4 ms·

Now make the same argument about proteins and other nutrients in general. Like, 'The idea that the human body has the formula for living 99% right and it just

by Teever 3y ago

Now make the same argument about proteins and other nutrients in general. Like, 'The idea that the human body has the formula for living 99% right and it just 'forgot' to make enough of protein X...' and if we just eat enough, often enough... Our bodies weren't designed to work in this environment. They just came to work well enough in an environment like this. That means that there are issues with them, and that they eventually fail. That doesn't mean that we can't overcome these issues like we have overcome others with the use of technology. Anti-aging is like any other technology that we use. It modifies us or our environment for a desired purpose. Is any technology flawless? No. Have they revolutionized our lives and made how the average human lives almost inconceivable to humans from 100kya? Totally. Are we on the cusp of technological developments that will make how we live further unrecognizable. Totally. IVG, artificial wombs, anti-aging/age-reversal, lab grown organs, automatic limb generation (like a salemander). Are all coming and will irrevocably change the human condition. And some of these things are coming in the next decade. Maybe you're right, and we can't have an infinite life span, but I bet we could double life/healthspan, and I think that is coming very soon.

TimPC 3y ago
Double lifespan sounds like a nightmare if we don't dramatically change all of society first. I don't think it's possible to make that work unless we're talking about raising a retirement age to something like 130. In that case you better be actually be roughly halving aging so that a person can still work at 130, not adding a bunch of low quality years to life.
- Teever 3y ago
  It would be great if we could hit the pause button and 'fix' society exactly the way we want it, but that isn't how it works, so we'll have to roll with the technological innovations and adapt society as they come.
- tenpies 3y ago
  > Double lifespan sounds like a nightmare if we don't dramatically change all of society first. See I'm not worried because odds are this won't be a simple intervention. It won't be "take this pill daily to 2X your lifespan". It will likely be an incredible effort that takes constant discipline and daily commitment. And most people simply are incapable or unwilling to do that. I expect only fraction of a percent to maybe do the work necessary, and even then, it will come at a huge personal expense.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  There's a simple recipe for ultra-long life that's guaranteed to work, and would work via the traditional mechanisms of evolution: progressively raise the childbearing age for a group of people over many generations. Start by only allowing childbirth at age 30 or so, then every few generations you raise it more. It would take time, but eventually you could have people living for centuries. It would have the advantage that society would slowly and naturally adapt to it as longevity increased.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Good luck with your eugenics project. Society rejected the notion quite a while ago.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Aside from the eugenics nature of it, this is an experiment we're gradually trying naturally. High-SES people are having children at later ages and are mostly having children with each other. If there's selection effects to be reaped, we'll witness them. But I suspect we won't, because not enough people die before these later childbearing ages to affect things much. Neither do a great enough fraction die before said later children reach adulthood, and high-SES children have prospects of reproducing affected less by loss of a parent, anyways.
    - mullingitover 3y ago
      Note that I'm not saying it should be done, just that this is how evolution can accomplish it. It should go without saying that breeding humans like cattle is wildly unethical.
  - thereticent 3y ago
    Good luck "only allowing" a common result of sex under a certain age but well above sexual maturity. Somehow I have my doubts about implementation.
wpietri 3y ago
Do you have any evidence for your imaginations of how people lived in the past? My understanding is that a healthy old age in the past was rarer, but that we've not really changed the limits, just improved the median experience. See, e.g.: https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-n... > Are we on the cusp of technological developments that will make how we live further unrecognizable. Totally. I too like science fiction. But we've been "on the cusp of" a lot of those things for quite a long time. I think that's more indicative of what people who are afraid of death want than a cold-eyed analysis of current tech and rates of progress.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > My understanding is that a healthy old age in the past was rarer, but that we've not really changed the limits, just improved the median experience. Even if your premise is true: there's still a whole lot of room to improve the median experience. And I don't think it's really true, but it's hard to say exactly. Part of the reason why we have people make it to 110 now versus that not happening a couple centuries ago is that we have more people and thus more rolls of the dice, but it's not the entire reason. > But we've been "on the cusp of" a lot of those things for quite a long time. I haven't felt like we've been very close. But now, I think we have a reasonable chance of a couple therapies that each buy few years of QALY for the entire population in the next 30 years, and when you look 50 years out maybe you even stack several of these things.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    There's room to improve the median experience, sure. Maybe not a whole lot, though. And I'm not sure people making it to 110 is positive; I'm interested in actually living, not a couple decades of being warehoused. > I haven't felt like we've been very close. I'm not saying you personally felt like that. I'm saying that that the "sci fi things are just around the corner" routine is perennial. AGI and robots and flying cars have been coming soon for longer than most people have been alive. I also note that "couple therapies that each buy a few years" is a major retreat from the point I was actually adressing which was life made unrecognizable by salamander limbs, etc.

by Teever 3y ago

TimPC 3y ago

Double lifespan sounds like a nightmare if we don't dramatically change all of society first. I don't think it's possible to make that work unless we're talking about raising a retirement age to something like 130. In that case you better be actually be roughly halving aging so that a person can still work at 130, not adding a bunch of low quality years to life.

Teever 3y ago
It would be great if we could hit the pause button and 'fix' society exactly the way we want it, but that isn't how it works, so we'll have to roll with the technological innovations and adapt society as they come.
tenpies 3y ago
> Double lifespan sounds like a nightmare if we don't dramatically change all of society first. See I'm not worried because odds are this won't be a simple intervention. It won't be "take this pill daily to 2X your lifespan". It will likely be an incredible effort that takes constant discipline and daily commitment. And most people simply are incapable or unwilling to do that. I expect only fraction of a percent to maybe do the work necessary, and even then, it will come at a huge personal expense.
mullingitover 3y ago
There's a simple recipe for ultra-long life that's guaranteed to work, and would work via the traditional mechanisms of evolution: progressively raise the childbearing age for a group of people over many generations. Start by only allowing childbirth at age 30 or so, then every few generations you raise it more. It would take time, but eventually you could have people living for centuries. It would have the advantage that society would slowly and naturally adapt to it as longevity increased.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Good luck with your eugenics project. Society rejected the notion quite a while ago.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Aside from the eugenics nature of it, this is an experiment we're gradually trying naturally. High-SES people are having children at later ages and are mostly having children with each other. If there's selection effects to be reaped, we'll witness them. But I suspect we won't, because not enough people die before these later childbearing ages to affect things much. Neither do a great enough fraction die before said later children reach adulthood, and high-SES children have prospects of reproducing affected less by loss of a parent, anyways.
  - mullingitover 3y ago
    Note that I'm not saying it should be done, just that this is how evolution can accomplish it. It should go without saying that breeding humans like cattle is wildly unethical.
- thereticent 3y ago
  Good luck "only allowing" a common result of sex under a certain age but well above sexual maturity. Somehow I have my doubts about implementation.

wpietri 3y ago

Do you have any evidence for your imaginations of how people lived in the past? My understanding is that a healthy old age in the past was rarer, but that we've not really changed the limits, just improved the median experience. See, e.g.: https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-n... > Are we on the cusp of technological developments that will make how we live further unrecognizable. Totally. I too like science fiction. But we've been "on the cusp of" a lot of those things for quite a long time. I think that's more indicative of what people who are afraid of death want than a cold-eyed analysis of current tech and rates of progress.

mlyle 3y ago
> My understanding is that a healthy old age in the past was rarer, but that we've not really changed the limits, just improved the median experience. Even if your premise is true: there's still a whole lot of room to improve the median experience. And I don't think it's really true, but it's hard to say exactly. Part of the reason why we have people make it to 110 now versus that not happening a couple centuries ago is that we have more people and thus more rolls of the dice, but it's not the entire reason. > But we've been "on the cusp of" a lot of those things for quite a long time. I haven't felt like we've been very close. But now, I think we have a reasonable chance of a couple therapies that each buy few years of QALY for the entire population in the next 30 years, and when you look 50 years out maybe you even stack several of these things.
- wpietri 3y ago
  There's room to improve the median experience, sure. Maybe not a whole lot, though. And I'm not sure people making it to 110 is positive; I'm interested in actually living, not a couple decades of being warehoused. > I haven't felt like we've been very close. I'm not saying you personally felt like that. I'm saying that that the "sci fi things are just around the corner" routine is perennial. AGI and robots and flying cars have been coming soon for longer than most people have been alive. I also note that "couple therapies that each buy a few years" is a major retreat from the point I was actually adressing which was life made unrecognizable by salamander limbs, etc.