Live data from Hacker News

Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

theguardian.com

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#21

I've always wondered what are the implications of extending life span and curing certain diseases that kill millions every year. What happens when all the sudden everybody lives 20% longer and some of the major killers heart disease, cancer) aren't a problem. Things like over population, resources and such.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/

"A common objection against starting a large-scale biomedical war on aging is the fear of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation). This fear is only exacerbated by the fact that no detailed demographic projections for radical life extension scenario have been conducted so far. This study explores different demographic scenarios and population projections, in order to clarify what could be the demographic consequences of a successful biomedical war on aging. A general conclusion of this study is that population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million). Moreover, if some members of society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.), then the total population size may even decrease over time. Thus, even in the case of the most radical life extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation), but rather on such potential obstacles to a success of biomedical war on aging, as scientific, organizational, and financial limitations."

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#22
post #19
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the desire to conquer aging couldn't possibly be a simple preference for living over dying.

[deleted]

Instinct, caused by the fact that our ancestors with such a preference had a better chance of surviving and procreating than other animals without it.

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#24
I can't believe no one thinks this is a terrible idea. Of course I, selfishly, would love to live longer but doing so on a large scale is almost guaranteed to be a disaster.

While we're at it why don't we just solve aging, provide infinite food supply, and eliminate predation for deer. That would be a great idea right? No way that would have any negative side effects, right?

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#25
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be interested in joining the effort. Leaving a task to others is a failing strategy when everyone adopts the same strategy.

Of course, it's only a failing strategy if adopting that strategy causes everyone to adopt the same strategy, which is very unlikely for most people.

This may be wrong for complex reasons. Similar minds making the same decision for the same reasons do not _causally_ influence each other, but that doesn't change the outcome, nor does it make it any less bad. For a fairly deep view into how one might formally describe this particular aspect of decision making, I strongly recommend: https://intelligence.org/files/TDT.pdf

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#26
post #18
post #8

I too would like to live forever, but one problem I see is that if you just extend peoples physical age but their minds become frozen in time, then all progress stops. It is well known that as people age their neural plasticity degrades and they loose the ability to learn anything new. I have observed this with my Dad who is 84. If people lived to be 1000 but their neural plasticity was gone by 120, we would still ha…

Anything other than your speculation to back up your belief in individuals neural plasticity having anything to do with the social advances you mention? Young people have not had a great record of voting. So those changes you are attributing to neural plasticity are likely brought about by those old frozen minds you mention, and less so the young plyable ones if you ask me. But everyone has a right to an opinion I su…

Check out The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for an argument for this in the science world:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_R...

In a nutshell: people don't change fundamental beliefs, even when confronted with evidence. Instead, they die off and the newer generation adopts the new theory.

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#27

I've always wondered what are the implications of extending life span and curing certain diseases that kill millions every year. What happens when all the sudden everybody lives 20% longer and some of the major killers heart disease, cancer) aren't a problem. Things like over population, resources and such.

This has proven to not be a problem in Europe in general and in Asia in Japan.

In other continents, yes this would become a huge problem. Well, it actually is already today.

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#29

This scares the hell out of me from a retirement planning perspective. If I outlive my savings, what then?

If people lived forever, why would they ever retire? I imagine you'd take a 5 year sabbatical every 20 years or so and you'd probably even head to school a bunch of times to change careers if you got bored of centuries of the same vocation.

Re: Scientists say they’ll soon extend life ‘well beyond 120’

#30

I can't believe no one thinks this is a terrible idea. Of course I , selfishly, would love to live longer but doing so on a large scale is almost guaranteed to be a disaster. While we're at it why don't we just solve aging, provide infinite food supply, and eliminate predation for deer. That would be a great idea right? No way that would have any negative side effects, right?

"doing so on a large scale is almost guaranteed to be a disaster"

Over the past centuries, human life expectancy has increased greatly and yet we have a much higher quality of life. It's an extraordinary claim to suggest that the continuance of this already-existing trend is 'almost guaranteed to be a disaster'.

Post reply on HN