3 ms·

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 talkin

by 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.

by TimPC 3y ago

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.