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

New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

lafollette.wisc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 535 posts

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#261

Post by DrBazza »

kruffalon wrote: post #137
dsign wrote: post #118

I was walking on the street the other day. It was fine summer, and I saw so many elderly walking outside. All of them were using one type of aid or another; some even had a social worker at their side. As I saw them, I was thinking that my 63% marginal tax was paying for it, while I part with 25% of my income after taxes to pay my mom’s pension. That monetary cost is nothing, I would gladly pay it for the rest of my…

> But immigration is the only thing that can replenish their workforce. Not in a sustainable way. Immigration is only viable as long as the countries of origin are so bad to live in so it's "better" to migrate. This is not really a world we want, is it?

Don't forget that the recipient countries of immigrants are brain-draining the countries they're leaving. Arguably those motivated individuals are precisely those that should stay in their country and make it less 'bad'.

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#262

Post by [deleted] »

entropyneur wrote: post #140
iwontberude wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather be alive engulfed in flames than dead.

Have you been engulfed in flames before? I've definitely experienced mental states that were worse than being dead. I don't regret remaining alive because of all the positive experiences I've had afterwards. But if we are talking about extending suffering that's only followed by death, I don't see the point.

[deleted]

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#263

Post by NeutralForest »

simianparrot wrote: post #257
NeutralForest wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds very defeatist? I still believe in the European project but it gets hard when you see the current political landscape. That said, I don't think we can only put it on spineless bureaucrats, I don't see many countries having bold policies of integration even at the national level.

When I'm looking into countries to emigrate to, I don't expect _them_ to take on the burden of integrating _me_, I take that burden of responsibility on myself. Likewise I never understood why we blame ourselves for a lack of effective integration when, particularly in Norway's case, we offer all the services you could want. But you have to _want_ to integrate, we can't force you. And if you don't want to, please lea…

> Likewise I never understood why we blame ourselves for a lack of effective integration

Because the country of arrival is usually the stronger economic party. You have the capability of emigrating and integrating because you speak multiple languages, have most likely attained high education and you probably have the means to start a new life some place else. Honestly, good for you but not everyone has those benefits.

In the case of someone poorer, it might take a significant amount of resources and time they don't have, hence more of the burden being on countries integrating the immigrants. Let's also not kid ourselves, it's a trade for their labor in often bad conditions; not something from the grace of our hearts.

> But you have to _want_ to integrate, we can't force you. And if you don't want to, please leave.

This is imo a question the EU has struggled with for a long time. You'll want people to have their personal freedoms: culture, religion, language, etc. But you also want a cohesive whole where citizens can live and work together peacefully. This is a much more difficult question than "integrate or get out".

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#264

Post by ACCount37 »

vladms wrote: post #259
ACCount37 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer is "stuff falling into disrepair over time" too. Get enough faulty cells with DNA damage and one of them is going to make itself a problem. The only way to avoid cancer is to have something else kill you before you get it. That's not a reason to say that cancer is somehow "not a disease". It obviously is. We don't want cancer. We fund efforts to research cancer and funnel money into better cancer treatments, a…

Solving any of the existing diseases, will not result in significant upheaval of society. I am not against trying to "solve aging", but I don't think we should think of it as just a disease, and there should be more plans on how to deal with the sudden "infinite" number of humans. While I may want to live forever, I would definitely not enjoy that in all circumstances.

Do you think that there's a single "aging" master switch that could be flipped to "off", resulting in zero aging and immortality for everyone forever?

That's beyond optimistic. What's more likely to happen is, we'll uncover some major pathways for aging and find a way to target them to slow aging down somewhat, at first.

People who get anti-aging treatments would live for longer, and would be healthier while they do. The adoption would be gradual, and it'll take a while for them to come down in price and proliferate worldwide - and it would still be up to people to decide whether they want them, although most doctors would recommend they do. The first generations of anti-aging treatments would allow people to live to the age of 100 fairly reliably, and remain healthier and more active while they do. Future generations would improve on that.

There will be no "sudden infinite number of humans" to deal with. Even if we started out tomorrow (for example, if it was confirmed that Ozempic has broad anti-aging effects), it'll take decades for this effect to become noticeable. Humanity can adapt to something like that easily.

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#265

Post by kruffalon »

DrBazza wrote: post #261
kruffalon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But immigration is the only thing that can replenish their workforce. Not in a sustainable way. Immigration is only viable as long as the countries of origin are so bad to live in so it's "better" to migrate. This is not really a world we want, is it?

Don't forget that the recipient countries of immigrants are brain-draining the countries they're leaving. Arguably those motivated individuals are precisely those that should stay in their country and make it less 'bad'.

Yes!

But more importantly wealthy countries shouldn't depend on there being poor countries where women still have "too" many children but rather we should fix our own problems so we want and can have sufficient young people of our own (not said in a nazi way).

And we should also redistribute wealth so there aren't any poor countries to exploit for natural resources, crops and people.

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#266

Post by PartiallyTyped »

pembrook wrote: post #206
simianparrot wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But immigration is the only thing that can replenish their workforce. Unchecked immigration of people who do not share the majority of the destination’s cultural values leads to a monoculture that is terrible for everyone. Multiculturalism doesn’t work when everyone’s culture is equal everywhere. And unless it wasn’t obvious, I firmly believe in multiculturalism, but I believe we (here in Europe in particular) have…

Huh? The problem in Europe is not immigration, the problem is there being no European country with a vision of the future for immigrants to buy into. Aesthetic Traditions ≠ Culture. Traditions are just one aspect, but as Nietzsche wrote about the death of God, traditions are not a substitute for values. America for hundreds of years has offered a shared vision of the future and values to immigrants of every backgroun…

> I'll enjoy your aesthetic traditions and take your free social welfare, but I'll keep my own culture and values, thank you very much.

And I have every right to want you out of country and my taxes not to be wasted on the likes of you.

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#267

Post by [deleted] »

simianparrot wrote: post #254
NeutralForest wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem in Europe is not immigration, the problem is there being no European country with a vision of the future for immigrants to buy into That's fair and I think it's mostly true. At the same time, comparing "Europe" as a monolith compared to the US doesn't make a lot of sense, the history, languages and religions aren't shared for many countries, contrary to the US. We can circle back to saying it was and is…

It is a prime example for why most of European politics are shifting rightwards. And I'm not saying that's a good thing, overall, it simply is the reason. Far too many who've immigrated here have the GP's viewpoint, and the conflict seems inevitable since our elected representatives have acted paralyzed for decades on this issue. And I personally fear where this is going. Because as much as I want to vet immigrants m…

[deleted]

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#268

Post by kelnos »

brabel wrote: post #227
nabla9 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radical life extension within our lifetimes has become secular religion substitute. It’s driven more by hope and faith than by scientific fact. While a lifespan has no limits in theory if technology is advanced enough, the belief that it can be achieved by a living person is based on hope rather than evidence. - Possible in our lifetime. - Affordable to the faithful. You remove these two, and the faithful lose their…

What theory says that human lifespan has no limits with technology assistance? Anything involving replacing biological systems with artificial ones is not really extending human lifespan, it’s replacing human life with something else.

I won't touch on whether or not you're still you as you replace your biological components with artificial ones.

But who says that's the endgame? Presumably an advanced enough medical technology could remove the internal byproducts of aging, and get your cells to stop dying / running out of steam / going cancerous. Obviously we have no idea how to do that, and maybe we never will, but it seems plausible.

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#269

Post by PartiallyTyped »

fcatalan wrote: post #83
Swizec wrote: post #2

What about quality of life adjusted life years? I don’t want to live to 100 and be miserable for the last 30 But if you can get me 90 years where I feel like a spring chicken until 89, then that’s just fine.

My grandfather lived to 102 and only the last few months were bad, nothing dramatic, just fading away at home, no hospital. I'd sign up for the same

My grandfather looked in his 50s and had more mobility than 50 year old men well into his 80s it’s only when cancer got to him that he started looking his age.

I’d sign up for that.

Re: New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

#270

Post by brabel »

nabla9 wrote: post #233
brabel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What theory says that human lifespan has no limits with technology assistance? Anything involving replacing biological systems with artificial ones is not really extending human lifespan, it’s replacing human life with something else.

If you had full understanding of human cell and how they contribute to homeostasis, you could reprogram the cell to rejuvenate them endlessly without turning into cancer (many cancers have unlimited lifespan). You would also need to find ways to remove all cruft that gradually accumulates even in healthy body, like heavy metals etc.

How do you know that you could? That’s the question! If we did understand biology perfectly it may be that we would then prove no organism can live forever and reproduction is the only way.
Post reply on HN