5 ms·

It's a pretty big, and terrifying, mindset change to go from "death from old age is natural and to be accepted" to "death from old age is preventable and tragic

by vanusa 5y ago

It's a pretty big, and terrifying, mindset change to go from "death from old age is natural and to be accepted" to "death from old age is preventable and tragic." But arguably it is natural because .. it's what our organisms are designed to do. That is, we're not "designed" (I mean by evolution, of course) to have lifespans beyond 100 or so years. We're specifically optimized to have about two or three decades as healthy, independent adults (from age 20 to about 40-50) which are devoted either to (1) raising children or (2) contributing to the welfare of the species or tribe as a whole. That is -- we're specifically designed and optimized to promote the longevity of the group, not the individual. In fact, individual longevity is explicitly sacrificed in favor of group longevity. That's just how we're built. And that's what's why longevity research is (apart from all the unknowns) fundamentally different from, say, finding research for cancer or AIDS. The latter group are unequivocal dysfunctional states ("preventable and tragic" if you will), and the basic goal of the research for these cases is to return the organism to it's correct, functional state. But aging (with its inevitable end state), on the other hand... is the organism's "correct, functional" state. So to find a categorical "remedy" for aging (beyond extending its horizon for a decade or two) is not to merely find the right "correction" for a certain set of dysfunctional states... but to alter the organism's functional nature entirely. That's why it is categorically a completely different beast of problem than, say, finding a treatment for AIDS. It may also be "terrifying" to our poor psyches strapped into these inevitably self-destructing organisms -- but to the collective goal of our DNA (that is, to promote the group over the individual -- it is also entirely moot.

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
I think you're ignoring the "to be accepted" part of the text you quoted. Just because something is what we were "designed" for or how we lived prehistorically doesn't make it right or desirable (nor the opposite--in this case fighting aging--wrong or undesirable).
- vanusa 5y ago
  You're right I am, basically. I offer no insight as to whether the finiteness of our lifespans is "right" or "desirable". And I certainly am not saying that fighting aging is wrong or undesirable. Just that there's a structural reason as to why our organisms are built the way they are -- and a pretty deep structural reason at that.
b112 5y ago
You'd be saying the precise same thing if our natural span was 30 years, or 200. That is, you're using our current state, to explain why our current state exists.
- vanusa 5y ago
  You'd be saying the precise same thing if our natural span was 30 years, or 200. Well, yeah. That is, you're using our current state, to explain why our current state exists. Woah there, that's a big misread of what I was saying. I'm not using the "state" (the number X of years that is the currently observed natural lifespan) to "explain" the value X. But rather the intrinsic design and function of the system as a whole. There's a huge difference there.
  - ak217 5y ago
    There is nothing "correct", "intrinsic", or "functional" about aging. That's conflating evolution with lack thereof. We evolved to sustain a reproductive cycle and propagate ourselves. That evolutionary optimization has no direct bearing on the specifics of how we age. What we know about aging so far indicates that it's an accidental byproduct of many side effects of the functions of our systems, including the hormonal system that governs puberty, the immune system, the metabolic system, and the higher order DNA management systems (epigenetic programming and replication). None of those side effects are in any known way selected for by evolution, and most of them seem to be tunable to achieve far more durability or regenerative capacity out of our bodies than we are currently used to. Multicellular aging is a collection of random side effects that vary between species - there are many animal species that are effectively immortal.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      Please see my response to the sibling comment, in which I attempt to respond to both of these critiques at once.
  - b112 5y ago
    My point is, you are inside the system, using values from the system, to explain the system. If humans lived 200 years, but went infertile at 50, you'd be explaining how the system was designed to entice grandparents to care for grandkid's babies, because they were infertile and couldn't have their own, and because it would improve their genetic bloodline's chances. I still feel much of your reasoning was using what is, to explain why is, because what is.
helloworld11 5y ago
>from age 20 to about 40-50 Really? Just that range? Not sure about your own family history but the vast majority of 50+ and 60+ year olds I know are quite healthy, vital and fully independent, perhaps more so and especially more independent than many people in their 30s and 40s even due to greater accumulated assets and self care. There are many exceptions of course but most people in developed places seem to live quite well and independently into their 70's even these days.
- vanusa 5y ago
  I just mean that "societal contribution" (that is, towards group fitness) peaks in the age window, on average. After age 50 or so many of us may be living perfectly well, but by and large, we're coasting (or at least slowing down).
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Agree. I'm in my mid 50s; I figure anything more than another 15 years or so is a gift. That doesn't sound like a lot of time in retrospect; thinking about 2006 does not seem like very long ago to me. So there's a growing sense of there not being a lot of time left, and a stronger desire to spend it on simple things that give me satisfaction rather than building more software that will be obsolete before it's really even finished or learning new technologies that will be "legacy" by the time I can really be productive with them. At the same time I have zero interest in longevity. I will live the life I've been granted, for as long as it lasts. Then I'll get out of the way.

by vanusa 5y ago

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago

I think you're ignoring the "to be accepted" part of the text you quoted. Just because something is what we were "designed" for or how we lived prehistorically doesn't make it right or desirable (nor the opposite--in this case fighting aging--wrong or undesirable).

vanusa 5y ago
You're right I am, basically. I offer no insight as to whether the finiteness of our lifespans is "right" or "desirable". And I certainly am not saying that fighting aging is wrong or undesirable. Just that there's a structural reason as to why our organisms are built the way they are -- and a pretty deep structural reason at that.

b112 5y ago

You'd be saying the precise same thing if our natural span was 30 years, or 200. That is, you're using our current state, to explain why our current state exists.

vanusa 5y ago
You'd be saying the precise same thing if our natural span was 30 years, or 200. Well, yeah. That is, you're using our current state, to explain why our current state exists. Woah there, that's a big misread of what I was saying. I'm not using the "state" (the number X of years that is the currently observed natural lifespan) to "explain" the value X. But rather the intrinsic design and function of the system as a whole. There's a huge difference there.
- ak217 5y ago
  There is nothing "correct", "intrinsic", or "functional" about aging. That's conflating evolution with lack thereof. We evolved to sustain a reproductive cycle and propagate ourselves. That evolutionary optimization has no direct bearing on the specifics of how we age. What we know about aging so far indicates that it's an accidental byproduct of many side effects of the functions of our systems, including the hormonal system that governs puberty, the immune system, the metabolic system, and the higher order DNA management systems (epigenetic programming and replication). None of those side effects are in any known way selected for by evolution, and most of them seem to be tunable to achieve far more durability or regenerative capacity out of our bodies than we are currently used to. Multicellular aging is a collection of random side effects that vary between species - there are many animal species that are effectively immortal.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Please see my response to the sibling comment, in which I attempt to respond to both of these critiques at once.
- b112 5y ago
  My point is, you are inside the system, using values from the system, to explain the system. If humans lived 200 years, but went infertile at 50, you'd be explaining how the system was designed to entice grandparents to care for grandkid's babies, because they were infertile and couldn't have their own, and because it would improve their genetic bloodline's chances. I still feel much of your reasoning was using what is, to explain why is, because what is.

helloworld11 5y ago

>from age 20 to about 40-50 Really? Just that range? Not sure about your own family history but the vast majority of 50+ and 60+ year olds I know are quite healthy, vital and fully independent, perhaps more so and especially more independent than many people in their 30s and 40s even due to greater accumulated assets and self care. There are many exceptions of course but most people in developed places seem to live quite well and independently into their 70's even these days.

vanusa 5y ago
I just mean that "societal contribution" (that is, towards group fitness) peaks in the age window, on average. After age 50 or so many of us may be living perfectly well, but by and large, we're coasting (or at least slowing down).
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Agree. I'm in my mid 50s; I figure anything more than another 15 years or so is a gift. That doesn't sound like a lot of time in retrospect; thinking about 2006 does not seem like very long ago to me. So there's a growing sense of there not being a lot of time left, and a stronger desire to spend it on simple things that give me satisfaction rather than building more software that will be obsolete before it's really even finished or learning new technologies that will be "legacy" by the time I can really be productive with them. At the same time I have zero interest in longevity. I will live the life I've been granted, for as long as it lasts. Then I'll get out of the way.