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

471–480 of 535 posts

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

#471

Post by BobaFloutist »

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.

I mean I also feel like people would be pretty happy with the average lifespan of a tree, or a Greenland Shark, etc.

Also, some few (fairly primitive) animals are "biologically immortal," for example, lobsters (which are motile and vaguely resemble us more than, say, sponges and jellyfish) don't experience senescence.

That being said, I think we have a long way to go if we want to make any progress at all, and I doubt I will live to see it.

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

#472

Post by Viliam1234 »

ben_w wrote: post #245
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…

> 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?

Yep, here is the documentary: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3804810/

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

#473

Post by WillieCubed »

jeffhwang wrote: post #324
e-topy wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European here. I've been to the US and holy mother of Jesus, you put sooooo much sugar into everything. I had to buy 'European' bread because your normal bread made my gums hurt, and even then that was the sweetest bread I've ever eaten. Seriously, when your one large oreo shake has 2600 calories, no wonder your obesity rate is 35% and isn't slowing. Driving to the toilet instead of walking also doesn't help. Then yo…

Is this hyperbole or do Americans actually drive rather than walk to toilets? Not being hostile, genuinely curious.

A little hyperbole, but as an American, the idea that the average person in my country would rather drive somewhere rather than feel inconvenienced by a short walk is very accurate.

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

#474

Post by PartiallyTyped »

pembrook wrote: post #275
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which is why socialism is fundamentally incompatible with immigration, and why the US, being a nation of immigrants, is structured the way it is (more individualist). Nobody wants to pay for the new guy to have a luxury first world lifestyle with free healthcare, education and pension. The more a society adopts socialist policies, the less friendly to immigration it becomes. Both the US and most large European countr…

Immigration is not the problem. The problem lies on the kind of people we allow in and who gets to get welfare.

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

#475

Post by ACCount37 »

Intralexical wrote: post #437
ACCount37 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cancer cells can pull it off, then why not humans? Clearly, there are no "laws of biology" that would forbid it.

Because a cancer cell pulls it off by sacrificing all of the cell's useful functions, resulting in the destruction of the host organism as well as the death of the cell itself.

And? How does that apply in any way, fashion or form to making humans biologically immortal?

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

#476

Post by oezi »

Balgair wrote: post #374
oezi wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another European I don't understand your argument because Europe has seen so much internal migration over the hundreds of years that it is weird to argue it is leading to monoculture. Also unchecked migration to Europe is down to 200.000 people per year so less than 0.1% of population.

>it is weird to argue it is leading to monoculture. As an outside that has visited your large continent a fair few times, yeah, you guys are pretty monocultural. I know that such a statement is just literal nonsense to y'all and quite unbelievable. And yes, you all have a different flag, and a different language. But the day-to-day details are very similar. Every day y'all wake up at pretty much the same time, everyo…

Well thank you to put it so brilliantly. Since what you describe seems mostly a global experience by now for all who can afford it, I am wondering what other cultures you have in mind which has a dislike for breakfast, coffee, booze and cigarettes.

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

#477

Post by xenobeb »

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

Yea I would sign up to win the lottery too.

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

#478

Post by xenobeb »

melling wrote: post #366
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…

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

The powerball lottery is the greatest investment you can make also if you happen to win.

You have no point.

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

#479

Post by Intralexical »

ACCount37 wrote: post #475
Intralexical wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a cancer cell pulls it off by sacrificing all of the cell's useful functions, resulting in the destruction of the host organism as well as the death of the cell itself.

And? How does that apply in any way, fashion or form to making humans biologically immortal?

The "law of biology" at play here is tradeoffs. Aging is not single disease, but an accumulation of error states and maladaptations which arise in a thermodynamically unstable system of high complexity, existing in an even more dynamic environment, likely due to the inescapable mathematics of chaotic systems.

In the N-dimensional gradient from homeostasis to oblivion, N is high enough and the ground shakes often enough that it is not statistically feasible for there to be local minima. Only saddles, in one dimension or another other.

Cells from cancerous tumors do not prove biological immortality is technologically viable for humans, nor do hydras nor Greenland sharks, because the tradeoffs they have to make in order to obtain "immortality" (in only a very technical sense) would be wholly unworkable for the complexity and the experience of a human, as well as extremely destructive to human society.

Just think about this for a moment. "Cells from deadly tumors full of mutant hair and teeth refuse to die (until they kill their entire environment), therefore humans can be immortal?" Really? That's the argument you're going with?

People have been trying to explain this to you through this entire thread. But despite leaving 22 comments, you seem impervious to it. Personally, I think we should strive to be less like cancers, not more.

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

#480

Post by rowanG077 »

Intralexical wrote: post #464
api wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know it’s possible for living things to be functionally near immortal. We also know germ line cells can give rise to new organisms which can give rise to germ line cells in an unbroken chain effectively forever. This is quite far from making a human immortal but it shows that there appears to be nothing in physical law or intrinsic to biology that prohibits it. Therefore it is possible. Star travel and terraformin…

> We know it’s possible for living things to be functionally near immortal. Not in any sense that's applicable to humans. The often-cited animal examples, like greenland sharks, tortoises, and lobsters, are slow-moving ectotherms with "cold" metabolisms. Adjusting for watts per unit mass of biochemistry, they might "live" less in all their centuries than you do in a single decade [0-3]. In that sense they're only "lo…

I don't think regeneration of bulk tissue is what people are generally talking about when they talk about immortality. Rather they talk about there being advanced homeostasis from yesterday, to today and to tomorrow under "normal" living condition. The point is not that you should be able to regenerate from blowing your brains out.
Post reply on HN