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

Does the human lifespan have a limit?

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 227 posts

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#91

Post by camillomiller »

radu_floricica wrote: post #66

There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…

Please explain to me and try to convince me why we should. I’m serious, I just can’t understand why extending our individual lifespan should be a goal of our age, instead of focusing on making our life much better when it’s more worth living.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#92

Post by jacquesm »

kiba wrote: post #89
radu_floricica wrote: post #66

There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…

There will be people who comes out to say we shouldn't do this because it means dictators will live longer or that old people will remains in power longer, as if old people are a blight on society. I would consider it good news if old people had to live with their decisions and problems they created instead of leaving it to the next generation.

They'd still leave the problems to the next generation. The next generation just wouldn't be in charge.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#93

Post by wussboy »

camillomiller wrote: post #91
radu_floricica wrote: post #66

There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…

Please explain to me and try to convince me why we should. I’m serious, I just can’t understand why extending our individual lifespan should be a goal of our age, instead of focusing on making our life much better when it’s more worth living.

It can, and should, be both.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#94

Post by dmd »

camillomiller wrote: post #91
radu_floricica wrote: post #66

There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…

Please explain to me and try to convince me why we should. I’m serious, I just can’t understand why extending our individual lifespan should be a goal of our age, instead of focusing on making our life much better when it’s more worth living.

Suppose, right now, normal life expectancy was 200 years. How would you feel about a new program being rolled out to impose disease and death on everyone over 80?

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#95

Post by BayAreaEscapee »

reverend_gonzo wrote: post #78
tkiolp4 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the point of living beyond 100 years old is the years that come after you are 90 (pretty bad years), but that one has more “nice” years to live. Example: - average person who dies at 80. Middle point in his life at 40. At 20 the person has already lived a 1/4 of his life. - imagine a supercentenarian who dies at, for the sake of examples, 120. This person at his 60s is like the average person at his 40s…

I beg to differ. In my opinion, life doesn’t really start until you’re 25 or so, maybe even 30. The first 18 years are generally spent at home, following other peoples rules, and learning how to get by. The next few years you get your independence and start finding your place in the world. If you went to college, then you enter the workforce and are probably getting by, still finding your footing. Then the real fun s…

I retired shortly after my fortieth birthday, and it's been a godsend!

My worst day of retirement was better than my best day of working or education.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#96

Post by snowwrestler »

reverend_gonzo wrote: post #78
tkiolp4 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the point of living beyond 100 years old is the years that come after you are 90 (pretty bad years), but that one has more “nice” years to live. Example: - average person who dies at 80. Middle point in his life at 40. At 20 the person has already lived a 1/4 of his life. - imagine a supercentenarian who dies at, for the sake of examples, 120. This person at his 60s is like the average person at his 40s…

I beg to differ. In my opinion, life doesn’t really start until you’re 25 or so, maybe even 30. The first 18 years are generally spent at home, following other peoples rules, and learning how to get by. The next few years you get your independence and start finding your place in the world. If you went to college, then you enter the workforce and are probably getting by, still finding your footing. Then the real fun s…

This is a great viewpoint emotionally, but physically you can’t do at 50 what you could do at 25. There’s a reason pretty much every sport (even golf!) has a “masters” class for older players.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#97

Post by radu_floricica »

kiba wrote: post #89
radu_floricica wrote: post #66

There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…

There will be people who comes out to say we shouldn't do this because it means dictators will live longer or that old people will remains in power longer, as if old people are a blight on society. I would consider it good news if old people had to live with their decisions and problems they created instead of leaving it to the next generation.

Change of generation is a thing that used to stump me. It's a valid problem, from older people having weird political choices to scientific research counting on fresh blood (yes it does).

Until relatively recently when I switched to believing that there's actually a biological cause for this: sub-clinical forms of dementia. We just get old and lose capacity for meaningful change. We keep functioning, but the decisions we make are based on what we already learned about the world 20-40 years ago.

Which means it's fixable. I don't want a world where I replace my father and am replaced by my children. I want a world where my father starts acting like a valedictorian again, but with a life of experience behind it.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#98

Post by axiosgunnar »

dmd wrote: post #94
camillomiller wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain to me and try to convince me why we should. I’m serious, I just can’t understand why extending our individual lifespan should be a goal of our age, instead of focusing on making our life much better when it’s more worth living.

Suppose, right now, normal life expectancy was 200 years. How would you feel about a new program being rolled out to impose disease and death on everyone over 80?

Good argument, in the spirit of the reversal test https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#99

Post by nicoburns »

FL33TW00D wrote: post #3

Whenever this topic comes up, I’m always reminded of the fact that the bible knew of this long before any statistician. 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3). As a non Christian this always baffles me.

> As a non Christian this always baffles me.

I don't understand how this is in any way baffling. There were plenty of humans around for people to observe when the bible was being written, and some of them probably lived to be quite old.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#100

Post by paulcole »

Animats wrote: post #27

And hundreds of people reached the rarefied ranks of the supercentenarians — aged 110 or older — although demographers have validated the records of only a fraction of them. Um, yes. A few years ago, the city government of Tokyo sent people to visit everyone who reported an age over 100, to see what they were doing right. What they found was a lot of pension fraud. "To date, the authorities have been unable to find m…

The whole Blue Zones thing is pretty funny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone

Only Loma Linda seems like it might not be the result of fraud — and that’s only because it’s a haven for a kooky religion.

The whole life-extension thing is funny. I wonder if people realize what the world is going to be like 70+ years from now and how miserable it’s going to be for anyone over 100 who’s not rich? I think about my 95 year old grandma stuck inside the past 2 years because of COVID. I honestly think if I was that age I would have rather died in 2019 than be alive today.

Post reply on HN