8 ms·
We've had exactly one confirmed 120+ in human history, and 90% of 110+ are women, so as a man, I don't think my odds are good at reaching 120, unless radical li
by time_management 18y ago
We've had exactly one confirmed 120+ in human history, and 90% of 110+ are women, so as a man, I don't think my odds are good at reaching 120, unless radical life extension becomes a reality. (I voted for 80-100, for what it's worth.)
My feeling is that it's all-or-nothing. I see the human life expectancy either plateauing around 90, or shooting off into the stratosphere. The reason for this is that most of the current life expectancy gains come from death reduction, which has occurred across the board in recent decades. But a 50% across-the-board death-rate reduction only buys 8 years, because that's the rate at which a person's mortality doubles. Meaningful life extension requires slowing the aging process itself, and I feel like if that can be done through technological means to any meaningful extent (20% slowdown, meaning that mortality would double every 10 years, or more) it can be stopped and reversed, in which case life expectancy goes to 800+.
I'm 25, and expect to have a normal-ish lifespan around 90, but I think the first 500-year-old will have been born before I die.
- vaksel 18y agoWell the immortality thing might not be that far fetched: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/08/11/2331197.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/08/11/2331197.ht...
- time_management 18y agoI saw that. It was an interesting article. I agree that halting aging is not far-fetched. (Immortality, on the other hand, I consider impossible.) However, success in slowing aging is going to come down to success at slowing the failure of the weakest or most fragile part.
- vaksel 18y agowell yeah immortality is not really viable, economically. Even if they had it, they wouldn't release it, if they did Earth would get overpopulated in 50-80 years leading to a crisis. Gas shortage and food shortage all over the place Need to get spaceships and space stations first before we can expand the earth population.
- time_management 18y agoI disagree. Keeping people alive longer without slowing aging would be economically costly, but a cure for aging would be a huge economic boon. Right now, it's a huge cost center for our economy, both in terms of medical expenses for those far down the road, and also the loss of experienced people. I think the economic benefits would offset the population pressure.
- helveticaman 18y agoWell, if we can't distribute food to everyone, why would we be able to distribute quasi-immortality that easily?
- HeyLaughingBoy 18y agoWho's "they?" If you had it, would you release it? There is no "they:" they is us!