Live data from Hacker News

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

lafollette.wisc.edu

291–300 of 535 posts

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

#291
post #191

Remarkable hostility and strange circular logic from some people posting here. Clearly belief outstrips evidence. If research suggests there's an observable asymptotic trend, public health dollars at the very least might be better spent on quality of life as much as quantity. The posts saying an atom of oxygen is potentially infinitely long lived (ignoring radioactive decay?) As a "proof" that life extension has no l…

I don't have to be hostile to be somewhat skeptical about mechanical extensions of current trends into distant future. An analyst living in 1825 could analyze the traffic stats to conclude that the era of increasing land travel speeds is coming to a close because the horses can't run any faster, and an analyst living in 1975 could analyze the telecom stats to conclude that international calls are always going to cost…

And in 1968 an analyst may conclude that space travel could never become routine and still be perfectly on the money even after the moon landings.

So what? We can't see into the future. The future is never like the past, not least because a lot of present tends to intervene.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if I would really like to pour billions of taxpayer money into aging when we are not even able to live a basic healthy lifestyle. Sleeping well, eating well and exercising does work. Science about this is well-established. So why arent we? It would not raise the life expectancy to 100 years but it would considerably reduce the health burden on the economy.

Doesn't scale. If you could put "sleeping well, eating well and exercising" into a $0.25 once a week pill and make that available to everyone, it would work. As is, it doesn't. We want solutions that can be scaled and rolled out broadly, and "basic healthy lifestyle" ain't it.

Why not? What is not scalable about it, specifically ?

I mean, sure, it doesn't scale as well as a magic pill as a business. But is certainly is O(n) with the number of people involved.

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

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if I would really like to pour billions of taxpayer money into aging when we are not even able to live a basic healthy lifestyle. Sleeping well, eating well and exercising does work. Science about this is well-established. So why arent we? It would not raise the life expectancy to 100 years but it would considerably reduce the health burden on the economy.

>Sleeping well, eating well and exercising does work. Science about this is well-established. So why arent we? Those will give you at best another marginal decade. By all means worth doing but its not radical life extension. At the same time a young body can take lack of sleep and can physically perform even if not exercising much better than an old one. So there's more to it than just lifestyle.

I would say it gives you +25 years of healthy lifespan.

Compare it to being obese, wich can happen very young and is in part determined by how you are fed when you are a baby/child.

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

#294

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…

Do we really have to read again and again the same fantasies the far right spew out continuously here in France on Hacker News? It’s so easy to factually disprove, it’s kind of boring.

I will keep it short because I value my time but here some things you might want to ponder:

- America integration doesn’t exist. The American strategy has always been leave people alone to keep living in their own culture. There is no actual American identity. The only things American have in common in the shared trauma of slavery and the civil war, and the founding myth which is why they remain so prevalent in the US modern discourse. Meanwhile, people will happily talk about "race" culture, half the country would be happy to slaughter the other half and culturally linked riots are a thing.

- Europe has a cultural entity doesn’t exist. The UK is different to France which is different to Germany or Danemark. Most of these countries immigration come from former colonies who already understand these countries social norms.

- Access to social welfare is severely limited to immigrants. Most of the system drain comes from people who were born in the country, not immigrants. Take any economic studies, you will see than immigration is a net positive in every European country. These are country where the population is aging fast. We simply need the immigrants to prop up the work force.

- Integration is a false issue. Most of the problems in France for example come from second generation immigrants who actually went through the French education system. The problem is mostly economic.

- The way Islam has been managed is an issue in itself. People deserve to be able to practice their cult freely and in good condition but most European countries have refused to take charge of the question. France for example left far too much space to extremist countries like Saudi Arabia. When most of your imams have been trained in the worst possible interpretations and mosques are financed by countries you shouldn’t want anything to do with, you have a major issue. There clearly is space for better solutions here.

- Plenty of political parties in Europe have strong visions for the future. Some of them are linked to social justice and preserving the environment, things you obviously dislike. The fact you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist however.

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

#295
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical/chemical maybe not, but biologically there might be strong reasons to not allow a complex organism to live forever. Evolution might be accounting for a lot of the reasons leading to the death of the individual organism. For one it would stimulate evolution itself and also alleviate the inevitable resource pressure. A species that lives forever must adjust to reproduce relatively slowly to not overwhelm the l…

You are mixing up evolutionary incentives with real chemistry-driven biological constraints. The base incentives of reproduction-driven natural selection may make aging inevitable under natural selection, but that says nothing of artificial selection or bioengineering.

> You are mixing up evolutionary incentives with real chemistry-driven biological constraints

> but that says nothing of artificial selection or bioengineering

Feel free to be specific. Start from here and describe your revelation about my “confusion”:

>> Humans are a special case because we don’t operate only on biological imperatives so you could make immortal humans

Natural life o overwhelmingly selects for well defined, limited lifespans. Engineered human life likely won’t see any natural pressure but rather societal pressure to set a well defined, limited lifespan.

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

#296
post #191

Remarkable hostility and strange circular logic from some people posting here. Clearly belief outstrips evidence. If research suggests there's an observable asymptotic trend, public health dollars at the very least might be better spent on quality of life as much as quantity. The posts saying an atom of oxygen is potentially infinitely long lived (ignoring radioactive decay?) As a "proof" that life extension has no l…

[deleted]

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

#297
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…

Religion is a lie. This is actually a possible science path. Don't get confused.

Don’t get confused yourself: You will still die, even if you live as old as trees can get.

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

#298

I believe this is mostly due to misdirected healthcare efforts. I think we could get the average life expectancy up to 100 if we did a better job of all the preventative things: * Prevent airborne disease by having all indoor spaces getting 50 air changes/filters per hour. * Prevent waterborne disease by having all tap water RO treated in homes, and by heating all shit up to boiling point before it leaves toilets. *…

This sounds like RFK's type of "medicine". The number of people dying from transmissible diseases is a lot less than people dying from heart attacks, cancer, etc. which are linked a lot more to lifestyle than to diseases.

My hypothesis is most heart attacks and cancer are also caused by transmissible diseases, but ones which are mostly symptomless.

We already know the link between cervical cancer and HPV, various cancers are caused by EBV, hepatitis virus often causes liver cancer, herpes virus also causes some cancers.

Plenty of viruses are also linked to a substantially increased risk of heart disease, including the common cold.

I suspect that nearly all cancers are caused by viruses, and are often just viruses that have no other symptoms and might take decades to cause the cancer. If we can stop the transmission of those viruses, cancer rates will eventually drop.

The challenge is how to do that smartly - not having half the population sitting at home twiddling their thumbs because they have some symptomless virus and 'feel fine'.

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

#299
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.

Have you ever asked yourself what the purpose is of what you call "workforce"? Exactly what work are they doing that is more important than the survival of the native population? It's completely dehumanizing, and I can't find the logic behind it. If a geographical place needs constant influx of people from other places because the "system" there is slowly killing the population, then for what purpose should that continue?

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

#300
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is my life. Not yours. What you are afraid of is openly murdering people.

There are lots of ways for you to end your life. You do not have to involve government or society. You do not require sanction or assistance. The only people who might require assistance and sanction are those who are so catastrophically ill that they cannot function independently at all. But MAID has already killed people who were able-bodied! (And some for stupid or trivial reasons: https://care.org.uk/news/2024/10…

> However, lobbying efforts have steadily pushed for broader access and eligibility...British legislators have to consider how easily assisted dying can be expanded, how easily abuses can go undetected.

Wait, how exactly does one "abuse" MAID?

People being so deep in poverty and addiction that they opt for MAID as an option isn't a symptom that it's "too easy" to access it, but rather that _society_ is failing them. And when those people finally say "Well fuck this shit I'm out", we reply "That's not allowed". Disregarding that companies won't hire them, rent & housing are ridiculous, they''re not allowed to put their tents anywhere and when they get kicked out their tents & belongings are trashed instead of being given back.

Post reply on HN