Live data from Hacker News

Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

nationalgeographic.com

131–140 of 154 posts

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#131
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes it's so good. An amazing way to give a new perspective on life and death as we know it _today_ imho. Strong emphasis on _today_ because life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and death are already really different from some time ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

There's a quite common misconception around life expectancy. We aren't living all that much longer than in the past. The main thing bringing up life expectancy number is that childhood mortality dramatically declined. [1] If one person lives to 80, but another dies in infancy, then you have a life expectancy of 40 years old. Rather than living longer, more people are able to reach the ages that we all start dying around, and have been for millennia.

So for instance in modern history, of the 15 key Founding Fathers, 7 lived to at least 80 years old: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, John Jay. John Adams himself lived to 90. The youngest to die were Hamilton who died in a duel, and John Hancock who died of gout of an undocumented cause - it can be caused by excessive alcohol consumption. All the others lived into their 60s and 70s.

It's the same as you go back further into history. Look up basically any Ancient Greek you're familiar with, and you'll see most lived to about the same amount of time we do now a days, sometimes quite a bit longer. For instance Hippocrates, of the Hippocratic Oath, lived to 90 back in the 4th century BC. The common claim there is a survivorship bias, but that's not really true - because most of these individuals made their mark on history decades before they finally died. In other words had e.g. Plato died when he was 50 instead of 80, he still would be known today.

[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality (terrible layout but the site has many interesting graphs on this topic)

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#132
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so incorrect it's laughable. If you look at the data, public opinion in america has changed almost exactly in step with new generations emerging and old generations dying. People almost never change their opinion on political issues, they just die.

Except, of course, the politicians. It's always entertaining to watch them say or do the very thing they previously condemned.

That's precisely what you'd want politicians to do: represent the shifting will of the people.

Or, dare I say, learn what they themselves were wrong about and become right about it.

We vilify politicians when they change direction and make them dance around and mince words, when what they really want to say is "I was wrong before".

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#133
post #61

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…

Why specifically point out a sexual perversion. It seems like the least of the bad things an authority figure like a king could do.

It's what produces the first version of a justice system and thus is mostly called out for in bad times..

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#134
post #61

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…

Become enough of a tyrant and you may not live to see old age -- Hitler and Stalin didn't. As for tyrants who do grow old -- is an effectively immortal tyrant that much worse than a tyrant who dies but consolidates power within his family to create a centuries-long dynasty? Also, once the technology of immortality becomes well-characterized, the cost to replicate the procedures will go down barring price-fixing collu…

And nobody would build subscription cancer into it. True, pure, science fiction

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. To the contrary, it happens exactly that fast. https://scholars-stage.org/culture-wars-are-long-wars/

Bullshit

Between 2011 support was 70, 53, 39 for 18-34, 35-54, 55+ age groups. 2021 was 84, 72, 60. So that's ~20 points on 35-54 and 21 on 55+. That's 10 years. The 45+ transition into the 55 and the 25+ into the 35-54, but that doesn't explain the change. Why? Because the 2011 difference between 55+ and 35-54 is 14 points while 2021 it is 12. Even more importantly, the 55+ group in 2021 has a 7 point lead from the 35-55 age group from 2012.

This difference __cannot__ be explained from just people dying and the support "aging in" to the next age bracket. Literally 50% (7 points out of 14) is impossible to explain through an aging process.

Something more is going on, and thus, my claim is unequivocally supported by the data. (Note my claim isn't that specific, it is just that there is more than aging) Yes, culture wars are long, but they are shorter than can be explained from generations alone.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#136
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is so incorrect it's laughable. If you look at the data, public opinion in america has changed almost exactly in step with new generations emerging and old generations dying. People almost never change their opinion on political issues, they just die.

Did you look at the data? Because I don't think you did. I lay it out here[0]. In short, what we can see is that in 2021 the 55+ age group has higher support than the 35-54 group did in 2012. This is not people aging into the new bins and bringing their support with them. If that were what was happening, then the 2021 55+ group could not have greater support than the 2012 35-54 group. There is missing growth from your model. We're literally talking about 50% of the growth being unexplainable by your model.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39087434

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 Obergefell v. Hodges. Do you live on one of the US coasts? Because if so, you are probably right - before Obergefell, most people didn't care about your private life and after Obergefell it could all finally be out in the open. But in a big chunk of this country, it really doesn't m…

Not important. I'm working off of US polling data. See sister comments for reasoning. Everyone that is calling me laughable and "haven't looked at the data" has clearly not themselves.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, of course, the politicians. It's always entertaining to watch them say or do the very thing they previously condemned.

That's precisely what you'd want politicians to do: represent the shifting will of the people. Or, dare I say, learn what they themselves were wrong about and become right about it. We vilify politicians when they change direction and make them dance around and mince words, when what they really want to say is "I was wrong before".

Yeah I don't get why people get upset over that. It's like the people that are like "we didn't learn that in school when I was your age." Times change, we learn, we correct, we update our beliefs. Being static is not healthy and creates a dissonance between the public and the __representatives__. i.e. the representatives become disaligned from those they are supposed to represent. And as my claim (which I add data to in other replies) shows, that's not even just a function of age.

We should commend people for updating their beliefs, not condemn. To me, one of the most honorable phrases one can say is "I stand corrected."

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#139
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently there is only Earth to fill.

Imagine we saw the mother of all asteroids incoming. It was large enough that it would almost certainly extinguish all life on Earth, and even throwing every nuke we had at it would barely scratch it. Yet we also saw this from relatively far away - let's say about 10 years. It seems exceptionally probable that by the time it got here we'd have established colonies on both the Moon and Mars. The main issues are not te…

The cost of establishing a Mars colony is so high that the money is probably better spent in a different way. An asteroid defense program (using big Starship rockets), for example.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#140
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is dependent on a world where immortality is expensive because it's difficult to actually make someone immortal rather than because it's difficult to figure out how to make someone immortal. For all we know, immortality is as simple as a one-time injection into an egg cell, and the challenge is almost entirely in figuring out what to inject. Also, how much is the death of bad individuals actually contributing to…

In these cases the bulk of such institutions is a bureaucratic apparatus, which serves as a tool. You cannot judge a tool for being used for evil purposes, and in the charge of those with different intentions, it may be used for better purposes in the future. In the more general case (i.e. communities rather than kingdoms or corporations), judgment can perhaps be passed on the principles or aesthetics that keep it to…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
Post reply on HN