3 ms·

80 is the new 60 basically. Tangent: people think life extension will magically materialize with some singularity type event, but in reality it's a slow creepi

by api 13y ago

80 is the new 60 basically. Tangent: people think life extension will magically materialize with some singularity type event, but in reality it's a slow creeping thing. The single most powerful life extension technology ever developed is the cardiac bypass, for example.

rsaarelm 13y ago
We've gotten good interventions for a lot of things that will kill you that aren't old age. But if you've already managed to live to 90, your further life expectancy might not be much better today than it would have been in Ancient Greece. See http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt-built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/ http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-w... for how bad things get when you age. Some kind of medical intervention that targeted the actual senescence mechanism instead of just the other problems it causes would be an actual game-changer, and I don't see how we could get living past 100 to be very probable without coming up with one.
gohrt 13y ago
> The single most powerful life extension technology ever developed is the cardiac bypass, for example. How do you mean that? http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/a-cardiac-conundrum http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/a-cardiac-conundrum > Angioplasty can save the lives of heart-attack patients. But for patients with stable coronary disease, who comprise a large share of angioplasty patients? It has not been shown to extend life expectancy by a day
- Groxx 13y ago
  They state "save the lives of heart-attack patients". That (partially) supports the statement, since saving a life is definitely increasing their lifespan. The rest of the quote is stating the inverse though, that not all angioplasty recipients live longer (converse? meh, you know what I mean). And that it might be over-proscribed. Neither of those have anything to do with it's ability to prolong life in other cases.

by api 13y ago

rsaarelm 13y ago

We've gotten good interventions for a lot of things that will kill you that aren't old age. But if you've already managed to live to 90, your further life expectancy might not be much better today than it would have been in Ancient Greece. See http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt-built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/ http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-w... for how bad things get when you age. Some kind of medical intervention that targeted the actual senescence mechanism instead of just the other problems it causes would be an actual game-changer, and I don't see how we could get living past 100 to be very probable without coming up with one.

gohrt 13y ago

> The single most powerful life extension technology ever developed is the cardiac bypass, for example. How do you mean that? http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/a-cardiac-conundrum http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/a-cardiac-conundrum > Angioplasty can save the lives of heart-attack patients. But for patients with stable coronary disease, who comprise a large share of angioplasty patients? It has not been shown to extend life expectancy by a day

Groxx 13y ago
They state "save the lives of heart-attack patients". That (partially) supports the statement, since saving a life is definitely increasing their lifespan. The rest of the quote is stating the inverse though, that not all angioplasty recipients live longer (converse? meh, you know what I mean). And that it might be over-proscribed. Neither of those have anything to do with it's ability to prolong life in other cases.