
With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent - headalgorithm
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/20/can-we-live-longer-but-stay-younger
======
kristofferR
So many people think anti-aging science is just about living more years, but
that's missing half the picture.

Anti-aging science is not just about living more years, it's about being able
to live healthy and fulfilling lives both physically and mentally even as you
age. Way too many people are broken by age before they die, to prevent that
would be fantastic.

~~~
coldtea
> _So many people think anti-aging science is just about living more years,
> but that 's missing half the picture. Anti-aging science is not just about
> living more years, it's about being able to live healthy and fulfilling
> lives both physically and mentally even as you age._

Thats's 2/3rds of the picture. The other 1/3rd of "anti-aging" is selling
snake-oil fads to suckers and for people with anxieties to obsess over.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _and for people with anxieties to obsess over_

One man's lack of anxiety is another man's Stockholm syndrome. That in this
day and age, anti-aging research is still considered fringe and frowned upon
by the overarching culture, instead of being one of the top priorities of R&D
worldwide, is _pretty damn shameful_.

~~~
coldtea
> _One man 's lack of anxiety is another man's Stockholm syndrome._

Well, people have escaped kidnappers. None has escaped death, and until this
happens (which very well could happen technically at some point) it's just
anxiety over the inevitable.

~~~
kurthr
Each living person has escaped death one more day... increasing healthy
lifespan is a good thing right?

Why not want to extend it rather than make up reasons for old people to die
that aren't killing them?

------
RichardHeart
In this thread I've seen the overpopulation argument framed as theft. Here are
all the others I've found.

Summary of pro death arguments:

    
    
      Fairness
          Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done this.)
          Better to give money to the poor than science. (family, city, state, nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.)
      Bad for society
          Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
          Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistent)
          Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.)
                Stop having kids
                Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136)
          Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age)
          Old people are expensive (50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your final year. Delay is profitable.) 
          Old people suck.  (death is an inferior cure to robustness.)
      Bad for individual
          You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related)
          You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?)
          You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.)
          Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)
          People will force you to live forever (they aren't able to do this now, why would they begin to be?)
    

Do you think less people make progress faster? What's your target level of
depriving life of existence? How do you plan to keep mankind robust from
extinction events on a single planet? You might just need more people. What do
you think our technology would look like if we had 10x less people for the
last 100 years?

More people make more progress faster. Aren’t you glad your parents didn't
decide the world would be prettier or work better without you in it? If great
minds like Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc., were still alive and
productive today, the world would be a better place. You're literally asking
for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage.
If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from
now and decide then.

Man up, save your family, save yourself.

P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident,
and if the parade of imaginary horrible things comes true, even earlier.

~~~
Nasrudith
Not to mention the other flaw of the "theft" framework or one or the other.
Even if there was a fixed limit we would run against in spite of all
innovations it is more efficient resource wise to build one person for 1000
years than 20 generations that live to 50. Growth and death itself has more
expenses.

------
johnydepp
The most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design &
sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want
the product to remind that they are old.

So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems
like its designed for young generation.

~~~
dTal
Hence, infomercials with ludicrously clumsy (but young) people.

~~~
sylk
Wow that explains a good majority of infomercials to me... Thank you.

------
Shutaru
I've seen this sort of argument many times before, most notably from Francis
Fukuyama. The common thinking on the subject seems to be a deeply inaccurate
decoupling of longevity and health.

Yes, we fear death, but we also fear the image of ourselves spending the final
years of our lives bedridden and in pain. What we don't seem to understand is
that patients in such poor health don't survive very long (despite the
inevitable anecdotes about relatives who survived far too long in feeble
condition, more a matter of perception than fact).

In other words, unhealthy people tend to have poor longevity.

~~~
maxxxxx
Especially with dementia you can live a very long time. I have watched this
with my dad now for more than 10 years and he may outlive my mom even though
his mental capacity is not there anymore.

------
BuildTheRobots
Anyone interested in the idea of living longer (without the detrimental
effects of aging) should check out any Aubrey De Grey talk/video/interview.

~~~
ggambetta
I'm _extremely_ interested in the topic (as I get older but happen to like
living). However some people seem to think De Grey is a bit of a crackpot?

~~~
Beltiras
Well, we've had some wonderful crackpots through the ages. Tesla comes to
mind.

Whatever you think about his idea of escape velocity you can't doubt the
engineering approach he advocates makes sense. Solve these 7 problems [1] and
there will be no reason the organism should die.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types_of_aging_damage)

~~~
nudpiedo
I can doubt of the engineering approach he advocates, because I am aware that
people like me is completely an outsider in this branch of science and I
cannot differentiate a charlatan from an actual scientist.

You could fool a person ignorant enough in a speciality with statements such
as:

\- To fly we just need a way to defeat gravity.

\- To resurrect a body we just need to insufflate the soul back to the body.

\- To make a head transplant we just need to reconnect the nerves and wait the
meat to glue.

\- An artificial intelligence will solve our company's problem.

This ver same person could be highly skilled or smart in other aspects. The
more technical or scientific we sound the more a subject will give authority
to the charlatan.

I ignore if these statements made by this person are overall valid, if the
list is exhaust and if the things there are additional factors I ignore. Even
in such case we also ignore the deepness of the problem and circumstances
related.

Most of people, including myself, are no biologist or cryonogists and have not
enough knowledge on that level, in addition it is in the human nature to have
high hopes in self perpetuating ourselves. Thats the perfect ground for
charlatans to grow.

~~~
kristofferR
Charlatans sell stuff. De Grey funds stuff: [https://www.sens.org/srf-
publications/](https://www.sens.org/srf-publications/)

Pretty massive difference.

~~~
nudpiedo
I think funding doesn't qualify or disqualify him, if funding would give extra
credibility points, tomorrow all charlatans of the world would fund something.
He also raises big amounts of money and offers no results and that fact alone
does imply nothing by itself.

P.D. many bluff companies have also lots of publications, papers etc... and
that doesn't mean that they are innovative.

------
novaRom
Yes we can. Calorie restriction is well known slowing biological aging
process.

Sources:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction)

~~~
qwsxyh
I swear most HN users have some form of orthorexia.

~~~
malvosenior
I had never heard of that term but now that I know what it is, I think you’re
right. There are so many very strong opinions about diet here and very little
quality data to back it up (because for the most part it doesn’t exist).

~~~
mlrtime
"There are so many very strong opinions about diet"

This is true for almost every group including scientists studying nutrition,
it changes frequently.

------
TYPE_FASTER
Yes.

Don't eat sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Eat fruits and vegetables. Exercise
regularly. Walking counts, but you probably want to throw some upper-body
stuff in there as well. Working in the garden counts.

That's about 80-95% of "how to stay healthy using forces under your control"
as far as I can tell.

~~~
fizwhiz
> Don't eat sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink.

Oh but where's the fun in that? :)

~~~
AstralStorm
Vegetables are delicious, most low in sugar. If you really want to ingest
nicotine, use gum or patches.

------
paideic
Somewhat off-topic, but I always thought the most prominent real-life
reenactment of The Fox and the Grapes was all of the media and thinkpieces
that people have written about how living for an extended period of time would
be just _awful_. You wouldn't find many people who think that 40 years would
be an acceptable lifespan, and most people would probably like to live to 100
if they got there in good health, but as soon as the idea of living potential
centuries is floated, it's all "it would drive you crazy with boredom!" It
seems like a good-sized contingent of people believe that extending the human
lifespan wouldn't be impossible or immoral so much as it would be
_undesirable_. Boy, it sure is convenient that our "natural" longevity
(whatever that means) is right at the limits of what humans can reasonably
enjoy, huh?

I could understand the impulse people would have to not extend their lives if
that's truly what they wanted, but the almost _cultural_ belief that seeking
immortality is Bad and Wrong, something only pursued by cartoon villains and
insane emperors seems like a collective agreement among people to throw their
hands up and go "well, fine! I don't even _want_ to live longer, who'd like
that?"

All of this, of course, doesn't touch on the moral, economic, environmental,
etc. problems that crop up with greatly extended longevity, for which there
are a number of altogether more palatable arguments that would need to be
engaged with more fully. Still, it's an odd piece of ideology that makes
people feel like they don't need to deploy any of these in the conversation -
why would they, when they _totally_ don't even want to live much longer than
100 anyways?

~~~
dkersten
These are the same people who complain that they would be bored if out of work
for too long. I personally have so many personal or passion projects that I
would like to undertake, but don’t have the time for, that I’d happily fill a
few lifetimes with interesting things to do.

Of course, there’s a difference between a few lifetimes and thousands of years
or immortality.

~~~
okcando
I expect most people's experiences when they're unemployed are colored by
being... unemployed. You're not retired or on vacation, you're jobless. You're
not supposed to be having a good time following your passions, you're supposed
to be looking for more work or skill-building so you can get work. And money
is going to run out eventually and who is going to want to hire you when you
haven't had a job in six months or a year?

A lot of cultural baggage and shame in it, most people just end up stressed
out and depressed.

~~~
dkersten
I’m not talking about the people who are unemployed against their will, but
the people who are not unemployed and say “no, they couldn’t take a load of
time of work[1] because they would be bored”. I took some time off a while
back, to destress and work on my own ideas for a while and the amount of
people who said they couldn’t do it, they’d be bored was mind blowing.

> who is going to want to hire you when you haven't had a job in six months or
> a year?

I’m lucky enough that in our industry, this hasn’t affected me. Tech companies
seem pretty open to the idea that people take sabbaticals and such. Don’t get
me wrong, I’m under no illusion that this isn’t a problem for other people and
other industries, it absolutely is, unfortunately.

[1] Assuming they could financially afford it

~~~
okcando
Yes, I think even when people choose to stop working, they often still fall
into the trappings of joblessness and stress about the uncertainty of what
they're going to do when it's time to go back to work. And so they don't enjoy
it.

Not everyone, of course.

------
babuskov
I found Joe Rogan iterview with David Sinclair really interesting:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4)

------
m23khan
isn't this happening already? From totally unscientific perspective, if you
look at pictures of people from olden days (say high school seniors from
1970s/1980s vs from 21st century) as well pictures of 60+ people from
1940s/1950s,

you will notice people now look a lot younger. It isn't only the sense of
grooming/clothing but also physical attributes which have changed

~~~
titzer
Sunblock.

~~~
asdff
Cigarettes too

------
slothtrop
What I'd like to more accurately identify is the point at which we get
diminishing returns to health from strenuous exercise, in measurable form.
Exercise of course provides enormous health benefits, but progressive overload
for instance demands ever increasing caloric intake which runs counter to
health recommendations. This is probably easier to track than high intensity
cardio except in terms of pure caloric need. I deadlift twice my bodyweight at
up to 5 reps and consume somewhere in the range of 2000-2500 calories a day.
But is reaching the 1000 pound club worth it from a health standpoint? I doubt
it, but the evidence surrounding this is sorely lacking.

~~~
ZeroFries
It would vary depending on type of exercise. Giving my opinions based on being
very interested in the subject for years, without bothering with citations.

For muscle-mass, the health benefits come from having higher glycogen storage
(helping to prevent diabetes), as well as maintaining function late into life.
The latter is subject to diminishing returns, and maintenance is more
important than the amount when you peaked. Also, having too much muscle mass
would put a strain on the heart.

Daily light movement is important for circulation. 10-12k steps seems to about
ideal.

15-20 minutes of moderate-intensity (120-140 bpm) or 4 total minutes of high-
intensity (> 160 bpm) cardio improves heart function, blood-flow, and
mitochondrial density. Any more seems to be subject to diminishing returns.

Stretching around 10 minutes per day may help prevent cancer and preserve
function.

This leads me to the following recommendations:

1-3 weekly strength training sessions of around 45 minutes

10-12k daily steps

2-4 weekly cardio sessions of around 15 minutes

10 minutes daily stretching

~~~
slothtrop
This closely approximates what I've gunned for. I'm not aiming to be a
maximalist, but want my investments to be worthwhile. My intuition has
suggested to me that with cardio (moderate/intense), a little goes a long way
and long sessions can eventually yield injury. You mentioned not bothering
with citations but if you recall any sources I'd check those out.

You didn't mention it, but the other benefit of strength training is higher
testosterone levels.

------
agumonkey
I don't see discussion about the natural emotional maturation process. Even
with a much better body, I don't feel about life and things the same way. We
might as well take care about not misaligning somatic health with mental
health too much. It would be fruitless.

~~~
Youcandothis
Maturation means improvement. If something is getting worse, then it's not
maturation.

~~~
agumonkey
... your evolution towards life is neither better or worse.

------
dllthomas
"but"?

------
m4r35n357
By living longer you are merely stealing resources from those that follow you.

You can have immortality or reproduction - choose.

~~~
malvosenior
I would never classify being alive as “stealing resources” but regardless,
you’re assuming that people don’t make meaningful contributions to society
while alive. What if while you were living longer you cured cancer?

Under your philosophy wouldn’t reproducing steal _even more_ resources? If you
have three children then you’re stealing them 3X faster.

------
johnydepp
I wish we lived little less, resulting in, less knowledge transfer, less
technology, less of the destruction caused by humans on nature.

We live longer than most of the creatures of our size, and we have larger
brain. That's the reason of the damage we create to the earth like swarms of
locusts do to the green grass fields [1].

And still we wish more life! Sad!

On a serious note, the most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that,
If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because
they don't want the product to remind that they are old.

So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems
like its designed for young generation.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bx5JUGVahk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bx5JUGVahk)

~~~
onorton
> So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems
> like its designed for young generation.

Aren't a lot of products you see on infomercials exactly that?

I've seen people argue that it's a market failure or an inefficiency of
capitalism that people are trying to market products for elderly and disabled
people to younger people and families. From this it seems more likely the
opposite. They are designed for the elderly or disabled but are falsely
marketed to everyone in order to get their real target audience to buy it.

