10 ms·
I’d love this to be incorporated into 23andme and the like. Would change one’s approach to retirement and savings if you knew how long you needed money for…
by azinman2 6y ago
I’d love this to be incorporated into 23andme and the like. Would change one’s approach to retirement and savings if you knew how long you needed money for…
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- grishka 6y agoAs someone 99% confident that we're on the verge of discovering a way of reversing aging, it makes me incredibly sad, almost angry, to realize that many people are literally planning how they'll die.
- SvenMarquardt 6y agoIf we can reverse ageing, your entire life will be spent planning how to avoid existential risks. When you can live forever even crossing the road becomes too risky.
- ben_w 6y agoNot necessarily, because people do plenty of risky activities today which shorten their life expectancies.
- crimson_chin 6y agoIs that new? Humans have always planned how they die, and how it will affect those around them. Isn't that the point of a will, for instance?
- grishka 6y agoIdk, I just don't understand the meaning of a life that has an end, and thus "leaving something behind" makes no sense to me. Why leave something behind if the moment a person dies the entire universe ceases to exist for them?
- pizza 6y agoThere are things worse than dying, similarly, there are things that are better than what can be experienced
- jlokier 6y agoIt makes sense if you believe other people exist in a meaningful way similar to your own conscious existence. When you die, the universe doesn't cease to exist for them. So you are not leaving things behind for your own benefit. It's for other people. Conversely, if you believe the universe ceases to exist entirely when you die, you believe other people cease to exist too. In this case, perhaps the only consistent way to think of other people is that they are not like you when you are alive either. From a more down to Earth perspective, if I left the planet on a one-way interstellar FTL journey, confident I would never return and that there was no way to communicate with the people I left behind, even though it would be a relief in some ways and I'd stop caring about people left behind, I'd still want to arrange good things for some of them after my departure. Because I'm nice like that.
- grishka 6y ago> From a more down to Earth perspective, if I left the planet on a one-way interstellar FTL journey, confident I would never return and that there was no way to communicate with the people I left behind, even though it would be a relief in some ways and I'd stop caring about people left behind, I'd still want to arrange good things for some of them after my departure. Because I'm nice like that. Well, you can't be so sure you'll never see them again and you'll never be able to communicate with them, because of scientific advances and such. The only truly irreversible thing that could happen to a human being is death itself. Everything else being reversible (or eventually reversible) is the nice part about being alive.
- spiderice 6y agoMay I ask why you are so confident? Sounds very sci-fi, though I’d love for it to be true.
- schnebbau 6y agoDo you have sources or reading material to substantiate your confidence? I'm interested in this area.
- grishka 6y ago1. https://old.reddit.com/r/longevity/ https://old.reddit.com/r/longevity/ 2. https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com (be sure to follow the links to research papers and read the comments) 3. I also made a playlist with videos and lectures on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLvA7pB41pDk27XOjqbXi4sSvPfLOu1zW https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLvA7pB41pDk27XOjqbXi...
- fighterpilot 6y agoImagine the misfortune of being 80 years old when humanity finally figured out how to do this.
- grishka 6y agoNo, imagine the fortune because you'll now have your body reverted to a younger age.
- fighterpilot 6y agoTouche. If it's possible do you know why evolution didn't figure out how to do this? Seems like it would be a good adaptation
- grishka 6y agoThis one is easy. First of all, evolution only cares about the species as a whole, so the survival of an individual, especially after they've produced their offspring, doesn't matter much. Second, in the wild, animals will be killed by predators much more quickly than they'd die of old age, so all the mutations that only manifest negatively in older age have never had a chance to be selected against. Besides, the whole premise of evolution is that older generations die. (disclaimer: I'm a software developer, not a biologist, but I'm fascinated by biology)
- anotha1 6y agoWhat makes you so sure? Personally, that bubble burst for me a long time ago. I hope I'm wrong. I'd love a new insight or even any tips that might give me more of a chance to see that discovery.
- xwdv 6y agoWe are going to die and never come back, 100%.
- jtchang 6y agoThe societal ramifications of a large number of people living past 100 would be unprecedented.
- bspammer 6y agoThey certainly will be, but not necessarily for the worse. Imagine oil billionaires having to live through the consequences of their actions. Imagine the societal benefits of people being able to use their decades of valuable experience for much longer, rather than having it die with them. I do believe it’s going to happen, but personally I’m more pessimistic than GP and don’t think it’ll be within my lifetime. Medical research is so tightly regulated when it comes to testing on humans (for good reason!), and there isn’t enough money going into the field.
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago> Imagine oil billionaires having to live through the consequences of their actions. They won’t be. They’ll be billionaires, able to buy any scarce resource they need to continue their lifestyle. They might need to cut back on their monthly yacht purchase, maybe, but little else.
- grishka 6y agoThat's one way to look at it. Another is that this is the endgame for medicine as there is no other path forward. A huge amount of resources, both human and monetary, is spent to care for elderly people to slow the decline of their fragile health as much as possible — while still inevitably failing eventually. It's as if we've almost hit the ceiling of what can be done here with "traditional" methods. So it's the next logical step to declare aging itself a disease, because it's ultimately the cause of all those conditions, and start looking for the ways to reverse and/or prevent it.
- ben_w 6y agoI can say that about dozens of technologies that already exist, and several others besides a mere 18 year boost to average life expectancy that are actively being worked on.
- hellotomyrars 6y agoEven if we discover the secret to everlasting life there are going to be plenty of people who would like to die eventually. Also if I’m 90 and in poor health the idea of living forever doesn’t sound very appealing in general. I think your premise is incredibly ambitious but even if it’s true the vast majority of people aren’t going to get access to the veritable fountain of youth anyways, at least not for a very long time because society will have to fundamentally change both to accommodate the idea and also to allow your average person to have the means to obtain it.
- true_religion 6y agoIf you are 90 and in poor health, it's likely because you are dying albeit slowly. The technology for everlasting life will likely reverse or halt the breakdown of basic bodily functions due to 'old age' and may rejuvenate organs who are simply suffering from maintenance issues. So in the end, a cure for death is also a cure for myriad amount of ailments.
- hellotomyrars 6y agoMaybe. This is speculation on speculation. It certainly makes a lot more sense for people to plan their lives around our current understanding of mortality than an increasingly hard to believe pyramid of hypotheticals as the GP has contended.
- adrianN 6y agoThe speculation is very convincing, it goes like this: 1) Senescence is a collection of symptoms caused by incomplete repair mechanisms allowing damage to build up, 2) some level of damage has very little ill effects (e.g. the amount you've collected on your 25th birthday), and 3) there are interventions that stop the accumulation of damage or even reverse it. I believe currently only 3) is a bit controversial, but since there are biologically immortal organisms I find it plausible that it's possible.
- lamontcg 6y ago> So in the end, a cure for death is also a cure for myriad amount of ailments. Not if you're an amputee. There's a certain amount of damage to the body that isn't due to just aging.
- balfirevic 6y agoIf you had to bet, what would you say is the percentage of people that are currently planning how to die but are doing so in vain?
- donio 6y agoHow foolish. May you live forever is how I would curse my worst enemies.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y agoCurse me then.
- grishka 6y agoSo how do I become your enemy? :D
- angelbar 6y agoCoud we be platonic enemies, please?
- neonological 6y agoHow is it logical to know living forever is bad when you there isn't a single person on the face of the earth who has done so? This is not a rational statement or philosophy. It is simply speculation as we have no evidence whether this is good or bad unless we talk to someone who has experienced it. Fundamentally speaking... no one has experienced this so we have no evidence FOR or against it. Additionally "living forever" isn't invulnerable immortality where you are doomed to float around alive in the solar system long after the sun has inflated and pulverized the earth as a red giant... You'll still die well before that. You can also always choose when to kill yourself, whenever. Logically any form of "living forever" described as a scientific possibility is actually more of a "you can choose when you die" or a "you can live much longer than normal"
- donio 6y agoIf you are asking to live as long as you desire, I am all for that! But the comment I was replying to was ridiculing the idea of planning for the eventual end of one's existence so presumably they want to live literally forever. And that's a very long time. For arguments sake imagine that your consciousness is transferred into a simulation that runs at a highly accelerated rate so you can experience a very long existence. The custodian of the simulation is benevolent, it tries to keep you happy, lets you shape the world in whatever way you want but the one hard rule is that you are not allowed to end. You will probably have an awesome time for the first few hundred years. So many fun experiences you could only dream of before. You can explore the stars, turn the world into paradise, come up with new forms of art that no one has imagined. After a few thousand years things might start getting a bit samey but you will still find new things to do. But how about after a few million years? Or billion? It might start getting pretty boring. You have done all the fun things countless times and all the terrible things too just to do something different. But your looooong adventure is only beginning! There is no exit button. Welcome to hell. The scenario is not completely implausible, agreed? I think one of the Iain M Banks novels had something similar going on. I think the custodian there was evil but I am arguing that on the looong run that makes little difference. One might argue that they would transform themselves into something that can tolerate the infinite existence but I call that cheating, such a thing wouldn't really be you anymore. And the custodian might see it that way too.
- tasty_freeze 6y agoA few counter thoughts: * I love peppermint ice cream, but I'd probably get tired of it after a million gallons. * I'm looking forward to retirement in a few years. I don't desire to work for 5000 years. * A thing in infinite supply has little value. Why would another year of life be any different? * Marriages would become limited term contracts, and partners would change every few decades * Unless society figures out a way to address poverty, do you think the billions of impoverished people will want to live forever? * Having children will be limited to a chosen few, probably the wealthiest. * Suicide will have to become socially acceptable when people become Honestly, I think even if the technology is developed, it will be available only to the rich and powerful. They would be willing to prevent the technology from becoming widely available because it would upset the current order and they dare not risk losing their position of privilege.
- grishka 6y agoIt's nice to have an option to not age and die, anyway. We have no idea what the world will be like in a decade, let alone 5000 years. > I love peppermint ice cream, but I'd probably get tired of it after a million gallons. So you'll take a break. Then you'll crave some more. The problem with suicide is that one can't change their mind, because there's no mind any more. > A thing in infinite supply has little value. Why would another year of life be any different? We have effectively unlimited supply of water, yet it has a lot of value to us because a person can't survive without water.
- oblio 6y ago* People don't like changing their minds once they find something that works so we'll have huge chunks of people with moral compasses from hundreds of years ago
- angelbar 6y ago* I love peppermint ice cream, but I'd probably get tired of it after a million gallons. - Who will eat the same food all the time? * I'm looking forward to retirement in a few years. I don't desire to work for 5000 years. -You will encounter a means to not need to "work" * A thing in infinite supply has little value. Why would another year of life be any different? - Statistically you will die of a horrible accident earlier... don worry * Marriages would become limited term contracts, and partners would change every few decades - YES ! * Unless society figures out a way to address poverty, do you think the billions of impoverished people will want to live forever? - with free information everywhere... Who will not get a chance to get a great education on his first 200 years? * Having children will be limited to a chosen few, probably the wealthiest. - ??????? * Suicide will have to become socially acceptable when people become - Again... - Statistically you will die of a horrible accident earlier... don worry
- chias 6y agoI like to imagine that this is what cells think right before they become cancerous.
- lamontcg 6y ago> we're on the verge of discovering a way of reversing aging This happens shortly after Tesla makes the million full self driving robotaxis at the end of 2020?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- robwwilliams 6y agoWe would all be wise to plan along these lines until your 99% sure-thing is proved. I study the genetics of longevity and alas I am gracefully planning to die.
- katzgrau 6y agoMy guess is that everlasting life will just open the door to other problems we didn't consider. Fix one bug, say hello to another.
- bobmaxup 6y agoThere are many different forms of aging. Which one are we on the verge of reversing and how?
- pengaru 6y agoAs someone who is literally the only surviving member of my childhood block's clique of 80s boys, I laugh loudly in your general direction.
- andrewjl 6y agoI'm a strong supporter of this sort of research but our lack of fundamental understanding of most life processes does not inspire confidence we'll crack this puzzle soon. More likely, through use of bioinformatics to customize chronic disease treatments, we'll get another few decades of average life expectancy over the next century.
- jjtheblunt 6y agoWhy would knowing you are great at DNA repair guard against other things befalling and endangering the elderly, and very mundane, like falling and breaking a bone, increasingly hard to heal the older one is, and thus at times a gateway to further injury cascade?
- azinman2 6y agoThere are many ways one can die or be injured. But knowing the likely upper limit of your longevity can change how you approach finances and risk.
- virtue3 6y agoI find it good to remember that genes are like re-used variables that do 100s of things in a giant 1mil lines of code file. Just cuz they identified one gene doesn't mean that it doesn't require other activations as well. Or that expressing that one gene will have that much of an effect. So sure, you could have an idea of the upper limit but definitely not the whole story. Circulating levels of GH/Insulin/IGF and other hormone like chemicals also play a huge factor in longevity as well. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22396862/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22396862/
- londons_explore 6y agoSo far, I suspect such genetic analysis has too much uncertainty to use as individual guidance. Knowing that an average person has say an 85% chance to exceed age 70, but you only have a 68% chance, would you dramatically change your life choices?
- azinman2 6y agoIn this case it’s not about that, but rather if you possess what it takes to hit 100+.
- hellbannedguy 6y agoI look at my dad, and grandfathers deaths, and pray. As to retirement---I just hope jobs that are easy on the body, and don't require much thought are still around in a few years. I figure the only thing that might give me a few more years them is I wasen't a huge smoker. Although, they all had easier financial lives than myself which puts me in the early death catagory?
- o-__-o 6y agoNo one makes it out alive
- andrewjl 6y agoWithout knowing your entire genome (23andme looks at markers and not much else) it's going to be hard to give an accurate answer to that sort of question. And that's aside from non-genetic risks of death that the other commenters have already pointed out.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- robwwilliams 6y agoYes, and genomes only a small but significant part of the longevity puzzle.
- andrewjl 6y agoIndeed, hence the nature vs nurture debate. The environment and how it indirectly interacts with the genome is just as big of a factor.
- ryukafalz 6y ago> I’d love this to be incorporated into 23andme and the like. Watch out - your insurance company would probably love that too, if they can get their hands on the data.
- Scoundreller 6y agoI mean, it would help my government better plan health care resources and where they're needed. "Ok, this region over here is going to have a lot of cancers, build a treatment clinic there".
- robwwilliams 6y agoYou mean like everything governments know about smoking, drug use disorders, poor diet, exposure to environmental toxicants, and how they have used that information with marvelous efficiency? Yep.
- cblconfederate 6y agoI used to get those reports when 23andme started. They are not allowed to give them for 10+ years now. I m not in the US - we have universal healthcare. Disallowing me to have those reports is almost violating my rights
- elliekelly 6y agoI’m not sure if it’s still an option but when 23andme first started getting looked at by regulators and shut off the health reporting they allowed you to download all of your raw data. I wish I could remember the name of it but there was a GitHub repo (I think written in Python?) that you could run against your raw data and it would spit out the health results that 23andme withheld.
- casefields 6y agohttps://www.promethease.com/ https://www.promethease.com/
- 6y ago
- robwwilliams 6y agoI have not read the original paper yet, but I can tell you that longevity is not controlled by any one process. Its complicated. Simple stories are simply wrong. That complexity is amplified by environmental factors and intense gene-by-environmental non-linearities. We have to live with this reality until we die ;-)
- fy20 6y ago> Would change one’s approach to retirement and savings if you knew how long you needed money for… Popular wisdom amongst early retirement groups is you need 25x your annual spending to retire indefinitely. This figure is based on average stock market returns, so as long as you take out less than you earn each year you are golden. Some years it won't do so well, others it'll do better, but overall you should be safe. https://www.madfientist.com/safe-withdrawal-rate/ https://www.madfientist.com/safe-withdrawal-rate/
- vidarh 6y agoYes, but that is based on not knowing how long you'll live, which means you can't risk eating much into your capital. But if you somehow could know exactly how long you'll live, it could be adjusted accordingly, and especially as you get closer. E.g. to take an extreme example: If you know you only have 10 years left, then obviously you could just keep your money as cash to avoid market risks, and spend 10% each of your remaining years. Even if it's not 100% certain, if you were able to get a very precise estimate, there'd be room for a lot better annuity rates on offer for people with a shorter life expectancy.