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

381–390 of 535 posts

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

#381

Post by mathiaspoint »

meeks wrote: post #358
lemoncookiechip wrote: post #347

I find it a tough sell to add another 20 years to life expectancy, considering that by the time you reach 70, most people are already in decline (some worse than others), and the drop from 70 to 80 tends to be steep for many. Those who make it past 80 into their 90s or even 100s often aren’t living particularly fulfilling lives, if you can even call it living at that point. Losing your vision, your hearing, your mobi…

I think this is a huge misconception and I don't think it works this way. have you heard people say 50 is the new 40, etc.? The same thing would work at older ages. Sure the last 10 years are a decline, but you are pushing those years out not adding more of them.

It really depends on how you live your life. My grandfather on my dad's side never drank or smoked, got a ton of exercise, avoided candy etc. he's in his 80s and still lives in a detached house and walks his two very large dogs daily. My grandmother on my mom's side smoked multiple packs of cigarettes a day, drank a ton of sugary soda, rarely got any real exercise, and died in her 50s after a number of very rough years.

Everyone keeps talking about health care but IMO it's really downstream of you attending yourself. It's almost a spiritual thing really. American health is so bad because Americans don't feel like they themselves are worth taking care of. The contrast between the people who disagree here gets extreme as they age.

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

#382

Post by Retric »

brabel wrote: post #270
nabla9 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some cells are literally hundreds of millions of years old.

That’s not forever and it required a very specific environment, but biological degradation on that timescale can be effectively zero.

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

#383

Post by nradov »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #334
simianparrot wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I include poor vetting and integration as unchecked immigration if that wasn’t obvious. And do note that I wrote > people who do not share the majority of the destination’s cultural values No culture should nor can stay stagnant. But if we allow in people who do not share or wish to share a majority of our cultural values, which vary a lot between European countries as well, then we deteriorate what made our countrie…

That's a great soundbite but if you asked e.g. the average British person just before Brexit they'd tell you that they are worried about all the Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians, i.e. other Europeans, coming here, taking our jobs, scrounging wellfare and so on. I mean, realistically speaking, they'd be bitching about Pakistanis and Indians and Middle Eastern immigrants also, but in 2016 the British voted to exit the E…

Right, and now UK voters are increasingly opposed to immigration from India, Nigeria, and China. The UK government allowed a large increase in legal immigration, particularly to find more elder care workers. But that appears to be causing a backlash.

https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/britain-farage-migration-debacl...

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

#384

Post by Alex3917 »

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #347

I find it a tough sell to add another 20 years to life expectancy, considering that by the time you reach 70, most people are already in decline (some worse than others), and the drop from 70 to 80 tends to be steep for many. Those who make it past 80 into their 90s or even 100s often aren’t living particularly fulfilling lives, if you can even call it living at that point. Losing your vision, your hearing, your mobi…

> I find it a tough sell to add another 20 years to life expectancy

20 years would be difficult, but 10 or so years would be very attainable.

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

#385

Post by picafrost »

9dev wrote: post #158
picafrost wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a great point. It's not a robust counter-point, but Gödel's incompleteness theorems come to mind. We do know there are limitations to formal systems, we think there may be limitations to computational complexity. Maybe we haven't developed the tool set to make similar claims about biology (or maybe such tools cannot exist) or technology in the abstract. But these may also come in the future.

Fair enough. If we reach a point where we’ve discovered all fundamental truths of the universe and no more knowledge is helping towards solutions we need, then yes, that may imply awareness of the plateau; I’ll give you that. It also seems fantastically far away, so much so that it seems an exercise in futility to speculate about it.

We didn't need to discover every mathematical truth to discover that there are limits to what we can mathematically prove. Nor did we need to discover every algorithm to know that we can't determine if a program will halt. Both of these have helped understand where plateaus exist in their respective domains. We don't need to enumerate every truth to understand that there are some things we cannot do.

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

#386

Post by melling »

abricot wrote: post #375
melling wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president of the United States is almost 80. Bernie Sanders is 83. The Stones are still touring, … Ed Thorpe is well into his 90s. Here’s an interview with him at 89. Seems quite healthy: https://youtu.be/CNvz91Jyzbg?si=VNj61A256ZOBM977 This 10 minutes deals directly with fitness and longevity: https://youtu.be/dzCpUbkC1dg?si=LqV-tUFyxyYMW0qC

Mentioning the president is a bit like saying the pope is old. They are both selected/elected old.

Yeah, I’m just being lazy because I’ve answered this question many times.

Here’s one from 3 years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34985088

You can always ask the AI:

Politics & World Leaders • Nelson Mandela (1918–2013) – Former President of South Africa, died at 95. • George H. W. Bush (1924–2018) – 41st U.S. President, died at 94. • Jimmy Carter (1924– ) – 39th U.S. President, currently 100 (as of 2024). • Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (1900–2002) – Died at 101. • Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921–2021) – Died at 99.

Arts & Entertainment • Kirk Douglas (1916–2020) – Actor, died at 103. • Olivia de Havilland (1916–2020) – Actress, died at 104. • Betty White (1922–2021) – Actress/comedian, died at 99. • Norman Lear (1922–2023) – Television writer/producer, died at 101. • Tony Bennett (1926–2023) – Singer, died at 96.

Science & Literature • Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) – Philosopher, died at 97. • Rita Levi-Montalcini (1909–2012) – Nobel Prize–winning neurologist, died at 103. • Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959) – Architect, lived to 91. • Maya Angelou (1928–2014) – Poet and author, died at 86 (not 90s, but close). • Isaac Asimov (1920–1992) – Science fiction author, died at 72 (not 90s).

Business & Other Notables • David Rockefeller (1915–2017) – Banker/philanthropist, died at 101. • John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937) – Oil magnate, died at 97. • Iris Apfel (1921–2024) – Fashion icon, died at 102.

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

#387

Post by ericmcer »

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #347

I find it a tough sell to add another 20 years to life expectancy, considering that by the time you reach 70, most people are already in decline (some worse than others), and the drop from 70 to 80 tends to be steep for many. Those who make it past 80 into their 90s or even 100s often aren’t living particularly fulfilling lives, if you can even call it living at that point. Losing your vision, your hearing, your mobi…

We still don't have any 80+ year olds who have been striving for longevity since their 20s. Nutrition labels and ingredient lists on food didn't even exist the 90s. An 80 year old was born into a world of nonstop cigarettes, drinking while pregnant, etc.

So our current obsession with longevity through fitness and nutrition is new and we can't really tell what someone like Bryan Johnson will be like at 80. If he is significantly declined in 20 years despite his rigorous longevity routine then we will know.

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

#388

Post by r_singh »

ModernMech wrote: post #354
r_singh wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that mistrust is at its highest that it has been. Science and evidence have been used as political tools in the recent past... and it has started becoming clear to more and more people. Either that or to protect financial interests of some legacy chaebol... so people are losing faith. In my country people both believe and have some evidence that those that live in an orderly fashion, learn to be emotio…

> Science and evidence have been used as political tools for a while... and it has started becoming clear to more and more people. Yeah, they noticed when their lives kept getting longer and longer thanks to science and evidence-backed policy.

I can understand the sarcasm and respect your take

Science has helped reduce mortality at birth and manage or even eliminate a lot of diseases like malaria, HIV, small pox, polio and many more. Also for burns, broken bones and accidents. And continues to. I advocate vaccines. I myself took the Anti Covid shot 3 times. And use medicines and supplements regularly.

There’s another side to it though.

At what point do I just take an Adderall that’s prescribed to me? Or a pain killer? Rather than trying preventive lifestyle cures? We need a way to tell when to apply what but IMHO in practical life what gains ground is what serves the providers more rather than the beneficiaries. An interesting example is that Anaesthesia was a more quickly adopted invention than Anti-Septic. Even though the latter is more important for the safety of patients. But the former makes life easier for docs, hence it was adopted much faster.

There is a place for both and knowing when to apply which is key. You cannot trust HCPs using allopathy aka science backed by academia in every case cause they’re motivated by self interest and aren’t perfect! Even people like Gabriel Weinberg have acknowledged this in his book Super Thinking when touching upon inefficiencies in healthcare and academia.

I believe that to be able to trust science more we need to save science from p-value manipulation by self-interest groups…

This video by Veritasium also talks about how the accuracy of most published research is contestable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

I don’t think this is an easy problem to solve or has ever been

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

#389

Post by sherburt3 »

nabla9 wrote: post #214
ggm wrote: 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…

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…

Yes very illogical to hope that life will get better when my analysis proves the opposite. Bazinga!

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

#390

Post by WaltPurvis »

inglor_cz wrote: post #305
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that is precisely why I don't find that much value in articles such as "New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely". Declaration such as: “We forecast that those born in 1980 will not live to be 100 on average, and none of the cohorts in our study will reach this milestone." is too self-confident. Their youngest cohort is born in 2000. It is impossible to predict how longevity t…

To be fair, the study authors explicitly say that their forecast only holds, “In the absence of any major breakthroughs that significantly extend human life," and, "The findings of this study are not intended to be interpreted as evidence in favor or against a biological age limit to human life."
Post reply on HN