Live data from Hacker News

We will be able to live to 1,000

news.bbc.co.uk

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#61
"If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000."

I know there is a shortcut to this but for this to be true you need a constant rate of 1 death in 1415.78389 per year.

1 / (1 - 10 ^ ((log .5) / 981)) = 1415.78389 so (1-1/1415.78389) ^ (1000-19) = .5

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#62
post #29

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years. This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but…

I think part of it might be that evolution only cares about how successful you are in passing on your genes. Why do salmon die after mating (its due to exhaustion)? There isn't really any reason they have too, but they successfully passed on there genes so there is little evolutionary pressure on what happens afterward. I think it is the same for aging. There isn't really a reason for aging, it just happens because t…

IIRC, either Kurzweil or de Grey said exactly the same thing.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#63
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's looking for cures to issues that are real problems. If you fix any of the problems, even partially, they show great promise for helping older people to be decrepit, even if they don't actually extend lifespan. His hope is curing these types of damage will cause humans to functionally stop aging, but curing these types of damage are useful in and of themselves : Cell loss, tissue atrophy Nuclear [epi]mutations Mu…

In fact, the SENS foundation is ignoring some of those - because medical research is already attacking them as problems in their own right.

Yep, SENS isn't duplicating already existing research. If you support them, you are supporting research that might not take place otherwise.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#64
post #5

Just going based on the title here. But if we let people live to 1000, that will deny many people the right to have children. The long term consequences of such a change could be a drastic slow down in technological innovation as the super-elderly are able to accumulate vast sums of wealth. Just think of the advantage you'd have as a 500 y/o over a 25 y/o.

Why is childbirth a right? Would you accept a trade of a parent's life for a child's life, perhaps with a time delay? There's also several financial methods that could be used to prevent undesirable wealth accumulation.

You, and nobody else, own your body. I.e., nobody should be able to say you're not allowed to have children.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#65
post #28

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years. This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but…

I doubt that we'll ever find a "reason" for aging. It's the result of an imperfectly optimized biological system - after all, humans are the result of one great big evolutionary algorithm. We've proven time and again that those run exponentially and are not perfectly accurate, especially in the presence of a dynamic environment.

If it's an imperfect mechanism, then look back at the huge chain linking you to the first living creature: adult body / sperm & egg / adult body / sperm & egg / adult body / ...

How come that chain hasn't failed?

Basically, you're just rephrasing the "aging through accumulation of errors" hypothesis. The problem is, errors should accumulate along the chain mentioned above, too. Yet they don't.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#66

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years. This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but…

The "reason" for aging seems almost self-evident to me. The goal is to pass on [mutated] genetic information. Post-reproduction, you're simply a drag on local resources.

Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#67
post #29

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years. This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but…

I think part of it might be that evolution only cares about how successful you are in passing on your genes. Why do salmon die after mating (its due to exhaustion)? There isn't really any reason they have too, but they successfully passed on there genes so there is little evolutionary pressure on what happens afterward. I think it is the same for aging. There isn't really a reason for aging, it just happens because t…

I believe the predominant evolutionary theory actually does have an explanation - sexual reproduction serves to produce offspring that are different from their parents and have a better shot of being adapted to a constantly changing environment on average (particularly relevant to parasites/diseases). These children still carry their parents' genes, though, so it is in the parents' best genetic interests to die once the kids are self-sufficient so as to avoid out-competing their own offspring.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#68
post #29

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years. This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but…

I think part of it might be that evolution only cares about how successful you are in passing on your genes. Why do salmon die after mating (its due to exhaustion)? There isn't really any reason they have too, but they successfully passed on there genes so there is little evolutionary pressure on what happens afterward. I think it is the same for aging. There isn't really a reason for aging, it just happens because t…

The reason for sticking around after mating is to protect your children. In this sense, there is definitely an evolutionary pressure to live longer. The longer an organism takes to mature, the more advanced it can become. Consequently, the longer you live as a mature individual, the longer you can mate to produce more children and protect the ones you already produced.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#69
post #55

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years. This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but…

So we're perpetually closer to curing aging than we are to energy-positive fusion? If only they were reversed, we'd be able to support the population explosion in millenarians before they got here...

Hee hee. All in support of my cynical hypothesis: the predicted future is always at least ten years away because that's slightly longer than the longest research grants. [1]

See, if you predict a breakthrough in five years and are then awarded a seven-year grant, you're setting yourself up for a lot of embarrassment when it comes time to apply for a renewal.

The future is in the future, and until you're absolutely certain of success it's important to keep it there. ;)

---

[1] that's the predicted future. The actual future isn't in the future at all. It arrives every day, without warning, as a fait accompli. There's no money in predicting the near future: you must either predict the far future, or make the near future.

Re: We will be able to live to 1,000

#70

When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years. This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but…

The "reason" for aging seems almost self-evident to me. The goal is to pass on [mutated] genetic information. Post-reproduction, you're simply a drag on local resources. Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food.

Anything that happens after reproduction is in an evolutionary blind spot. Aging is the result of evolutionary neglect, not design.
Post reply on HN