5 ms·

A growing body of research shows that life gets better as we get older

55 points by softdev12 12y ago

dschiptsov 12y ago
Define "life".
- goodJobWalrus 12y ago
  I think that definition here is: subjective well being.
  - dschiptsov 12y ago
    "Subjective" and "well" are redundant.)
- JarJarHulaHoop 12y ago
  Depends how you want it defined - in the completely objective sense - a "state of existence". In a subjective way, it's whatever you make of it.
- bostik 12y ago
  A sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
  - efng 12y ago
    not true. Currently only about 95% of people who have ever lived have died. We might be the lucky 5%!
    - bostik 12y ago
      I doubt that. The remaining population are all in terminal condition.
- dschiptsov 12y ago
  The point was that such meme-science is good for Cosmopolitan, but not HN. What they are trying to say, that change in hormonal levels will produce different behavioral patterns? Or that weaker and uglier body will form a new set of habits? That changes in the brain will result in less cognitive load. That watching stupid TV because there is no better alternative is what they call "better life"? Come on.
exratione 12y ago
Well, sure. Being older is so absolutely amazing in terms of experience, assurance, wealth, power, confidence, and so forth, that all those similar things can actually for a time outweigh the crumbling of your health and your increasing frailty and pain. But only for a time. It is a measure of how much people are predisposed to accept the status quo that we don't see far more engaged in serious, scientific efforts to apply modern biotechnology to build rejuvenation treatments. Certain death and present pain is more acceptable than effort, uncertainty, and change.
- Retric 12y ago
  People have been looking into 'life extension' for at least 10,000 years. It's a hard problem and despite what snake oil salesman say we are unlikely to make real progress in the next 100 years. PS: Drugs for example are a completely useless approach long term. (Short term gains might be possible though.) Realistically we would need to disassemble someone without killing them or do the equivelent without taking them apart which is probably harder.
  - joelthelion 12y ago
    People had been looking for a cure for infection for at least 10,000 years, and then we came up with antibiotics. Science has progressed amazingly during the past centuries. There is no reason to give up hope.
    - Retric 12y ago
      There where actually a wide range of effective treatments for infections before antibotics. EX: Hunny works as a topical treatment. Dioscorides (c.50 AD) (http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/november/Molan/honey-as-topical-agent.html http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/november/Molan/honey-as-...) The problem is Aging is a single word discribing thousands of individual problems. It's like someone saying they can solve 'network secuirty' with a simple patch. Cancer is a similar issue because what's being discribed is a symptom not a unified underlying breakdown. EX: Cantagious cancer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease On the other hand we have zero effective treatments for aging.
tokenadult 12y ago
Timothy Salthouse is the dean of researchers on cognitive changes over the course of human lifespan.[1] So Hacker News readers who would like to know more about their futures (we already know we are getting older, not younger, as the years go by) would do well to read some of his publications[2] to find out what's inevitable and what's not inevitable as we all age. Most of us can readily count on living a lot more years, as human life expectancy at adult ages (like mine) is steadily increasing around the world. Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[3] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day."[4] An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why"[5] Provides some of the background. Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world.[6] P.S. Some of the specific lifestyle observations and tips in this article are immediately useful for me and other middle-aged people, so the submitted article is well worth a read. [1] http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/lab-members/director/ http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/lab-members/director/ [2] http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/links/publications/ http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/links/publications/ [3] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... [4] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... [5] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... [6] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...
- tomp 12y ago
abandonliberty 12y ago
Many of us also live in countries that favor older generations. http://www.openpop.org/?p=583 http://www.openpop.org/?p=583 > Among the least intergenerationally just countries were the USA, Japan, Italy, Greece and Canada (Vanhuysse 2013: 37). >. . . not reforming current policy patterns would simply mean that a high degree of injustice will be inflicted upon non-elderly citizens.
tcbawo 12y ago
Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but could this effect be explained by survivor bias?
tomcam 12y ago
True! Source: Am old

55 points by softdev12 12y ago

dschiptsov 12y ago

Define "life".

goodJobWalrus 12y ago
I think that definition here is: subjective well being.
- dschiptsov 12y ago
  "Subjective" and "well" are redundant.)
JarJarHulaHoop 12y ago
Depends how you want it defined - in the completely objective sense - a "state of existence". In a subjective way, it's whatever you make of it.
bostik 12y ago
A sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
- efng 12y ago
  not true. Currently only about 95% of people who have ever lived have died. We might be the lucky 5%!
  - bostik 12y ago
    I doubt that. The remaining population are all in terminal condition.
dschiptsov 12y ago
The point was that such meme-science is good for Cosmopolitan, but not HN. What they are trying to say, that change in hormonal levels will produce different behavioral patterns? Or that weaker and uglier body will form a new set of habits? That changes in the brain will result in less cognitive load. That watching stupid TV because there is no better alternative is what they call "better life"? Come on.

exratione 12y ago

Well, sure. Being older is so absolutely amazing in terms of experience, assurance, wealth, power, confidence, and so forth, that all those similar things can actually for a time outweigh the crumbling of your health and your increasing frailty and pain. But only for a time. It is a measure of how much people are predisposed to accept the status quo that we don't see far more engaged in serious, scientific efforts to apply modern biotechnology to build rejuvenation treatments. Certain death and present pain is more acceptable than effort, uncertainty, and change.

Retric 12y ago
People have been looking into 'life extension' for at least 10,000 years. It's a hard problem and despite what snake oil salesman say we are unlikely to make real progress in the next 100 years. PS: Drugs for example are a completely useless approach long term. (Short term gains might be possible though.) Realistically we would need to disassemble someone without killing them or do the equivelent without taking them apart which is probably harder.
- joelthelion 12y ago
  People had been looking for a cure for infection for at least 10,000 years, and then we came up with antibiotics. Science has progressed amazingly during the past centuries. There is no reason to give up hope.
  - Retric 12y ago
    There where actually a wide range of effective treatments for infections before antibotics. EX: Hunny works as a topical treatment. Dioscorides (c.50 AD) (http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/november/Molan/honey-as-topical-agent.html http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/november/Molan/honey-as-...) The problem is Aging is a single word discribing thousands of individual problems. It's like someone saying they can solve 'network secuirty' with a simple patch. Cancer is a similar issue because what's being discribed is a symptom not a unified underlying breakdown. EX: Cantagious cancer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease On the other hand we have zero effective treatments for aging.

tokenadult 12y ago

Timothy Salthouse is the dean of researchers on cognitive changes over the course of human lifespan.[1] So Hacker News readers who would like to know more about their futures (we already know we are getting older, not younger, as the years go by) would do well to read some of his publications[2] to find out what's inevitable and what's not inevitable as we all age. Most of us can readily count on living a lot more years, as human life expectancy at adult ages (like mine) is steadily increasing around the world. Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[3] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day."[4] An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why"[5] Provides some of the background. Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world.[6] P.S. Some of the specific lifestyle observations and tips in this article are immediately useful for me and other middle-aged people, so the submitted article is well worth a read. [1] http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/lab-members/director/ http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/lab-members/director/ [2] http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/links/publications/ http://faculty.virginia.edu/cogage/links/publications/ [3] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... [4] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... [5] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... [6] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...

tomp 12y ago

abandonliberty 12y ago

Many of us also live in countries that favor older generations. http://www.openpop.org/?p=583 http://www.openpop.org/?p=583 > Among the least intergenerationally just countries were the USA, Japan, Italy, Greece and Canada (Vanhuysse 2013: 37). >. . . not reforming current policy patterns would simply mean that a high degree of injustice will be inflicted upon non-elderly citizens.

tcbawo 12y ago

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but could this effect be explained by survivor bias?

tomcam 12y ago

True! Source: Am old