4 ms·

> My pet peeve is when people start saying life-extension is around the corner. But life extension is already here! We used to be quite old by 65, now you have

by Swizec 3y ago

> My pet peeve is when people start saying life-extension is around the corner. But life extension is already here! We used to be quite old by 65, now you have people completing iron mans in their 80's. One of the biggest looming economic threats is that everyone is old and there aren't enough young'uns. That sure sounds like we're dying a lot later than we used to. Data says we've gone from 5-20% of the population over 65yo in the 1950's to 15-75% in 2023. 36% of americans are older than 65, that's a lot. https://ageingshift.economist.com/ https://ageingshift.economist.com/

suslik 3y ago
I suspect OP means life extension through directly targeting the nmolecular mechanisms of aging - "Howarth's clock", telomerases, transcription factors etc.
- rnk 3y ago
  David Sinclair has entered the chat.
  - seer 3y ago
    Not sure the satire at play here? Is it because he gets mentioned a lot when people refer to outdated science about aging, or that he himself is quite active in the media?
  - suslik 3y ago
    Not really, I am not a big enthusiast of all that stuff to put it mildly - just saying that’s what prople usually mean by life extension these days.
somenameforme 3y ago
The primary reason populations are getting older is due to lower fertility rates. A fertility rate of "N" results in a generational ratio of 1 person of the current (older) generation to (N/2) of the next (younger) generation. So a fertility rate of 2 means the current (older) generation will be exactly the same size as the subsequent (younger) generation. But if we assume a fertility rate of 1, which is the direction most developed countries are headed, then each successive (younger) generation will be half as large as the (older) one before. This means society will be disproportionately composed of the ever-more elderly, with socioeconomic chaos, or Logan's Run, soon to follow. This would, counterintuitively, be true even if life expectancy was low. If we all died at 50 you'd just end up with a society with a larger and larger chunk of your population around 50 years old, until eventually there was no population left at all. And, vice versa, a fertility rate of e.g. 6 (as is the case in some places in Africa), means that each successive (younger) generation will be 3x as large as the previous (older) one. So you will always have extremely low mean and median ages in this context, again regardless of whether life expectancy was high or low.
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> now you have people completing iron mans in their 80's. > One of the biggest looming economic threats is that everyone is old and there aren't enough young'uns. If you can complete an iron man, you are also suitable for work.

by Swizec 3y ago

suslik 3y ago

I suspect OP means life extension through directly targeting the nmolecular mechanisms of aging - "Howarth's clock", telomerases, transcription factors etc.

rnk 3y ago
David Sinclair has entered the chat.
- seer 3y ago
  Not sure the satire at play here? Is it because he gets mentioned a lot when people refer to outdated science about aging, or that he himself is quite active in the media?
- suslik 3y ago
  Not really, I am not a big enthusiast of all that stuff to put it mildly - just saying that’s what prople usually mean by life extension these days.

somenameforme 3y ago

The primary reason populations are getting older is due to lower fertility rates. A fertility rate of "N" results in a generational ratio of 1 person of the current (older) generation to (N/2) of the next (younger) generation. So a fertility rate of 2 means the current (older) generation will be exactly the same size as the subsequent (younger) generation. But if we assume a fertility rate of 1, which is the direction most developed countries are headed, then each successive (younger) generation will be half as large as the (older) one before. This means society will be disproportionately composed of the ever-more elderly, with socioeconomic chaos, or Logan's Run, soon to follow. This would, counterintuitively, be true even if life expectancy was low. If we all died at 50 you'd just end up with a society with a larger and larger chunk of your population around 50 years old, until eventually there was no population left at all. And, vice versa, a fertility rate of e.g. 6 (as is the case in some places in Africa), means that each successive (younger) generation will be 3x as large as the previous (older) one. So you will always have extremely low mean and median ages in this context, again regardless of whether life expectancy was high or low.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> now you have people completing iron mans in their 80's. > One of the biggest looming economic threats is that everyone is old and there aren't enough young'uns. If you can complete an iron man, you are also suitable for work.