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

401–410 of 535 posts

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

#401

Post by hyperpape »

bradley13 wrote: post #359

Genetics required. Natural evolution has zero interest in old people, so there has been no evolutionary pressure to extend lifespan. Possibly even the opposite. We could apply that pressure, either through selective breeding over generations, or through direct genetic modification. Maybe we aren't quite there yet, but it won't be long. Experiments on insects with selective breeding have easily tripled lifespans. How…

Mick Jagger had his most recent son at the age of 73. Today, that's an anomaly, but historically, older men fathering children was not at all uncommon (73 would probably be an outlier, but successful men were fathering children well past the age when women can no longer bear children). That would exert significant evolutionary pressure for men to have longer lifespans.

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

#402

Post by Qem »

exe34 wrote: post #337
ecb_penguin wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you believe this limit on lifespan is a uniquely human condition? or do you believe that it's impossible for any animal whatsoever to have a long lifespan (let's say 400 years for the sake of argument here).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_shark

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

#403

Post by ben_w »

ecb_penguin wrote: post #321
ben_w wrote: post #245

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. Did someone prove mice have souls that go to heaven or hell while I wasn't looking? For all the limits of research that only works in mice and doesn't generalise to humans (I'm *not* going to plan with the assumption of radical longevity) it's not quite as bad as taking eve…

> Did someone prove mice have souls that go to heaven or hell while I wasn't looking? What does this have to do with a soul? The comment was about people treating life extension as a religion based on faith more than evidence. Nothing to do with the soul, or heaven, or anything else.

Heaven and hell, souls, they're just examples sampled from the set of things called "religious".

Radical life extension has been demonstrated… in mice.

If you don't like my chosen examples, take any other religious statement and demonstrate it in a mouse. Have Anubis weigh their heart against a feather, pay Charon to cross the Styx, whatever.

Point isn't the specific it's compared against, it's the entire set that longevity definitely isn't in, because unlike those things it has been demonstrated (in mice).

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

#404

Post by dfxm12 »

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…

public health dollars at the very least might be better spent on quality of life as much as quantity.

Improving quality of life often leads to improving quantity of life. Life expectancy is, in part, a policy choice. Be wary of those who are outright against these things.

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/570293...

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

#405

Post by ben_w »

lupusreal wrote: post #302
ben_w wrote: post #245

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. Did someone prove mice have souls that go to heaven or hell while I wasn't looking? For all the limits of research that only works in mice and doesn't generalise to humans (I'm *not* going to plan with the assumption of radical longevity) it's not quite as bad as taking eve…

The secular religion spoken of by nabla has nothing to do with afterlives. It's for people who don't believe in any afterlife trying to placate their fear of death by having faith that technology will somehow grant them an indefinite life, not an afterlife. (Context: I am firmly an atheist, but I also disapprove of the people who want to live forever. I think that's selfish and childish. People should get to grips wi…

> People should get to grips with the reality of their mortality and make peace with that.

  The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- George Bernard Shaw

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

#406

Post by Fargren »

exe34 wrote: post #339
Fargren wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion is a lie Anyone who says "we will have within this generation technology to extend your lifetime indefinitely" is lying just as much as the priest who says he knows God exists is lying[1]. I would say it's more likely that the scientist liar is accidentally right, than that the priest is; that doesn't make either of them people you should trust. At the current stage of technology, belief on this process is…

oh thank goodness you've finally shifted the goal post! in other comments you were arguing that radical life extension was impossible but now it's merely impossible within our lifetime! that's a huge shift!

I made two comments in this thread. The one you replied to, and this one I'm using now to respond to you. Do you have me confused with someone else?

But yeah, I think "within our lifetime" is a critical qualifier, and most people who are not writing it down are implicitly assuming that the qualifier is obvious. I have very limited interest in technologies that will not exist until centuries after I'm born, other than as entertainment.

Without that qualifier, almost any practical discussion about technology is moot. It's fun to talk about FTL or whatever, but we certainly should not be investing heavily into it... It might be possible, but most research on that direction would be wasteful.

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

#407

Post by Sharlin »

nradov wrote: post #383
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Certainly an interesting source of cognitive dissonance. Few would admit it, but in practice I can see many people feeling more strongly about foreigners than humane care for the elderly (we've alredy done a good job at putting them out of sight, out of mind!)

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

#408

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

stevejb wrote: post #400
WaltPurvis wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Isn't that completely circular then? E.g. "if there are no technologies which change $X, then we predict that $X will stay the same."

Let's use "time travel" for `$X` and see if we come to a useful forecast: Sure, one could hope that someday we'll have enough major breakthroughs to achieve either one. But "maybe we'll discover something we don't currently know or understand and it will change everything and we will go back in time" isn't a very promising or useful forecast if your aim is fixing a current problem.

You could perform the same exercise substituting "perpetual motion" as `$X`, and come up with an forecast equally useless for solving current problems.

Also: you replaced "major breakthroughs" with "technologies" when paraphrasing. What do you think the difference is between those two different terms? Do you feel your refutation would be as strong if you spoke to the original point, rather than rephrasing it and responding to your own, differently-phrased version (essentially responding only to yourself) ?

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

#409

Post by Swizec »

PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #125
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.

You may feel differently when you get there. Be careful of present you making decisions about future you.

That’s the best part! Making decisions that keep you in good shape until 89 are also likely to help you live until 100.

At that age if you can avoid cancer the rest is stuff like “Strong enough so you don’t break a hip when tripping on the stairs”

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

#410

Post by quesera »

luqtas wrote: post #111
gscott wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your never done raising your kids regardless of how old they are.

so if i had kids that would mean planning to maintain a decades old Minecraft server to play with them?

If you're very fortunate, yes.
Post reply on HN