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

71–80 of 535 posts

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

#71

Post by lossolo »

VincentEvans wrote: post #12
adastra22 wrote: post #4

There is no physical/chemical/biological reason you can’t live indefinitely with the health and vitality of a 25-35 year old. Aging isn’t a law of nature.

You haven’t quite come to grips with mortality, I think.

I think OP is not entirely incorrect. Reproductive cells undergo processes like epigenetic reprogramming, which basically strips away many of the chemical marks (like DNA methylation patterns) that accumulate with age. That’s one of the reasons babies don’t start with the cellular age of their parents. Researchers can take adult cells, reprogram them back to an embryonic like state using Yamanaka factors (a set of four genes) effectively erasing their biological age.

I think scientists currently are testing ways to "partially" reprogram cells to make them younger while keeping their function. Early studies in mice have shown some reversal of aging signs.

Seems like an engineering problem more than an absolute limitation.

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

#72

Post by latexr »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #11

I wonder if as a species we can ever get more comfortable with death. We’re built not to be I realize, and we should never be for those that are young but I feel like we should be ok with living 80ish or more years and then clocking out. That being said, I’m not cool with the idea of dying when good, but when I’m in a major depressive episode, the idea of immortality is terrifying.

> I wonder if as a species we can ever get more comfortable with death.

Psychedelics for everyone!

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/how-psychedelic-drugs-can-help-...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/taking-psychedelics-helps-pe...

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

#73

Post by Qem »

conception wrote: post #19
SoftTalker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd then that every living thing ages and eventually dies?

This is not true and easily countered by any sort of investigation. Lobsters, flatworms, immortal jellyfish and hydras are all believed to be immortal. In fact we know how to live forever, control our telomeres. We know it works because cancer exists. We just can’t control it but controlled cancer is effectively immortality.

> Lobsters, flatworms, immortal jellyfish and hydras are all believed to be immortal.

What is the oldest known living individual for each of these species, and for how long are they alive?

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

#74

Post by ivape »

rhyperior wrote: post #59
ivape wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's just plus or minus 10 years for whatever fate (genetics) had in store for you. That plus or minus being the little we can control (diet/activity).

So much of the modern US diet that’s being exported to the world negatively impacts life and health span. It’s very much controllable, just harder than the default.

We're also exporting modern US attitudes and psychology (expectations, worldview), which is just an engine for stress. I think overeating is a stress response. Not everyone was a fiend for vanity at the scale we are today.

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

#75

Post by latexr »

markus_zhang wrote: post #42

I think it’s fine. When I get older I’m more intrigued whether there is an afterlife, whatever it is.

> I’m more intrigued whether there is an afterlife

That’s only intriguing if the answer is “yes”. Otherwise it doesn’t matter.

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

#76

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Qem wrote: post #73
conception wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true and easily countered by any sort of investigation. Lobsters, flatworms, immortal jellyfish and hydras are all believed to be immortal. In fact we know how to live forever, control our telomeres. We know it works because cancer exists. We just can’t control it but controlled cancer is effectively immortality.

> Lobsters, flatworms, immortal jellyfish and hydras are all believed to be immortal. What is the oldest known living individual for each of these species, and for how long are they alive?

> What is the oldest known living individual for each of these species, and for how long are they alive?

For the jellyfish, we don’t know. Their cells are indifferentiable by age and they’re bastards to study, with only one scientist in Kyoto having managed to culture them [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii

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

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

latexr wrote: post #69
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically “immortal” means “never dying”, it has nothing to do with age Hence my use of the term biologically immortal. > mentioned creatures all age, they do get older, it just so happens their bodies don’t deteriorate Were you really confused that OP was talking about stopping physical time?

> Hence my use of the term biologically immortal. That’s the second paragraph. I was specifically addressing only the first (the one I quoted). In that one you seem to be saying that “immortal means not aging”. That’s the only part of your post I wanted to address, the rest was very clear.

Got it, thank you. Edited for clarity.

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

#78

Post by latexr »

keiferski wrote: post #17

It is ironic that many of the people obsessed with life extension are also those deeply involved in creating systems that deliberately waste the time we already do have, via addictive algorithms, clickbait content, unnecessary consumerism, etc. “It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it. Life is long enough, and a sufficiently generous amount has been given to us for the highest achie…

I was already familiar with Seneca and that quote, but reading it now it sounds condescending. Of course a stoic would say that. Even if we concede that most people “waste” most of life, claiming it is “long enough” and we have a “sufficiently generous amount of it” is just opinion and not something to be prescribed to others. “Long enough” for what? For what Seneca enjoyed, maybe, he had nothing to do and only a fraction of the available world knowledge.

Nowadays one lifetime isn’t even enough to read every book one would find interesting, and reading might be your favourite thing in the world that you do at literally ever opportunity. Long enough… Pft… Seneca clearly wasn’t familiar with the essentially infinite world of fan fiction. He surely would’ve judged it if he had.

Just to drive the point home: The comment is tongue in cheek. I agree with your first paragraph.

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

#79

Post by kingstnap »

lossolo wrote: post #71
VincentEvans wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t quite come to grips with mortality, I think.

I think OP is not entirely incorrect. Reproductive cells undergo processes like epigenetic reprogramming, which basically strips away many of the chemical marks (like DNA methylation patterns) that accumulate with age. That’s one of the reasons babies don’t start with the cellular age of their parents. Researchers can take adult cells, reprogram them back to an embryonic like state using Yamanaka factors (a set of fo…

DNA damage inevitably accumulates. The big reason children are younger than their parents DNA wise is because the parents' DNA undergo random recombination to create something that is the mixture of the two.

This doesn't help overall. Mixing two roughly equally broken things just yields the mean of the two. But the trick is that roughly 60 to 70% of conceptions will not survive to birth. This rejection sampling is ultimately what makes children younger.

If you had a population of single cells that didn't undergo this rejection sampling at some point, entropy and Muller's ratchet would actually age the entire population and kill it.

Post reply on HN