6 ms·

Senescence is one of the prices of having evolved rather than having been specially created. It's surprising that we don't work harder on fixing this. 10x what

by thras 17y ago

Senescence is one of the prices of having evolved rather than having been specially created. It's surprising that we don't work harder on fixing this. 10x what we're spending on AIDS might be a good place for a start. Imagine what humanity could accomplish if the standard life-span was just 200 instead of 70. Imagine what you personally could accomplish.

m_eiman 17y ago
Would humanity really be better off by having individuals living longer? I can see the personal benefits of course, but younger individuals are less set in their ways and thus more likely to come up with the outside the box kind of solutions to problems that we need to solve. Plus, they're more likely to accept the world as it is now instead of moaning about how much better everything was fifty years ago... (I think there's some kind of statistic or history tracking that has shown that in the mind of society, everything has always been better fifty years ago. I recall reading something about how the young are only interested in partying and fighting - written by a monk two hundred years or so ago).
- thras 17y ago
  A counter-opinion about generational perspective: http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2008/08/strange-mirage.html http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2008/08/strange-mirage.htm... Choosing limited lifespan to achieve a particular political balance strikes me as a truly bizarre approach. As far as science...just take care that smart people have as many kids as they ever do, and we'll be okay.
  - abalashov 17y ago
    It is interesting for me to note -- as a purely anecdotal personal observation that is no way supported by any scientific or quantitative evidence from a credible source whatsoever: The people that I consider the most intelligent and/or smart in various general and specific ways also seem to be the most given to not want children (and some go so far as to get operations that effect this biologically). Many others further down the distribution of "smart people" are inclined to have fewer children, and have them later. In other words, in my personal life experience there is a very strong inverse correlation between the intelligence of people and the amount of children they have or will tend to have, and that's assuming they have children at all. The intelligent folks I have met seem to be the only group where a total rejection of childbearing exists to a statistically non-negligible degree, to put it mildly. No, not politically correct at all, and, perhaps unsupported by bodies of evidence other than my own (mis?)perceptions. But I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed this.
    - ajdecon 17y ago
      I've heard this argument before, and while there might be something to it, I think it's more specific to say that ambitious people tend to have fewer children. This makes sense purely in terms of time commitment: the more time is devoted to raising children, the less will be devoted to one's startup, research, political ambitions, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that more intelligent people will have fewer children, as it's more of a question of prioritization than of ability. It does probably imply a weak correlation (smarter people tend to like to use those smarts), but there are certainly many intelligent people out there who value their children more than they value their personal ambitions. (While this is certainly not a given... consider your parents!)
    - thras 17y ago
      Graduate education is the most effective form of contraception. This is a wildly different situation than existed even 100-200 years ago. Gregory Clark has some historical data on the industrial revolution, if you're interested.
- kiba 17y ago
  Old men will be young men more prone to partying and risky deeds. This will be especially true when all their children grows up.
- DougWebb 17y ago
  Today's "younger individuals" who are less set in their ways used to be the old folks, back when life spans were much shorter. I think if life spans extended to 200, someone in their 50s would be considered to be at their peak of productivity, optimism, and creativity, because they haven't yet been saddled down with the need to provide stability for their family. Risk and reaching for the gold ring is a young man's game, afterall. A 50 year old today can't take much risk because they don't have much time to recover. A 50 year old who can expect to live to 200 can take greater risks, because there's plenty of time to recover.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    If we do triple our life expectancy, it's probably best if we do what you're implying and delay the time before we have kids by the same amount of time. Otherwise we'll have to get used to having eight generations living at the same time instead of the three we have now - and that'll mean that we more or less triple the population. We're apparently struggling to feed six billion now, which problably means that we'd need to get rather creative to feed eighteen billion.
- jerf 17y ago
  This entire argument is predicated on the false assumption that you know what being young and healthy for 200 years will be like. We don't. We don't know if old people are "stuck in their ways" because it is an intrinsic part of being old, or if it is because their brain is becoming physically less flexible, and subsequently they rationalize the ways they first learned. It's also predicated on the assumption that it's actually bad for long-lived people to get a little stuck in their ways. This may not be true either; society is unstable, in the physics sense of the term, what with the constant influx of new naive people. Adding some more "momentum" into the system may be safer and better. Again, I'm not saying this is true or false, only that the casual assumption of the truth is unjustified. Having 120-year-old youth will be a genuinely new phenomenon, and nobody knows what that means. Preventing such technologies from being used or developed (or even arguing against it) based on such terrible arguments would be a terrible thing to do.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    Since we don't know what being "young" and healthy for 200 years is like, the assumption isn't false. I'd prefer to call it unverified. I never said that it's bad to be stuck in your ways: what I said (or tried to say) was that not being stuck in your ways makes it easier for you to come up with novel solutions to problems. Having a certain amount of momentum in society is definately a good thing, but having too much of it means that society will respond too slowly to a changing environment. In my opinion, our current momentum doesn't make us too volatile. That's just my opinion, though, but that might just be a reflection of me being fairly young.
    - jerf 17y ago
      "In my opinion, our current momentum doesn't make us too volatile. That's just my opinion, though, but that might just be a reflection of me being fairly young." I'm only 30 myself, which definitely moves me out of the flush of 18-24 but hardly qualifies me as an old fart. I sometimes think that going a bit slower could be helpful to society, but the truth is that we don't have forever to dilly-dally where we are. If we're going to win the sustainability race with the high-technology solution [1], we need to get there before the resources run out. [1] http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2417 http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2417
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  Would humanity really be better off by having individuals living longer? How does it make sense to talk about how 'well off' humanity is outside the context of living people?
manifold 17y ago
It's important not to overlook the role that disease still plays in old age. Engineering a standard lifetime of 200 years without improving the current morbidity rates would be an enormous drain on society.
- thras 17y ago
  Yes. I don't think anybody would wish for another 130 years tacked on to their lifespan if it were all spent in a nursing home. But, due to the nature of the problem, that sort of thing is unlikely. Fixing old age will necessarily involve making us healthier.
tokenadult 17y ago
Imagine what humanity could accomplish if the standard life-span was just 200 instead of 70. We might find that we can't accomplish much, as older, more set-in-their-ways voters choke off support for innovation in favor of being supported in their old age. (We could give the United States as a partial example of a country where this is already national policy.) Note that I am not grinding axes for young people here--I am probably already more than half-way through my lifespan, and definitely a good bit older than most HN participants.
- ks 17y ago
  If we have the technology to live that long, the quality of life will probably be higher. There might not be a difference between a 150 year old and a 50 year old. The need for special treatment for older people may not be an issue at all.
calcnerd256 17y ago
Well, if we were specially created, Gen 6:3 would explain Senescence. No need for you to jab at fundie hackers when it's not what your comment is actually about.

by thras 17y ago

m_eiman 17y ago

Would humanity really be better off by having individuals living longer? I can see the personal benefits of course, but younger individuals are less set in their ways and thus more likely to come up with the outside the box kind of solutions to problems that we need to solve. Plus, they're more likely to accept the world as it is now instead of moaning about how much better everything was fifty years ago... (I think there's some kind of statistic or history tracking that has shown that in the mind of society, everything has always been better fifty years ago. I recall reading something about how the young are only interested in partying and fighting - written by a monk two hundred years or so ago).

thras 17y ago
A counter-opinion about generational perspective: http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2008/08/strange-mirage.html http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2008/08/strange-mirage.htm... Choosing limited lifespan to achieve a particular political balance strikes me as a truly bizarre approach. As far as science...just take care that smart people have as many kids as they ever do, and we'll be okay.
- abalashov 17y ago
  It is interesting for me to note -- as a purely anecdotal personal observation that is no way supported by any scientific or quantitative evidence from a credible source whatsoever: The people that I consider the most intelligent and/or smart in various general and specific ways also seem to be the most given to not want children (and some go so far as to get operations that effect this biologically). Many others further down the distribution of "smart people" are inclined to have fewer children, and have them later. In other words, in my personal life experience there is a very strong inverse correlation between the intelligence of people and the amount of children they have or will tend to have, and that's assuming they have children at all. The intelligent folks I have met seem to be the only group where a total rejection of childbearing exists to a statistically non-negligible degree, to put it mildly. No, not politically correct at all, and, perhaps unsupported by bodies of evidence other than my own (mis?)perceptions. But I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed this.
  - ajdecon 17y ago
    I've heard this argument before, and while there might be something to it, I think it's more specific to say that ambitious people tend to have fewer children. This makes sense purely in terms of time commitment: the more time is devoted to raising children, the less will be devoted to one's startup, research, political ambitions, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that more intelligent people will have fewer children, as it's more of a question of prioritization than of ability. It does probably imply a weak correlation (smarter people tend to like to use those smarts), but there are certainly many intelligent people out there who value their children more than they value their personal ambitions. (While this is certainly not a given... consider your parents!)
  - thras 17y ago
    Graduate education is the most effective form of contraception. This is a wildly different situation than existed even 100-200 years ago. Gregory Clark has some historical data on the industrial revolution, if you're interested.
kiba 17y ago
Old men will be young men more prone to partying and risky deeds. This will be especially true when all their children grows up.
DougWebb 17y ago
Today's "younger individuals" who are less set in their ways used to be the old folks, back when life spans were much shorter. I think if life spans extended to 200, someone in their 50s would be considered to be at their peak of productivity, optimism, and creativity, because they haven't yet been saddled down with the need to provide stability for their family. Risk and reaching for the gold ring is a young man's game, afterall. A 50 year old today can't take much risk because they don't have much time to recover. A 50 year old who can expect to live to 200 can take greater risks, because there's plenty of time to recover.
- m_eiman 17y ago
  If we do triple our life expectancy, it's probably best if we do what you're implying and delay the time before we have kids by the same amount of time. Otherwise we'll have to get used to having eight generations living at the same time instead of the three we have now - and that'll mean that we more or less triple the population. We're apparently struggling to feed six billion now, which problably means that we'd need to get rather creative to feed eighteen billion.
jerf 17y ago
This entire argument is predicated on the false assumption that you know what being young and healthy for 200 years will be like. We don't. We don't know if old people are "stuck in their ways" because it is an intrinsic part of being old, or if it is because their brain is becoming physically less flexible, and subsequently they rationalize the ways they first learned. It's also predicated on the assumption that it's actually bad for long-lived people to get a little stuck in their ways. This may not be true either; society is unstable, in the physics sense of the term, what with the constant influx of new naive people. Adding some more "momentum" into the system may be safer and better. Again, I'm not saying this is true or false, only that the casual assumption of the truth is unjustified. Having 120-year-old youth will be a genuinely new phenomenon, and nobody knows what that means. Preventing such technologies from being used or developed (or even arguing against it) based on such terrible arguments would be a terrible thing to do.
- m_eiman 17y ago
  Since we don't know what being "young" and healthy for 200 years is like, the assumption isn't false. I'd prefer to call it unverified. I never said that it's bad to be stuck in your ways: what I said (or tried to say) was that not being stuck in your ways makes it easier for you to come up with novel solutions to problems. Having a certain amount of momentum in society is definately a good thing, but having too much of it means that society will respond too slowly to a changing environment. In my opinion, our current momentum doesn't make us too volatile. That's just my opinion, though, but that might just be a reflection of me being fairly young.
  - jerf 17y ago
    "In my opinion, our current momentum doesn't make us too volatile. That's just my opinion, though, but that might just be a reflection of me being fairly young." I'm only 30 myself, which definitely moves me out of the flush of 18-24 but hardly qualifies me as an old fart. I sometimes think that going a bit slower could be helpful to society, but the truth is that we don't have forever to dilly-dally where we are. If we're going to win the sustainability race with the high-technology solution [1], we need to get there before the resources run out. [1] http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2417 http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2417
jodrellblank 17y ago
Would humanity really be better off by having individuals living longer? How does it make sense to talk about how 'well off' humanity is outside the context of living people?

manifold 17y ago

It's important not to overlook the role that disease still plays in old age. Engineering a standard lifetime of 200 years without improving the current morbidity rates would be an enormous drain on society.

thras 17y ago
Yes. I don't think anybody would wish for another 130 years tacked on to their lifespan if it were all spent in a nursing home. But, due to the nature of the problem, that sort of thing is unlikely. Fixing old age will necessarily involve making us healthier.

tokenadult 17y ago

Imagine what humanity could accomplish if the standard life-span was just 200 instead of 70. We might find that we can't accomplish much, as older, more set-in-their-ways voters choke off support for innovation in favor of being supported in their old age. (We could give the United States as a partial example of a country where this is already national policy.) Note that I am not grinding axes for young people here--I am probably already more than half-way through my lifespan, and definitely a good bit older than most HN participants.

ks 17y ago
If we have the technology to live that long, the quality of life will probably be higher. There might not be a difference between a 150 year old and a 50 year old. The need for special treatment for older people may not be an issue at all.

calcnerd256 17y ago

Well, if we were specially created, Gen 6:3 would explain Senescence. No need for you to jab at fundie hackers when it's not what your comment is actually about.