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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 151 posts

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

#81

Post by henrikschroder »

slashnull wrote: post #48
slashnull wrote: post #3

Fortunately, their approach seems to take into account the fact that most people's quality of life degrade very steeply after hitting, say, 70, and aim to augment this "quality" lifespan at the same time as the "total" lifespan. Just ask Scott Adams if he would have wanted his father to live "well beyond 120".

Another important point is that the relation between children, their parents and the society they live in would be changed in ways that are hard to predict. See, the current assumption (or rather, the assumption that socially still stands but that is already shaken by the current lifespan augmentation) is that once a child is an adult, it won't be long before they will eventually see their parents either die (before…

I can see a post-labour future, where automation has eaten so many jobs, and improved our quality of life so much, that noone really needs to work, you can have a job as a hobby if you want, but most people don't.

And as you point out, healthy elders won't retire. In a lot of countries there's talk of increasing the standard retirement age from 65, where it's been for many, many decades, which is a step in the completely wrong direction, since that just accelerates the job shortage. It's no coincidence that youth unemployment is higher than ever.

I can see the bright future, but I cannot see the way forward. Every political party is about keeping the status quo, keeping the 9-to-5-and-a-mortgage going, the left/right divide is about who owns the means of production, but both are firmly set on the notion that everyone should work. There are no incentives for existing power elites to change either. They will benefit immensely from the automation improvement, because the owners get all the profits, while the employees get less and less, since there's fewer and fewer of them.

It's interesting that the work week has been stuck at 8 hours for over a century, while worker productivity has increased magnitudes.

I don't know what to do, how to change this. What political steps need to be taken?

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

#82

Post by increment_i »

xefer wrote: post #73
chubot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pretty interesting if you had more than 3-4 generations at a time (say a generation is 30 years, then 3 x 30 = 90). I think the significance of a generation is as you say: in human terms, it seems the vast majority of your personality and outlook is formed by age 30. If people lived to be 1000 years old, then you would have 33 different generations at once. At the very least, those 33 different generation…

I've always wondered if the average human lifespan is somehow implicitly factored into interest rates. If people lived to 1000+ years old, a small investment made early in life could potentially balloon into incredible wealth given even relatively conservative investments. Obviously political and financial stability could have huge impacts too. I have to imagine multi-century-long held accounts would have an impact

That seems logical. I think the average lifespan is factored into nearly all facets of human civilization, implicitly and explicitly. Come to think of it, I probably take my expected lifespan into account when making all kinds of decisions, both consciously and unconsciously.

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

#83

Post by rdmcfee »

chubot wrote: post #52
zw123456 wrote: 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…

It would be pretty interesting if you had more than 3-4 generations at a time (say a generation is 30 years, then 3 x 30 = 90). I think the significance of a generation is as you say: in human terms, it seems the vast majority of your personality and outlook is formed by age 30. If people lived to be 1000 years old, then you would have 33 different generations at once. At the very least, those 33 different generation…

Does it not seem possible that many of the factors leading to this gender grouping are influenced by biological age? For example, research shows that our brains are hugely influenceable until our mid to late 20's. At that point major pathways have been established which influence our thinking for the rest of our lives.

What if we counter aging such that people never leave their peak physical condition? (25 years old?)

Will they still group by the generation in which they were born?

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

#85

Post by thangalin »

zw123456 wrote: 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…

Valproate, valproic acid, and sodium butyrate affect histone deacetylase, which might help rejuvenate brain plasticity. See also:

* http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010....

* http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24831-learning-drugs-r...

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleability_of_intelligence

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

#86

Post by jqm »

There are so many inter-related factors involved with changing a system of this complexity. My fear is the creation of half living zombies that don't die, but who's brains have long since moved on. Zombies, who not incidentally, keep title to accumulated resources for very long periods of time and presumably hold office and vote.

This might sound bad... but as it sits right now, many people in their late 80's - 90's (not all I grant, but in my experience...) don't seem to be fully alive right now. They are often kind of half in and out of reality, and not at all the people they once were. They can't really contribute much (don't bother posting a link about a 90 year old who did such-and-such... it's a very glaring exception and we both know this). They take a lot of care. And, I can't imagine this is very pleasant state to be in either.

If the state of aging progresses, but somehow death is forestalled, I don't see this being any advance at all, but rather one of the nastiest things that could be done for the human race, both old and young. It seems like forestalling death without solving the problem of aging (likely a much harder problem) might be very doable soon. And it is not a good idea. There are many evolutionary reasons for death. It's not altogether a bad thing.

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

#87

Post by walterbell »

rdmcfee wrote: post #83
chubot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pretty interesting if you had more than 3-4 generations at a time (say a generation is 30 years, then 3 x 30 = 90). I think the significance of a generation is as you say: in human terms, it seems the vast majority of your personality and outlook is formed by age 30. If people lived to be 1000 years old, then you would have 33 different generations at once. At the very least, those 33 different generation…

Does it not seem possible that many of the factors leading to this gender grouping are influenced by biological age? For example, research shows that our brains are hugely influenceable until our mid to late 20's. At that point major pathways have been established which influence our thinking for the rest of our lives. What if we counter aging such that people never leave their peak physical condition? (25 years old?…

In the movie, In Time, the 25-year old non-aging humans receive a starting "bank balance" of credits shown on their smartwatch. When their credits drop to zero, they die. Life for most people consists of working or stealing to top-up. They mostly group by geographical free-trade zones sorted by bank balances of "time credits", separated by borders and armed checkpoints.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/in_time/reviews/

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

#88

Post by zerocrates »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #78

And if you thought it was hard to get hired in tech at the age of 50, wait until you try at 100 :-) On a more serious note, it is going to be a huge financial disaster if folks "suddenly" start living to 120. There are many many things which have nominal lifespans "baked in" and if that changes gradually the algorithm can be adjusted gradually but if it changes suddenly, that results in insufficient money collected t…

Individual financial planning is one thing, and then just think of pensions, or Social Security.

Blow up the actuarial tables by tacking so much onto the average lifespan and you'd really see some underfunded plans.

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

#89

Post by mathgeek »

jqm wrote: post #75
elorant wrote: post #51

I don’t want just to live longer, I want to live longer while in a relatively good shape. Because if we are to live 30 years more with the physique of a 90 year old man then what’s the point. If on the other hand I could have the physique of a 70 year old man while I’m 100+ that sounds like a good deal.

Agreed, although I'm holding out for 30 year old physique. I would rather live 60 years in a 30 year old body/mind than 120 years in an 80 year old body/mind. From my perspective, aging is a more serious problem to be solved then death.

> I would rather live 60 years in a 30 year old body/mind than 120 years in an 80 year old body/mind.

As someone who's lost both parents and all four grandparents before I turned 31, I take the experience of my grandfather in his late 80's to mind. He was often told that the surgeries that he could have done to relieve the pain of a body that was breaking down weren't worth it because he wouldn't likely live long enough to really benefit. I imagine that if, at age 90, you had another 20-30 years, science could do some amazing things to your body to keep you moving forward.

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

#90

Post by DanBC »

thangalin wrote: post #85
zw123456 wrote: 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…

Valproate, valproic acid, and sodium butyrate affect histone deacetylase, which might help rejuvenate brain plasticity. See also: * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.... * http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24831-learning-drugs-r... * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleability_of_intelligence

Valproate is used as an anti-epileptic and as a mood stabiliser. There are some risks of PCOS for women, but those risks have never been explained properly to me.
Post reply on HN