Funny because there's bible psalm (psalm 90 in the west, 89 in the eastern orthodoxy) stating the lifespan of humans is 70, above that and all you get is pain and tiredness (I think the western translations are stating that all life is like that).
I was not talking from a religious perspective, I thought it was funny because I found the 70 year-good-life (health-wise) to be very accurate even in modern times; to me it seems the psalmist simply recorded what he saw around him (just like the Book of Ecclesiasticus is a very sobering/"uninspired" perspective of a "simple" man, very much unlike most of the bible).
The religious explanation for the longer lives of early humans, I think it is that there were very few people and they needed the longer lifespans in order to reproduce more and somehow humanity became more degenerate down the line; also back then people could marry their sisters so I suppose there were very few recessive genes (guess that could also contribute to the longer lifespans) :) ?
So perhaps the DNA could be somehow cleaned up and people could live 900 year life-spans ?
Also, in a post messianic age, in the Old Testament it was written than people dying in their 120th year would be considered to die young (I vaguely remember reading that just because in the christian post-messianic age you wouldn't die at all)?
Of all the good and useful things that religious texts are (and there are a lot), surely it would be a hard argument to sell that exact factual depictions of life was one of them. These texts are used as stories to pump up the spirit, teach connection, oneness, useful life skills and outlooks, but do you really think it was accurate descriptions of how life was? If so, why? What data have you seen to assume that when a religious text writes about someone who lived for 800 years - it is not just a poetic device? There is nothing we have seen in biology or evolutionary science that this was possible.
It was quite surprising for me to read (in Angus Deaton’s The Great Escape - Nobel laureate) that most of the advances on living longer that we have achieved are basically focused on not dying young (baby, infant, adolescent); but that the overall limit has been fixed in its place since hundreds of years ago.
Look at the shapes of this and to what do they converge:
Im trying to find a chart of the evolution of age-specific mortality rate that very clearly shows that we have a mortality plateau up until about 30-35 years, and then the rate increases linearly. It is quite humbling.
It is from Canada. The aforementioned book shows time series of several countries and periods, and helps driving the point home that (non-intentional) adult mortality has been more or less fixed since a long time ago.
It is suprising how widespread this misconception is.
ALL of (*ok maybe 99%) of "life extensionalists" or longevity enthusiasts are working on extending the useful lifespan, not just the technical heartbeat-covering lifespan. This is a given. What they mean by extending the total lifespan is that it is done using integral methods, improving the overall health of a human, meaning that it will increase total lifespan also, but since it is working on the general health, it will also by extension increase the useful lifespan, because the health at every point in life will increase, and points which were not useful (healthy) before interventions would become useful. This is not something longevity people just "forget", there is no crusade for a mathematical birth-to-death age increase, these people are not stupid.
I was fortunate to meet him in 2007 at a local futurist meetup. I think you could say he is the epitome of "success through persistence". He's always been good at what he did, but if you go back 10, 20 years you wouldn't normally expect the level of success today to be reachable by his foundation, given how much negative skepticism there has always been around the research.
Well, yes, in that no one has lived forever yet. :) But that he has established a substantial research foundation and normalized a subject that was virtually fringe science a few decades ago is tremendous success in itself.
I'm convinced at this point that most of the conditions and diseases we associated with "old age" are actually a result of lifestyle choices, or at least aggravated by them. Just eat a balanced diet, get regular exercise, and maintain a healthy weight and you'll be better off than the majority.
This is for the most part, incorrect. Please see this video of Aubrey de Grey, where he explains that those lifestyle choices you describe, while very helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long life, and have a relatively small effect at that.
They can sometimes have large effect on the negative side, where if we measure effect in people in poor conditions, where they have severely bad lifestyle choices, due to malnutrition or poisoning for example, or complete lack of vitamin sources, etc. Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot.
If your genes are telling you to live to 70, you will not live to 100, no matter how many cabbages you eat or how many days spend hiking in the woods.
To really increase lifespan beyond that we need actual new technology. There is no rational model in which the effect of good lifestyle choices would be an argument for not pursuing genetic and otherwise interventions to increase real lifespan.
> while very helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long life, and have a relatively small effect at that.
> Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot.
Depends on your definition of "living", being obese/out of shape and on constant medication for diabetes/heart issues, not being able to do the most basic exercises, &c. isn't life by my standards. I don't care if I die at 40, at least I would have reached my peak physical and mental shape.
To me fighting to increase lifespan is complete non sense, look around, we don't need more time, we just need less work, mindless activities and gadgets. We spend our lives slaving away until we're literally too old to do it anymore to buy shit we don't need. I notice it all the time around me, most people are miserable, they live in the constant hope of a better day by thinking about their next weekend or vacation, some people in their 20s already talk about what they'll do when they retire (at fucking 67 years old). Increasing our lifespan won't do anything meaningful besides putting more strain on the world, both economically and ecologically.
Like most things, it was figured out a long time ago by people who had way way way more time to spend on thinking and less time to spend on mindless information consumption. Take Seneca for example:
> A person like him has not lived; he has merely tarried awhile in life. Nor has he died late in life; he has simply been a long time dying. He has lived eighty years, has he? That depends upon the date from which you reckon his death! ... [He] has lived eighty years, has he? Nay, he has existed eighty years, unless perchance you mean by "he has lived" what we mean when we say that a tree "lives."
> No man can have a peaceful life who thinks too much about lengthening it, or believes that living through many consulships is a great blessing. Rehearse this thought every day, that you may be able to depart from life contentedly; for many men clutch and cling to life, even as those who are carried down a rushing stream clutch and cling to briars and sharp rocks.
> Show me that the good in life does not depend upon life's length, but upon the use we make of it; also, that it is possible, or rather usual, for a man who has lived long to have lived too little.
> We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul.
There are probably people who think running around all the time and not being able to eat whatever they like isn't life by their standards. It takes all sorts.
People who reason like that sound to me as though they have built all these mind structures, thought patterns and beliefs, just in order to "deal with" and get around the (certainly horrendous) fact that they have little time, that they will die really soon, that people they love will die, and they can do nothing about it.
This is a reasonable thing to do. When there was no practical way to actually extend life (not by 2 years by excercising all the time) - yes, people had to deal with that. These facts were hard to process emotionally, and people needed these reasons and made up stories about the obviously preposterous presupposition that "we don't really want to live longer, that's not what life is about".
Basically those people gave up all hope and made their internal emotional world support that, support them in this hard position.
It was needed.
But I think it is time to let go of that. The times are changing and it looks like we can actually extend the lifespan. Maybe not this year, maybe not even this decade - sure. But soon. Don't let old beliefs stand in the way of progress. It has never worked and only creates unnecessary strain on the people holding those beliefs. The world is moving in that direction and there is little you can do to stop it. And for a good reason. Saying "we don't need/want to live longer" is neither rational nor truthful.
> Don't let old beliefs stand in the way of progress.
That's a very dangerous thing though.
Humans are very good at destroying things, not so much as replacing them with good alternatives. Religion is the prime example, "God is dead", and what do people have left ? Pure individualism, narcissism, egotism, lack of communities, lack of purpose; these are the new building blocks of our societies. And it's very well documented; loneliness epidemic, depression epidemic, people literally dying of sins, gluttony, sloth, ...
What good is it to live longer if it's still in the same degenerate ways ? Work more ? Consume more ? If you can't live a fulfilling life in ~80 years you won't do better with 120. The analogy of a kid always wanting more, no matter the consequences, really holds up.
Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.
> What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily? For we are mistaken when we look forward to death; the major portion of death has already passed. Whatever years lie behind us are in death's hands.
> What good is it to live longer if it's still in the same degenerate ways ? Work more ? Consume more ? If you can't live a fulfilling life in ~80 years you won't do better with 120. The analogy of a kid always wanting more, no matter the consequences, really holds up.
If you don't have answers to those questions for yourself, it sounds like you don't have a working spirituality in your system.. In that case yes, it is easy to think "why live longer", because the underlying question for such a person is really "why live at all?".
This is certainly an important problem in the west and a lot of work is being done on it, but it is not directly related to the longevity research, they are different areas. The problem in that case is not longevity or health, it is the spiritual questions. Earlier, religions were answering those questions for many people. Today, many of them struggle yes. But it has nothing to do with longevity. Guiding any choices in the technological advancements and increasing physical human life quality because someone does not see the point in everything is not very wise at least, because by extension that argument would work for any other technological advancement we are doing. Why make new computers? Why make electric cars? Why fight pollution? Why go to the moon? "Why solve the world hunger, those people will just start consuming and working mindlessly, there is no point, etc.".
To me personally I have tons of answers for those questions, and it's not consumption or "work"(whatever people mean by that).
In any case I wish for everyone to find their own spirituality of course, which might be a religion (buddhism for example is doing just fine, just as it has been for many more thousands of years than even christianity), or some more modern way of acquiring spirituality like modern spiritual teachers, retreats, meditation, psychedelic experiences, asketism, some philosophies, etc. Those things do not exist for no reason, they are exactly the west's more effective answers to obsolete religions. They serve the same purpose. But this is not a question of the longevity field, why mix up the two?
> Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.
Again, no shit. But if you can enjoy 1 year, you will enjoy the 100 years so much more as well. This argument goes both ways.
For a long time, I thought that my relatively poor health was mostly caused by my shitty lifestyle choices. It turns out that I have multiple genetic diseases, and the lifestyle choices made them worse. YMMV.
Is it me or these articles are getting more and more prevalent? That's good, I don't want Alzheimer, macular degeneration or other diseases of the old.
we are information....information can be created...information can be stored...information can be retrieved..man's ability to store and retrieve information increases as time goes on...therefore immortality can be achieved as long as a universe exists
150 pills a day would impose a lot on my gut, I can't imagine that this would extend my life.
I am wondering if there is more to it than eating healthily, what about times of occasional fasting? Some of the real old timers did go through wartime rationing or worse. For years we had 100+ year old Japanese people taking the honours for oldest and always put that down to a diet of fish.
But all of them lived through WW2 with the whole place firebombed into starvation. So they had a healthy diet plus this period where they must have had their bodies purge every bit of useless fat and strange mystery growth in their middle age.
Other parts of the world have had the starvation or the healthy eating but not in the combination that happened in Japan.
We generally have some exercise based regime to get rid of middle age spread. It does not work in most cases. So a spare tyre generally gets carried around for the rest of one's life, increasing the metabolic load and requiring more work from the vital organs. The radical option for getting rid of the spare tyre is to have the discipline of an athlete and to practically starve until the target weight is arrived at. In this deeper detox I am sure that one's relationship with bad foods can be reset too.
"(Is it possible the future will become a refuge for the rich, who experience life as a sequence of exquisite events and who might not understand the concept of entropy as relief or escape?)"
Can physically and emotionally healthy people actually view death as a relief or escape? This idea seems completely insane to me.
As an aside, people who want to die shouldn't/won't be forced to use longevity enhancing therapies to live longer, but I really think some psychological care should be considered for anyone refusing them.
I don't know about "relief" or "escape" but I'm comfortable with the idea of eventually having "had enough" of life.
Kind of tangential: the human-style characters in Iain M Banks' fantastic and thoughtful Culture series of novels tend to come to this decision after a couple or a few hundred years. Some times they go into deep sleep to be awoken based on some external criteria (for example, when the war that they conduct with another ~~species~~ (edit: society) is proven to be morally justified).
What today's fiction authors write, with no access to life extension technology, doesn't really tell us anything about what the reality would be like.
It's very rare to find a healthy person - even in their '90s or '100s - who actually wants to die. Many more younger people imagine they would want to die at such an age. I suspect the same will be true for 200 or 400 year olds.
You raise a very good point. I hadn't thought of looking up research on attitudes towards death in actual elderly people.
It's an unusual one because I'm specifically thinking about people who might want to die simply because they've seen and gotten from life all that they want, not people who are fed up with the (present-day) privations of old age. I suspect you're right that only a very small proportion of today's elderly match this
The closest thing I found after a little looking around is a recent initiative in the Netherlands called "Completed Life" - which seeks to extend the option of euthanasia to relatively healthy elderly people who have decided that their life is complete - and some associated research [0][1].
Lastly, on a slightly pedantic note, I think it's valid to invoke fictional worlds in response to someone who says that it's "insane" to feel a certain way.
One account I have heard from nurses in Geritology is the apparent importance of "will to live" - they have witnessed many times death following them psychologically giving up.
There could be some chicken vs egg factor (do they lose the will from health being hopeless or does their health decline with their psychological state influencing immune system, and to what extent?). That or spurious human pattern recognition (superstition) but it is possible that there is some literal survivalship bias.
> Can physically and emotionally healthy people actually view death as a relief or escape?
I think before that should have come the question whether a person who is only invested in their own life, and not interested in the tapestry or river of life, for lack of a better word, could be considered emotionally healthy?
Yes, I want to see and experience life, my own and that of others, but I'd rather die at some point, and know other life will exist, than live forever and squat on it. We can't be forever young, that is, some things will never be new to us again. Yeah, life is still fun, but not as fun as it could be for someone else. To me, that matters.
> Arendt argues that human action is contained within the notion of plurality as the most basic condition of human life, which in turn rests on her concept of 'natality'. In an almost poetical way she writes in this same essay how the world is constantly being refilled by strangers, outsiders and newcomers who act and react in an unforeseeable manner, in ways that cannot be calculated or predicated by those already familiar and stationed there, who will eventually leave and be replaced by others. The very fact that we come into the world through natural birth shows that the world is continuously being transformed and renewed through birth. Thus, 'natality' highlights this emphasis on the capacity of new beginnings with each and every birth.
I'd say natality more than makes up for mortality, while immortality removes natality, and doesn't even begin to cover the loss.
I'd rather there is something beautiful I miss out on, than something mediocre I get to experience, doubly so if it's made mediocre by my insisting on experiencing everything that goes on. And on top of that, there is the mediocrity of the lens through which we experience things, our own mediocrity, that also should not be increased lightly. New life makes life, the universe and everything better, it just happens to not extend my own life to infinity. But I can't have it both ways, not in an intellectualy and morally honest way, they way I see it. If everybody was truly immortal, as we are now, and for the reasons we want it, everybody will start to suck super badly real quick, and they'll suck too much to even notice it. The majestic and ever fresh river of life would turn into a petty, stinky puddle. Or I could wish for immortality myself, and mortality for everyone else -- but what would that make me, and what about friendship and love?
Nicely put. It is also my intuition that immortality would ultimately be very unhealthy for our species and environment. I tend to think about it in terms of morals and beliefs stagnation, or the death of new ideas but I like your argument.
When I was 9, I cried all night because I realized that one day, we might meet aliens and go to other galaxies and whatnot, and I would just be dust in the ground by then. The thought of thousands, millions of years of events and me just having been a blip, felt crushing. And there are many people I miss, and many people who died before I was born I would have loved to get to know; that I "made peace" with that doesn't mean it doesn't make me sad. It is sad, it's sad that people die, even after a long life. It's sad for friendships to end. But that I'm sad doesn't mean I'm not also happy and grateful, and prefer to be content with being a single finite thread in a much bigger tapestry of life, rather than just going on forever, kinda defacing that tapestry.
I mean, that's the binary "immortality" option. I'm not against medicine, or people living longer. But if someone genuinely wants to live forever forever, I really would question how much they thought it through.
It's not a binary immortality decision, luckily. It's just not comitting suicide (or dying in a car crash) every day. Most people will do that, given the choice.
you are positing that an extended amortal life is at the expense of someone elses' birth.
But why should it be?
If we're talking SF, we might as well agree on a method to handle that, e.g. force people to go off-planet at some age and make room for new people. The universe is big enough.
(I meant to write a novella on this for a long time :)
> you are positing that an extended amortal life is at the expense of someone elses' birth.
> But why should it be?
That's the default, considering we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and even without immortality on the expensive of others is already quite the thing. I'd say the burden is on showing how that could change, not to mention why it absolutely must and will change... rather than just assuming it.
> we're talking SF
I'm "just" talking immortality, that I take for granted in this context, not additional things. At the least, those additional things can't just go one way, just because assuming immortality is assuming something hitherto impossible, doesn't warrant assuming other impossible things, while dismissing other possibilities, both possible and hitherto impossible, just because they'd spoil the parade.
Why would some live at the expense of others, or prevent others being born? Well, having "eternity" to lose, one must not let anything unpredictable happen, one certainly must not let anyone have the ability to harm oneself. The universe is too big to let anyone just get away and potentially hatch unpredictability. That is certainly a way to look at it, and it only takes a few with enough power to have that outlook for my dystopia to occur -- while your utopia would require nobody with power going that route, everybody always agreeing on "playing nice".
We can't even agree on a way so people don't starve and die for lack of water, we can't exactly agree to not ruin the planet, potentially leading to catastrophic shifts in rather short timespans, we already live at the expense of those who might be born after us -- but we're going to handle immortality well, if only we had it? We're greedy and murderous about shitty trivialities, about trinkets -- but we'll play nice when it comes to something like living forever? Seems unlikely, certainly not a given.
The possiblity of immortality combined with the fact of ongoing concentration of wealth and power, plus automation, might lead to a rapid depopulation of the planet indeed, but not by moving anyone anywhere. Why keep people around that are nothing but a potential threat, that serve no use, that are not even an exploitable resource, because they take up more space and resources than means of production requiring no workers that are orders of magnitude more powerful, and after some point plain unnecessary either way? After people "have everything", not by being content and loving life and the world, but by owning it personally, what they still need is for nothing else to be able to rise up.
(I also meant to write a short story once, about a little girl who skipped the weekly dose of the government mandated antidote for the biological weapon terrorists supposedly unleashed, say, 150 years ago, because she wonders if it's even true that not taking it is lethal, since nobody she knows ever failed to take it even once. She manages to hide the pain and the skin discolorations that appear after a few days, finally staying up all night the last night gritting her teeth before the day the next weekly dose is given out, sneaking into the bathroom early to wash off her sweat, before her mother wakes her. It was supposed to begin with her vowing to never do that again, then starting to ask questions about the past, but I never got beyond that.)
Immortality + no other technology improvement is not a realistic assumption, that's why you get to a non-realistic result of "people have to die eventually" from it.
The immortality is not a thing you take and then have to kill others to not allow them to take it from you.
The only way to not die is to have a huge society that invents new treatments, discovers new physics, builds machines to prevent death from random comets, from earth's magnetic field running out, or sun exploding. The mere 7 billion we have now is not enough for any of this.
> Can physically and emotionally healthy people actually view death as a relief or escape?
I obviously don't have the experience of living an "overextended" life, but I'd imagine that it would depend at least partially on whether longevity extends to the people around you. Seeing the people you knew and love die is brutal, living that through several generations might get you to a point where you don't want to keep experiencing it anymore.
If life extension is technological, it's pretty hard to imagine how it wouldn't extend to the people around you. Technologies almost always get much, much cheaper and available to the masses after an initial period.
In such a scenario, you're going to see some people you knew and love die, but usually because of things like accidents, not old age, so it'll be entirely random, unlike now where elderly people have to watch all their friends die off around them, something they didn't experience that much in their younger years.
The kind of biotechnology we are talking about will be more like a cocktail of drugs and gene therapies. The price of entry will be in the millions, and maintenance in the tens of thousands per year. It will take many generations to be affordable to the masses
Oh please. Dentistry involves extremely personalized care, with crowns custom-made for every patient (these days by automated machines) and work done by highly-paid specialists on an individual basis, yet the masses are generally able to afford it. Once stuff gets out of the patent phase (20 years), it's going to become very cheap with tons of competition.
I really think some
psychological care
should be considered
for anyone refusing them.
You really want to shove your hand up other people's asses, and make them speak your words from their mouth?
I'll never give you the power to decide how long I should live. I'll only grant you the leeway that you should be able to defend yourself, such that others trying to die should not be capable of taking you with them.
That's what this is really about. You're afraid of their fearlessness encroaching on your clingy desire to reside in your meatbag for as long as possible. (not an entirely pejorative sentiment, but let's call a spade a spade)
Most of the people I know with that view would be very happy with whole brain emulation, so it's not really about the meatbag.
You sound like you think you reside somewhere other than your "meatbag" when you die? Of course if that was true we wouldn't be nearly this uppity about the whole death thing.
Actually, I sincerely doubt that whole brain emulation does anything for anyone, beyond placating the surviving relatives of the deceased with perhaps a prosthetic biomechanoid placebo.
Every individual that has ever uttered the words "upload my consciousness" doesn't even deserve the label, quack. Rube is more like it. With brain emulation, we'll likely encounter a degree of technological snakeoil to rival the "invigorating elixirs" of the nineteenth century.
No, I don't buy the idea that human sentience is compatible with wired circuits that carry electric currents, or even photon-bearing fiber optics. Not even from the "Ship Of Theseus" perspective.
My point is that death is essentially the big dreamless sleep, maybe with a magical time travel journey across geologic timescales to a future beyond the next supernova, when one might wake up in another part of the universe, beneath a different sun.
I mean, really, who knows why any of us have disgorged our progeny beneath this one?
Of course choosing to die is anyone's right and it is bad that most countries still ban euthanasia, but often people want to die not by choice but because of illness or some kind of misunderstanding, and helping them is a good thing. I don't think that by "psychological care" OP meant "forcibly putting people into ward" which could justify your reply.
First of all "kills us all" is highly exaggerated and what happens largely depends on what we do in this years.
But even assuming the kills us all part is correct, dying now is worse prospect than dying in 30 years so i don't see how that can be an argument for psychological unsoundness.
> Once again, downvoted for holding a Controversial Opinion that the hive mind doesn't like.
I did not downvote you, but i don't think you were downvoted for holding a "Controversial Opinion", unfortunately many people hold opinion similar to yours, you were downvoted because calling some people crazy without giving any explanation why you do it.
It's not the same, writing style matters in getting your message to the reader, the style of your comment looked hostile, and not motivation nor the logic of your argument were discernible from it.
More likely downvoted for a sweeping, conversation ending dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you, without bothering to add any substance.
There are plenty of comments in this thread that agree with you, that are doing fine. It’s not your argument, which to be honest is not particularly unpopular or unconventional.
The problem with this approach is: You don't know if this lifestyle caused you reaching a certain age, there is no scientific basis whatsoever. Which turns it into a religion.
You can measure the group against the population in general to see if you have a significant change, if it only had an effect on people starting before age X, what the causes of death were (some could be omitted) etc, so I guess there is, we're just lacking data since it requires a lot more people doing this to get old first.
So what? As long as the vendors of longevity products get rich everything is dandy. Getting and being rich is the only religion taken seriously anyway. Being an adept of the longevity religion requires you to be a high-level acolyte in the Church of Being Rich to begin with.
Indeed. The problem of extending life has both scientific and social dimensions. We are currently working on the scientific aspect, but, in at least in the US, failing at the social one.
As a society we don't treat mental health with the same urgency we treat physical health. As if they are two different things, and mental health is about our "choices", whereas physical health is just stuff that happens to us.
It seems inevitable. Repairing the natural damage that human bodies accumulate as they age will quickly become the cheapest way to treat and prevent heart disease and cancer in ordinary people. The small research community involved in life extension is a beacon of activity and optimism. The mega-rich are (or soon will be) lining up to fund it all both for profit and for their own personal life extention.
"You do not add years to your youth, you add years to your old age" - can't remember where I've read this but it struck me a lot. And worrying about your age when you'll die is not living your life to the fullest
I feel like gerontology is only tangentially related to the concept of immortality. No matter how biological life extension advances, you are still a highly vulnerable organism in a dangerous world. Something resembling actual immortality, in my mind, is a necessarily transhumanist field.
Living Forever made easy: The more money you throw at me, the longer you'll live. Living literally forever requires a lifetime subscription, obviously.
Death is a an evolved feature of living systems, and will continue to be. These people are merely wasting what time they have on narcissism, and tragically misunderstand what life is about.
71 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadYes, an increased healthspan is a better initial goal than an increased lifespan.
The religious explanation for the longer lives of early humans, I think it is that there were very few people and they needed the longer lifespans in order to reproduce more and somehow humanity became more degenerate down the line; also back then people could marry their sisters so I suppose there were very few recessive genes (guess that could also contribute to the longer lifespans) :) ?
So perhaps the DNA could be somehow cleaned up and people could live 900 year life-spans ?
Also, in a post messianic age, in the Old Testament it was written than people dying in their 120th year would be considered to die young (I vaguely remember reading that just because in the christian post-messianic age you wouldn't die at all)?
Look at the shapes of this and to what do they converge:
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/08/Survival-Curves-U...
(That comes from this article by the way: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy)
Im trying to find a chart of the evolution of age-specific mortality rate that very clearly shows that we have a mortality plateau up until about 30-35 years, and then the rate increases linearly. It is quite humbling.
EDIT: This is the best I found: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerardo_Chowell/publica...
It is from Canada. The aforementioned book shows time series of several countries and periods, and helps driving the point home that (non-intentional) adult mortality has been more or less fixed since a long time ago.
Sorry, too long ago to remember the source, and if it has any backing.
ALL of (*ok maybe 99%) of "life extensionalists" or longevity enthusiasts are working on extending the useful lifespan, not just the technical heartbeat-covering lifespan. This is a given. What they mean by extending the total lifespan is that it is done using integral methods, improving the overall health of a human, meaning that it will increase total lifespan also, but since it is working on the general health, it will also by extension increase the useful lifespan, because the health at every point in life will increase, and points which were not useful (healthy) before interventions would become useful. This is not something longevity people just "forget", there is no crusade for a mathematical birth-to-death age increase, these people are not stupid.
Many people believe things that simply aren’t true and you can’t convince them otherwise.
A new generation comes along and challenges entrenched ideas and progress is made.
Perhaps we can grow past this way of thinking?
What does the science say about your thoughts on the subject?
They can sometimes have large effect on the negative side, where if we measure effect in people in poor conditions, where they have severely bad lifestyle choices, due to malnutrition or poisoning for example, or complete lack of vitamin sources, etc. Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot.
If your genes are telling you to live to 70, you will not live to 100, no matter how many cabbages you eat or how many days spend hiking in the woods.
To really increase lifespan beyond that we need actual new technology. There is no rational model in which the effect of good lifestyle choices would be an argument for not pursuing genetic and otherwise interventions to increase real lifespan.
[1] https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-ta...
> Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot.
Depends on your definition of "living", being obese/out of shape and on constant medication for diabetes/heart issues, not being able to do the most basic exercises, &c. isn't life by my standards. I don't care if I die at 40, at least I would have reached my peak physical and mental shape.
To me fighting to increase lifespan is complete non sense, look around, we don't need more time, we just need less work, mindless activities and gadgets. We spend our lives slaving away until we're literally too old to do it anymore to buy shit we don't need. I notice it all the time around me, most people are miserable, they live in the constant hope of a better day by thinking about their next weekend or vacation, some people in their 20s already talk about what they'll do when they retire (at fucking 67 years old). Increasing our lifespan won't do anything meaningful besides putting more strain on the world, both economically and ecologically.
Like most things, it was figured out a long time ago by people who had way way way more time to spend on thinking and less time to spend on mindless information consumption. Take Seneca for example:
> A person like him has not lived; he has merely tarried awhile in life. Nor has he died late in life; he has simply been a long time dying. He has lived eighty years, has he? That depends upon the date from which you reckon his death! ... [He] has lived eighty years, has he? Nay, he has existed eighty years, unless perchance you mean by "he has lived" what we mean when we say that a tree "lives."
> No man can have a peaceful life who thinks too much about lengthening it, or believes that living through many consulships is a great blessing. Rehearse this thought every day, that you may be able to depart from life contentedly; for many men clutch and cling to life, even as those who are carried down a rushing stream clutch and cling to briars and sharp rocks.
> Show me that the good in life does not depend upon life's length, but upon the use we make of it; also, that it is possible, or rather usual, for a man who has lived long to have lived too little.
> We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul.
This is a reasonable thing to do. When there was no practical way to actually extend life (not by 2 years by excercising all the time) - yes, people had to deal with that. These facts were hard to process emotionally, and people needed these reasons and made up stories about the obviously preposterous presupposition that "we don't really want to live longer, that's not what life is about".
Basically those people gave up all hope and made their internal emotional world support that, support them in this hard position.
It was needed.
But I think it is time to let go of that. The times are changing and it looks like we can actually extend the lifespan. Maybe not this year, maybe not even this decade - sure. But soon. Don't let old beliefs stand in the way of progress. It has never worked and only creates unnecessary strain on the people holding those beliefs. The world is moving in that direction and there is little you can do to stop it. And for a good reason. Saying "we don't need/want to live longer" is neither rational nor truthful.
That's a very dangerous thing though. Humans are very good at destroying things, not so much as replacing them with good alternatives. Religion is the prime example, "God is dead", and what do people have left ? Pure individualism, narcissism, egotism, lack of communities, lack of purpose; these are the new building blocks of our societies. And it's very well documented; loneliness epidemic, depression epidemic, people literally dying of sins, gluttony, sloth, ...
What good is it to live longer if it's still in the same degenerate ways ? Work more ? Consume more ? If you can't live a fulfilling life in ~80 years you won't do better with 120. The analogy of a kid always wanting more, no matter the consequences, really holds up.
Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.
> What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily? For we are mistaken when we look forward to death; the major portion of death has already passed. Whatever years lie behind us are in death's hands.
If you don't have answers to those questions for yourself, it sounds like you don't have a working spirituality in your system.. In that case yes, it is easy to think "why live longer", because the underlying question for such a person is really "why live at all?".
This is certainly an important problem in the west and a lot of work is being done on it, but it is not directly related to the longevity research, they are different areas. The problem in that case is not longevity or health, it is the spiritual questions. Earlier, religions were answering those questions for many people. Today, many of them struggle yes. But it has nothing to do with longevity. Guiding any choices in the technological advancements and increasing physical human life quality because someone does not see the point in everything is not very wise at least, because by extension that argument would work for any other technological advancement we are doing. Why make new computers? Why make electric cars? Why fight pollution? Why go to the moon? "Why solve the world hunger, those people will just start consuming and working mindlessly, there is no point, etc.".
To me personally I have tons of answers for those questions, and it's not consumption or "work"(whatever people mean by that).
In any case I wish for everyone to find their own spirituality of course, which might be a religion (buddhism for example is doing just fine, just as it has been for many more thousands of years than even christianity), or some more modern way of acquiring spirituality like modern spiritual teachers, retreats, meditation, psychedelic experiences, asketism, some philosophies, etc. Those things do not exist for no reason, they are exactly the west's more effective answers to obsolete religions. They serve the same purpose. But this is not a question of the longevity field, why mix up the two?
> Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.
Again, no shit. But if you can enjoy 1 year, you will enjoy the 100 years so much more as well. This argument goes both ways.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20093668
For some reason, we converge on the same few observations, most of which have nothing to do with actually increasing the human lifespan.
I am wondering if there is more to it than eating healthily, what about times of occasional fasting? Some of the real old timers did go through wartime rationing or worse. For years we had 100+ year old Japanese people taking the honours for oldest and always put that down to a diet of fish.
But all of them lived through WW2 with the whole place firebombed into starvation. So they had a healthy diet plus this period where they must have had their bodies purge every bit of useless fat and strange mystery growth in their middle age.
Other parts of the world have had the starvation or the healthy eating but not in the combination that happened in Japan.
We generally have some exercise based regime to get rid of middle age spread. It does not work in most cases. So a spare tyre generally gets carried around for the rest of one's life, increasing the metabolic load and requiring more work from the vital organs. The radical option for getting rid of the spare tyre is to have the discipline of an athlete and to practically starve until the target weight is arrived at. In this deeper detox I am sure that one's relationship with bad foods can be reset too.
Kind of tangential: the human-style characters in Iain M Banks' fantastic and thoughtful Culture series of novels tend to come to this decision after a couple or a few hundred years. Some times they go into deep sleep to be awoken based on some external criteria (for example, when the war that they conduct with another ~~species~~ (edit: society) is proven to be morally justified).
It's very rare to find a healthy person - even in their '90s or '100s - who actually wants to die. Many more younger people imagine they would want to die at such an age. I suspect the same will be true for 200 or 400 year olds.
It's an unusual one because I'm specifically thinking about people who might want to die simply because they've seen and gotten from life all that they want, not people who are fed up with the (present-day) privations of old age. I suspect you're right that only a very small proportion of today's elderly match this
The closest thing I found after a little looking around is a recent initiative in the Netherlands called "Completed Life" - which seeks to extend the option of euthanasia to relatively healthy elderly people who have decided that their life is complete - and some associated research [0][1].
Lastly, on a slightly pedantic note, I think it's valid to invoke fictional worlds in response to someone who says that it's "insane" to feel a certain way.
[0] http://www.elsvanwijngaarden.com/
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361...
There could be some chicken vs egg factor (do they lose the will from health being hopeless or does their health decline with their psychological state influencing immune system, and to what extent?). That or spurious human pattern recognition (superstition) but it is possible that there is some literal survivalship bias.
I think before that should have come the question whether a person who is only invested in their own life, and not interested in the tapestry or river of life, for lack of a better word, could be considered emotionally healthy?
Yes, I want to see and experience life, my own and that of others, but I'd rather die at some point, and know other life will exist, than live forever and squat on it. We can't be forever young, that is, some things will never be new to us again. Yeah, life is still fun, but not as fun as it could be for someone else. To me, that matters.
from https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/20935/...
> Arendt argues that human action is contained within the notion of plurality as the most basic condition of human life, which in turn rests on her concept of 'natality'. In an almost poetical way she writes in this same essay how the world is constantly being refilled by strangers, outsiders and newcomers who act and react in an unforeseeable manner, in ways that cannot be calculated or predicated by those already familiar and stationed there, who will eventually leave and be replaced by others. The very fact that we come into the world through natural birth shows that the world is continuously being transformed and renewed through birth. Thus, 'natality' highlights this emphasis on the capacity of new beginnings with each and every birth.
I'd say natality more than makes up for mortality, while immortality removes natality, and doesn't even begin to cover the loss.
I'd rather there is something beautiful I miss out on, than something mediocre I get to experience, doubly so if it's made mediocre by my insisting on experiencing everything that goes on. And on top of that, there is the mediocrity of the lens through which we experience things, our own mediocrity, that also should not be increased lightly. New life makes life, the universe and everything better, it just happens to not extend my own life to infinity. But I can't have it both ways, not in an intellectualy and morally honest way, they way I see it. If everybody was truly immortal, as we are now, and for the reasons we want it, everybody will start to suck super badly real quick, and they'll suck too much to even notice it. The majestic and ever fresh river of life would turn into a petty, stinky puddle. Or I could wish for immortality myself, and mortality for everyone else -- but what would that make me, and what about friendship and love?
I mean, that's the binary "immortality" option. I'm not against medicine, or people living longer. But if someone genuinely wants to live forever forever, I really would question how much they thought it through.
But why should it be?
If we're talking SF, we might as well agree on a method to handle that, e.g. force people to go off-planet at some age and make room for new people. The universe is big enough.
(I meant to write a novella on this for a long time :)
> But why should it be?
That's the default, considering we live on a finite planet with finite resources, and even without immortality on the expensive of others is already quite the thing. I'd say the burden is on showing how that could change, not to mention why it absolutely must and will change... rather than just assuming it.
> we're talking SF
I'm "just" talking immortality, that I take for granted in this context, not additional things. At the least, those additional things can't just go one way, just because assuming immortality is assuming something hitherto impossible, doesn't warrant assuming other impossible things, while dismissing other possibilities, both possible and hitherto impossible, just because they'd spoil the parade.
Why would some live at the expense of others, or prevent others being born? Well, having "eternity" to lose, one must not let anything unpredictable happen, one certainly must not let anyone have the ability to harm oneself. The universe is too big to let anyone just get away and potentially hatch unpredictability. That is certainly a way to look at it, and it only takes a few with enough power to have that outlook for my dystopia to occur -- while your utopia would require nobody with power going that route, everybody always agreeing on "playing nice".
We can't even agree on a way so people don't starve and die for lack of water, we can't exactly agree to not ruin the planet, potentially leading to catastrophic shifts in rather short timespans, we already live at the expense of those who might be born after us -- but we're going to handle immortality well, if only we had it? We're greedy and murderous about shitty trivialities, about trinkets -- but we'll play nice when it comes to something like living forever? Seems unlikely, certainly not a given.
The possiblity of immortality combined with the fact of ongoing concentration of wealth and power, plus automation, might lead to a rapid depopulation of the planet indeed, but not by moving anyone anywhere. Why keep people around that are nothing but a potential threat, that serve no use, that are not even an exploitable resource, because they take up more space and resources than means of production requiring no workers that are orders of magnitude more powerful, and after some point plain unnecessary either way? After people "have everything", not by being content and loving life and the world, but by owning it personally, what they still need is for nothing else to be able to rise up.
(I also meant to write a short story once, about a little girl who skipped the weekly dose of the government mandated antidote for the biological weapon terrorists supposedly unleashed, say, 150 years ago, because she wonders if it's even true that not taking it is lethal, since nobody she knows ever failed to take it even once. She manages to hide the pain and the skin discolorations that appear after a few days, finally staying up all night the last night gritting her teeth before the day the next weekly dose is given out, sneaking into the bathroom early to wash off her sweat, before her mother wakes her. It was supposed to begin with her vowing to never do that again, then starting to ask questions about the past, but I never got beyond that.)
The immortality is not a thing you take and then have to kill others to not allow them to take it from you.
The only way to not die is to have a huge society that invents new treatments, discovers new physics, builds machines to prevent death from random comets, from earth's magnetic field running out, or sun exploding. The mere 7 billion we have now is not enough for any of this.
I obviously don't have the experience of living an "overextended" life, but I'd imagine that it would depend at least partially on whether longevity extends to the people around you. Seeing the people you knew and love die is brutal, living that through several generations might get you to a point where you don't want to keep experiencing it anymore.
In such a scenario, you're going to see some people you knew and love die, but usually because of things like accidents, not old age, so it'll be entirely random, unlike now where elderly people have to watch all their friends die off around them, something they didn't experience that much in their younger years.
I'll never give you the power to decide how long I should live. I'll only grant you the leeway that you should be able to defend yourself, such that others trying to die should not be capable of taking you with them.
That's what this is really about. You're afraid of their fearlessness encroaching on your clingy desire to reside in your meatbag for as long as possible. (not an entirely pejorative sentiment, but let's call a spade a spade)
You sound like you think you reside somewhere other than your "meatbag" when you die? Of course if that was true we wouldn't be nearly this uppity about the whole death thing.
Every individual that has ever uttered the words "upload my consciousness" doesn't even deserve the label, quack. Rube is more like it. With brain emulation, we'll likely encounter a degree of technological snakeoil to rival the "invigorating elixirs" of the nineteenth century.
No, I don't buy the idea that human sentience is compatible with wired circuits that carry electric currents, or even photon-bearing fiber optics. Not even from the "Ship Of Theseus" perspective.
My point is that death is essentially the big dreamless sleep, maybe with a magical time travel journey across geologic timescales to a future beyond the next supernova, when one might wake up in another part of the universe, beneath a different sun.
I mean, really, who knows why any of us have disgorged our progeny beneath this one?
Of course choosing to die is anyone's right and it is bad that most countries still ban euthanasia, but often people want to die not by choice but because of illness or some kind of misunderstanding, and helping them is a good thing. I don't think that by "psychological care" OP meant "forcibly putting people into ward" which could justify your reply.
Once again, downvoted for holding a Controversial Opinion that the hive mind doesn't like.
But even assuming the kills us all part is correct, dying now is worse prospect than dying in 30 years so i don't see how that can be an argument for psychological unsoundness.
> Once again, downvoted for holding a Controversial Opinion that the hive mind doesn't like.
I did not downvote you, but i don't think you were downvoted for holding a "Controversial Opinion", unfortunately many people hold opinion similar to yours, you were downvoted because calling some people crazy without giving any explanation why you do it.
There are plenty of comments in this thread that agree with you, that are doing fine. It’s not your argument, which to be honest is not particularly unpopular or unconventional.
It is at root very moralistic and judgemental.
[1] https://www.sens.org/