Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

news.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#71

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

lm28469 wrote: post #20
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main connections to longevity people usually miss in this whole "climate change" discussion is one of the main psychological reasons people don't take care of the environment in the first place: and it's arguably their lifespan. Everyone in the west knows that they will die at most ~100 years of age, and if you are basically not in some top percentile morality-wise (and also at that point in your life wher…

But that's two sides of the same coin, individualism. Even if we lived 120 years in average, do you think the game would change a lot, I don't. I don't see drastic changes in young people today, yet they'll most likely be alive in 60-70 years. And for argument's sake, even if it does we still end up with much more people living on the same resource limited planet at the same time. You can already bump your life expec…

> because it's too much effort

This is exactly the reason these scientists are focusing on genetic and other medical ways to increase lifespan, which are going to be packaged in products that can be used without effort. One might say what they want about people not wanting to expend unnecessary effort, one might call it lazy or just smart, or a drive of progress, it doesn't matter. The fact is if you give people a method that requries less effort, more people will use it. Thus we will have a greater general effect on the population with these methods.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#72

Post by PavlikPaja »

What you actually see if you study aging carefully is that it isn't anything like accumulation of damage the body cannot repair, it's the accumulation of damage the body can repair.

In fact, among the most consistent things you can see is the accumulation of iron, and to a lesser extent other minerals, such as calcium. The body seems to have a really big trouble regulating those minerals, it doesn't even have its own way to get rid of excess iron, the only way you can get rid of it is blood loss.

Now, what does it mean? One thing, the body doesn't really makes much distinctions when absorbing metals so that when there is excess iron, it cannot absorb other divalent metals without poisoning itself with iron. So it cannot absorb manganese without absorbing too much iron, and manganese is essential for preventing oxidative damage.

A second thing is, the experiments on rats show that lanthanum (and possibly other rare earths) change the homeostasis in the brain so that the amount of iron decreases, while it normally accumulates with age. Multiple rare earths have been shown to bind preferably to proteins, usually over calcium, but possibly also other metal ions, zinc seems to be a kind of universal element that can bind to almost any place that isn't taken. Neurons even seem to dramatically increase in capacity (with each neuron carrying its own signal, instead of many almost exactly the same thing over and over) as the concentration of lanthanum increases in vitro. (it's worth noting though, that lanthanum has been seen as an essential nutrient for decades in China, so if it cured aging, it would be known)

I thing we need to consider the possibility that there is no such a thing as aging, but is the result of some sort of imbalance caused by early agriculture, metallurgy, or whatever human activity that changed the environment in a way that our bodies, and other mammal bodies have no way of dealing with. The rumors of longevity from history and various isolated places are seen as myths, but they may not all be.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#73

Post by shard »

SCHiM wrote: post #34
garmaine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be no thousand year journies. You’d be overtaken by the generation after which left in faster ships and arrived in half the time. Make the trip in a few decades or don’t bother making it at all.

Enter K-level thinking: What if we did send a ship on a thousand year journey, and learn more about building fast ships than if we hadn't? Such that the second ship we send, would be quicker than the first ship we'd have sent if we waited a few decades?

Do you put off buying electronics knowing that next year's product will be faster than this year's? At some point you just got to say, screw it, I'd rather do this now instead of waiting for some hypothetical future where the cost-benefit ratio is at its highest.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#74

Post by Aaargh20318 »

adrianN wrote: post #36
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #35

If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get sterilised at the same time.

Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused by people having too many babies. It is also not a problem in countries where anti-aging treatments are likely to be available first and even less of a problem in the rich population that will be able to afford them at first. On the other hand, the promise of remaining able bodied until you die from an accident might reduce the number of ch…

> Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused by people having too many babies.

Exactly, so if we don't sterilise people who get anti-aging treatments, what's to stop them from having a litter of children every century or so ?

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#75

Post by TomMarius »

antt wrote: post #45
emteycz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're imagining Stalin but we live in the 21. century. This century telepathy is going to become reality and that still seems to be the less interesting thing compared to AI, that is also inevitably coming. Do you think these facts won't change anything?

Yes, I imagine we will create the Borg by accident.

I think the same.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#77

Post by frobozz »

raugustinus wrote: post #14
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense. Longer productive lifespan means that people can acquire more expert skills and become more proficient at what they do. Or for example switch professions if the economic climate has changed - which will be still much faster than teaching a completely new individual to learn that profession, if there is even a little overlap between them. I'm not saying that economics should even have any say in m…

From the point of view of economics maybe. Switching professions can be done in a current lifespan and is not done very often. I don't see people changing just because their life is extended. I just don't understand people's fixation on having a longer life. Seems to me people just keep looking at the horizon to bring them what they want and they forget what's right in front of them.

One reason not to switch professions is affordability. Few established mid-career professionals can afford to either take time out to train and qualify in another trade, or jump back down to the bottom rung and take a junior role in something else.

If, at 60, you have paid off your mortgage, amassed some savings, and seen your adult children leave home, then you can consider it. However, by then, you only have 5-7 years left until your pension kicks in and 10 before cognitive decline starts to take hold (either may have already happened), so you will probably just plod on doing what you already know. You might not even have enough time to really get to the interesting part of being a whatever-your-new-career-is.

If at 60, you are still in the prime of your life, with 60 more years on the clock, and 30 more years of full cognition and physical fitness available to you, then the idea of a career shift becomes more attractive.

Even without the affordability question, there is likely to be a point in most people's careers where the pursuit of mastery stops and the doldrums set in. The longer the working life, the more likely you are to reach that tipping point at a point when you have time to do something about it.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#78

Post by antt »

TomMarius wrote: post #75
antt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I imagine we will create the Borg by accident.

I think the same.

Oh good. I'm glad you agree we will see the largest genocide in history in our life time. People are usually a lot more optimistic than me about the future.

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#79

Post by collyw »

adrianN wrote: post #36
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #35

If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get sterilised at the same time.

Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused by people having too many babies. It is also not a problem in countries where anti-aging treatments are likely to be available first and even less of a problem in the rich population that will be able to afford them at first. On the other hand, the promise of remaining able bodied until you die from an accident might reduce the number of ch…

Isn't it a combination of both?

Re: Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’

#80

Post by adrianN »

grondilu wrote: post #48

"Prime time for an impact" is kind of an ironic title IMHO. People already live quite long, so it takes a long time for longevity to take any significant effect. If a 20yo man became immortal today, he will be 100 in 2099. Who knows what kind of world we'll be living in then? My point is : longevity is such a slow motion process that its impact on society is not as relevant as the pace of technology in other fields.

Having a treatment that allows 20 year olds to live healthily to 120 likely helps the contemporary 85 year olds to live a few more years without being dependent on other people. Ageing populations are a huge problem in many first world countries.
Post reply on HN