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

421–430 of 535 posts

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

#421

Post by nradov »

k4rli wrote: post #414
pembrook wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Americans have no culture so it makes sense there. No need to have same happen in Europe.

What do you mean Americans have no culture? Have you never been to a monster truck rally?

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

#422

Post by sigmoid10 »

dillydogg wrote: post #272
sigmoid10 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is if anti-aging didn't have this edgy image in billionaire circles, there would be more than enough money to go around. If everyone agrees that we should get on this like we do certain other diseases, we could certainly tap into a lot of resources.

Given the current state of the NIH, I'm not sure if we are "getting on this" with any diseases right now. I've seen quite a number of my colleagues end up retiring or stopping their research programs all together at a university that has its NIH funding halted for being politically insubordinate.

Trump might get the science out of america, but he won't be able to get rid of science in general. It will just happen elsewhere. Europe is already becoming the center for mRNA vaccine research, and other places with less regulation will not sleep on biotech possibilities either. We just got a malaria vaccine that is not perfect, but good enough for Africa and about to be actively deployed in endangered areas, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year. It took decades and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but people like Bill Gates fronted most of the bill. There's no reason to think that science couldn't attack aging disease with the same ferocity if someone foots the bill.

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

#423

Post by seszett »

swat535 wrote: post #346
seszett wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. By the time you think suicide is the better option, you are often already in a managed and locked down environment in which it is difficult to impossible to commit suicide in an acceptable manner. Believe me I know it.

"Suicide in an acceptable manner" sounds as like an oxymoron. Why would you care that it's "acceptable" by society which you will no longer take part of ? If your concern is pain, then perhaps that is your mind telling you NOT to end your life and seek therapy instead. Assisted suicide only makes sense in situations where the person is in extreme chronic pain and no palliative care or treatment can be provided, which…

Acceptable by the person who wants to die. That usually means not too painful, and not causing more stress than necessary to the persons you care about.

Wanting to avoid pain is very much not a reason to seek therapy, what an absurd thought.

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

#425

Post by nradov »

ACCount37 wrote: post #276
DrBazza wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

That's for them to decide, not you. I don't have enough cruelty in me to demand that someone should stay in Sudan and try to "fix" what's happening there.

Would you have said the same about the USA's founding fathers in 1776 who stayed to fix what was happening there?

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

#426

Post by Illniyar »

The article doesn't make sense to me. They mention 1900-1938 life expectancy rose by ~5 months per generation. And then say it grew from 62 years to 80. Does that mean each generation is ~2-3 years? What unit of measurement is that supposed to be?

Then for 1938-2000 they say it's 2.5 months per generation. If generation is 2-3 years we should already be at 100 year expectancy.

Also having 1900-1938 and 1938-2000 as the only points in time seem meaningless. Does the entire 1938-2000 have a single graident? What's the slope here?

They also mention that the main advancement in 1900-1938 is infant mortality. Which is really uninteresting for the old age.

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

#427

Post by sigmoid10 »

notahacker wrote: post #351
sigmoid10 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is if anti-aging didn't have this edgy image in billionaire circles, there would be more than enough money to go around. If everyone agrees that we should get on this like we do certain other diseases, we could certainly tap into a lot of resources.

Seems more like billionaires spending money on trying to live forever has an edgy image in non-billionaire cycles. Sure, maybe Gates and Buffet really aren't that interested in living forever, but the likes of Thiel and Musk aren't exactly noted for techno-pessimism or caring whether the average normie thinks they and some of their investments are creepy, and they absolutely have the dealflow and the connections to e…

Thiel put a couple of million in some edgy stuff with little to show for. It is nothing compared to the order of magnitude that Gates invested in malaria.

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

#428

Post by Slava_Propanei »

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…

[dead]

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

#429

Post by arisAlexis »

Fargren wrote: post #316
arisAlexis wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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…

Actually all the heads of labs and the top 2 cited scientists are saying exactly this. Hassabis Hinton bengio and amodei. It's crazy to think they are lying priests and give 0% probability on this. It's really short minded.

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

#430

Post by arisAlexis »

ralfd wrote: post #297
arisAlexis wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thee is a lot of psychology background that made you say this comment. Understand your bias.
Post reply on HN