upon production. This goes for all animals that age, not just for humans). So you are immortal, in the sense that some of the cells that form part of your body won't age and die like the rest of you.

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#28

Post by Intermernet »

nicky0 wrote: post #17
sanxiyn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want to die? Of course we will want to. I am sure there will be lots of side effects, but almost anything beats dying.

Do you want to live forever? In a world where everyone lives forever? I'm pretty sure most people will have had enough after the first million or so years. Someone must have written sci-fi of this.

I'd like to be able to choose when I die.

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#29

Post by danieltillett »

Ageing like everything in biology is incredibly complex. About the only thing we know for sure is that everyone with a simple theory to explain ageing is wrong.

Ageing is at least as complex as cancer, but has received 1000th the study. If we assume understanding of a field correlates with resources committed then ageing research is in the 1920s. If you read the scientific literature from 1920s on cancer you will find everyone had a theory and everyone was wrong.

Re: What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong

#30

Post by eidyia »

Intermernet wrote: post #28
nicky0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want to live forever? In a world where everyone lives forever? I'm pretty sure most people will have had enough after the first million or so years. Someone must have written sci-fi of this.

I'd like to be able to choose when I die.

You already do, but you also have a very strict deadline
Post reply on HN