> The results revealed that Jonathan has “unique gene variants in most aging pathways” including DNA repair, insulin regulation, mitochondrial function, and “low entropy” methylation, reports the study.
My supplement company has a product, PeptiShell Vital Peak, that has been selling in volume to a mystery buyer for the past few months. Things that make you go hmmm.
He still has quite a ways to go to 1485715964481761497309522733620825737885569961284688766942216863704985393094065876545992131370884059645617234469978112000000000000000000000. :-)
They did opt to swab his mouth rather than draw blood to minimize his discomfort. That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise for the value of learning and science
Then short of living in a war ravaged country, or somewhere that is poverty stricken with malnutrition, you are living one of the least desirable forms of human life.
As a person that absolutely loves hundred plus degree weather and is constantly outdoors I’ll take 20 years of a hot, sunny life over 500 years of that.
This is the oldest land animal currently living and whose age is known with certainty.
It is believed that other tortoises may have lived close to 300 years.
The greater age reached by animals living in an environment that is cold and with a constant temperature and which need a much lower average power for living (i.e. a lower energy consumption and a slower metabolism) is very much expected.
You think it's cringe because it was created by Trump (Musk wasn't involved, not sure where you got that).
The Space Force's role was previously split across military branches with overlapping budgets and poor communication. And since space duties weren't the primary focus of any of those branches, they weren't taken seriously and career tracks within them were stunted, making it hard to attract talent.
Hate Trump all you want, but if your analysis stops at "cringe", consider that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
Life extension is a popular area of focus and investment in the current crowd of powerful folks. They obviously don’t want it for everyone, musk even talks about how destabilizing it will be for broadly available life extension. See altered carbon dystopian life extension vision
The struggles for limited resources among humans marooned in a finite ecosystem will not allow us to defy death. When natural causes no longer reduce our numbers sufficiently, we will be winnowed through an unceasing epidemic of violence. So long as there are births, there will be deaths.
If you thought the dementia dystopia brought about by modern medicine's gradual reduction of quick death was grim, just wait until medicine solves natural death entirely.
Tortoises who give up their secrets to humans won't survive the cataclysm.
No point staying alive if you're not healthy. This is a great podcast about the difference between lifespan and healthspan: "To start our new series about what it means to live in a world of ageing populations, David talks to geneticist Adam Rutherford about the benefits and pitfalls of increasing longevity. Are GLP-1s – drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro – miracle cures that will extend human lifespans? What happens if longer lives do not coincide with better health? How far can life extension be pushed? And who wants to live forever anyway?" https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/an-ageing-world-lifespan-v...
Maybe not for you, but others would beg to differ?
Darwin apparently had debilitating illnesses at 72 (one year before his death) when he published a book on earthworms and their role in forming soil. And Pasteur was apparently paralyzed at 63 when he developed the rabies vaccine. Etc.
Should they have just kicked the bucket when they lost their health, because of the pointlessness of living past that?
A bit more charitable read on the GP is that people should focus on having as many healthy days as possible rather than as many total days as possible.
That doesn't mean those already I'll should just give up, it means those looking to their future should consider whether living 20 more healthy years is better than living 40 more years if 30 of those are increasingly focused on just treating symptoms to wake up tomorrow.
That's an uncharitable reading of what I mean, but I suppose I could have been clearer. Perhaps "no point staying alive if you're so unhealthy that you're perpetually miserable" would be closer to what I meant, particularly having seen a number of elderly relatives living through their last years in unrelenting misery, impatient for death. One in particular sticks with me, an uncle who had been a doctor and knew exactly what was coming because he'd seen plenty of it in his career, but without the means to end it in a dignified way. These people absolutely didn't want to be kept alive longer - which is the point of the distinction between lifespan and healthspan in the podcast.
My paternal grandfather starved himself death because of health issues. My paternal grandmother died in agony from colorectal cancer. My maternal grandfather faded away and died not recognizing most of his children. My maternal grandmother was trapped in a noisy ICU where she couldn't sleep until her heart finally failed.
The hair one is a fascinating one to me... We have some many examples of people like Bezos, Jobs, Ballmer, Brin, Slim... I mean, if the ultra rich have not figured it out, I don't think there much hope for anyone else really... haha of they can pull a Musk, but that's not the point, the point is to reverse balding...
nah, but I mean, the guy went trough the same instant pipeline as Steven Seagal where he was definitely all thin in Above the Law and a film later his hairline had won the battle. Come on!
It's not what you meant but toupees have gotten really good, the only problem is you can't be a public figure and have pattern baldness one day and a full head of hair the next. There's actually something called "the toupee fallacy" which means assuming an entire category of something is bad based on only noticing bad examples.
I Think You Should Leave had a sketch that's a fake ad for bald men who have been wearing toupees and want to stop but don't want to show up to work one day bal, making everyone think they've been lying to them. So the service is they send you a new toupee every week, each one balder than the last over the span of 52 weeks, so you can look like you're progressively going bald.
I'm not usually into cringe humor, but IMHO "I Think You Should Leave" is its own category. Episodes like Hat and Hot Dog Car ... I almost hurt myself laughing.
Laser hair removal only works if there's contrast between the skin and the hair. So if you have white or blonde hair and white skin, it doesn't work; or if you have brown skin and brown hair, it also doesn't work.
For cases where laser hair removal won't work, there's electrolysis, which involves inserting an acupuncture needle in each and every hair follicle, but it's expensive, slow, and can be pretty painful.
When you have laser hair removal, the laser flash pumps a ton of energy into the hair follicle which essentially roasts the shit out of the hair follicle so it dies, usually it will re-product hair at some point but very thin, wispy white hair if any at all.
You need to shave your hair for laser hair removal since you don't want a long melting chunk of hair on your body that will cause serious burns. Hair dye will not color the root base of the hair meaning that heat energy will not travel down to the base as well and probably just destroy the pigment dye instead of the hair itself.
Laser tech is definitely improving on that front! I've done laser hair removal off and on for a while, and the clinic I go to recently got a new laser to replace their old unit that kept breaking down (hence some of those "off" periods)... and this new model is legitimately almost painless. The old one zapped me pretty bad in certain areas, so it's not like I'm immune to laser pain, but in those same areas I never felt more than a tiny snap/pinch from the new one.
The technician also mentioned that this new model works on a wider array of skin tones--if I remember correctly, I think she said that it works all the way up to a Fitzpatrick 6, as long as the hair itself has melanin (still no way to target white/light hairs).
Not everything is about the economy. Even when you have a market-driven economy I'd say most things that people value aren't even represented by the economy.
It's both, though. Yes, the Earth can support more humans with a lifestyle closer to that of the West in the 19th century than with a lifestyle closer to the the West in the 21st, but even in the 19th (and earlier) deforestation and the like were happening. And it's just reality that as societies prosper they use more resources per person. 50 years ago the vast majority of Chinese didn't use cars but walked and and bicycled. Now they are quite car dependent.
I'm not sure that's an easy argument to hold up. Where would you draw the line on lifestyle that can and should reasonably change?
We've populated large portions of the planet that we really have no business living in without climate controlled indoor environments. HVAC is also a huge energy suck with all the externalities that come along with it. If we were to really want to cut energy use, for example, and climate control had to go we almost certainly couldn't continue to sustain as many people as we have today.
Yep, totally agree on the observations and concerns. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't expect major changes in lifestyle until its too late and we're forced with no other choice.
Yes, people at a much smaller scale figured out how to make it work and through many generations both adapted physically to the environment and found clever ways to work with the environment.
I can't imagine Canada or Europe could support their current population sizes without HVAC, or refrigeration, or pesticides and herbicides.
The list goes on, but in my opinion and understanding there is too strong of a correlation to ignore between those types of modern inventions and population growth.
If they keep it up, their population will remain stable up to the 22nd century. There will be no further noticeable ageing and thus no threat to anyone's retirement.
Decline fails to uphold the prevailing world economic ideology. That's the real problem with population decline the way I see it. We will need to adjust in ways that don't support the idea of "unlimited growth".
Just imagine how many more grandpa and great grandpas will be around for you to shout this at.
The problem with the population isn't (yet? only?) the absolute number of individuals but the age distribution. Most societies rely on young people to support themselves and the old, and this only works if there's a good balance between the numbers of each. Living longer isn't guaranteed to offer a longer productive period. We might just end up with more old people in need of support and not necessarily more children. This is already a major problem today in most developed countries.
This will happen no earlier than the 2080s. The world population is expected to increase every year until then. We will add nearly 2 billion people in that time. Consider that the entire world population was less than 1 billion for all but the last 221 years.
141 comments
[ 13.9 ms ] story [ 232 ms ] threadmin-maxing longevity vs speed and charisma
Wait till he gets his hands on turtle semen and peptides
He still has quite a ways to go to 1485715964481761497309522733620825737885569961284688766942216863704985393094065876545992131370884059645617234469978112000000000000000000000. :-)
Somehow, I wish we would leave that creature alone. For once.
https://partyshopmaine.com/alaska/is-alcohol-illegal-in-dead...
(And apologies for the slop, that was the first reasonable link I found.)
It is believed that other tortoises may have lived close to 300 years.
The greater age reached by animals living in an environment that is cold and with a constant temperature and which need a much lower average power for living (i.e. a lower energy consumption and a slower metabolism) is very much expected.
...why space force?
The Space Force's role was previously split across military branches with overlapping budgets and poor communication. And since space duties weren't the primary focus of any of those branches, they weren't taken seriously and career tracks within them were stunted, making it hard to attract talent.
Hate Trump all you want, but if your analysis stops at "cringe", consider that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
Shouldn’t they find a younger researcher?
Me and a couple hunters
Like to row in from the Isle of
Astonishing M*erf*ers
But then so is half the US Senate.
The struggles for limited resources among humans marooned in a finite ecosystem will not allow us to defy death. When natural causes no longer reduce our numbers sufficiently, we will be winnowed through an unceasing epidemic of violence. So long as there are births, there will be deaths.
If you thought the dementia dystopia brought about by modern medicine's gradual reduction of quick death was grim, just wait until medicine solves natural death entirely.
Tortoises who give up their secrets to humans won't survive the cataclysm.
Maybe not for you, but others would beg to differ?
Darwin apparently had debilitating illnesses at 72 (one year before his death) when he published a book on earthworms and their role in forming soil. And Pasteur was apparently paralyzed at 63 when he developed the rabies vaccine. Etc.
Should they have just kicked the bucket when they lost their health, because of the pointlessness of living past that?
That doesn't mean those already I'll should just give up, it means those looking to their future should consider whether living 20 more healthy years is better than living 40 more years if 30 of those are increasingly focused on just treating symptoms to wake up tomorrow.
We can all come up with shitty anecdotes.
Canada has medical assistance in dying now that lets people avoid this.
(writing that just gave me mini goosebumps)
How much such hairline can cost, $10?
If I’m going bald, then I’d love to shortcut the process.
Shaving is awful no matter where it is on your body. It takes time, it’s irritating and you never look fresh for more than a day.
For cases where laser hair removal won't work, there's electrolysis, which involves inserting an acupuncture needle in each and every hair follicle, but it's expensive, slow, and can be pretty painful.
You need to shave your hair for laser hair removal since you don't want a long melting chunk of hair on your body that will cause serious burns. Hair dye will not color the root base of the hair meaning that heat energy will not travel down to the base as well and probably just destroy the pigment dye instead of the hair itself.
The technician also mentioned that this new model works on a wider array of skin tones--if I remember correctly, I think she said that it works all the way up to a Fitzpatrick 6, as long as the hair itself has melanin (still no way to target white/light hairs).
We've populated large portions of the planet that we really have no business living in without climate controlled indoor environments. HVAC is also a huge energy suck with all the externalities that come along with it. If we were to really want to cut energy use, for example, and climate control had to go we almost certainly couldn't continue to sustain as many people as we have today.
Think of the aboriginals and nomads roaming the deserts and the inuit in the icy north. All before hvac.
And hvac isn't really as much of an energy problem as heating is. Because when hvac is needed it is during a time of abundance of sunlight.
I can't imagine Canada or Europe could support their current population sizes without HVAC, or refrigeration, or pesticides and herbicides.
The list goes on, but in my opinion and understanding there is too strong of a correlation to ignore between those types of modern inventions and population growth.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/france/2026/
If they keep it up, their population will remain stable up to the 22nd century. There will be no further noticeable ageing and thus no threat to anyone's retirement.
Just imagine how many more grandpa and great grandpas will be around for you to shout this at.
The problem with the population isn't (yet? only?) the absolute number of individuals but the age distribution. Most societies rely on young people to support themselves and the old, and this only works if there's a good balance between the numbers of each. Living longer isn't guaranteed to offer a longer productive period. We might just end up with more old people in need of support and not necessarily more children. This is already a major problem today in most developed countries.
This will happen no earlier than the 2080s. The world population is expected to increase every year until then. We will add nearly 2 billion people in that time. Consider that the entire world population was less than 1 billion for all but the last 221 years.
I continue to not worry.
[I am being sarcastic here, XD]