
Your Body Wasn’t Built To Last: A Lesson From Human Mortality Rates (2012) - breck
http://singularityhub.com/2012/01/09/your-body-wasn%E2%80%99t-built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414176)

------
alejohausner
The article addresses Gompertz' law: the probability of dying in any given
year increases exponentially with age (older people have ever higher death
rates). This is an _EMPIRICAL FACT_. As you live longer, this probability
accumulates exponentially, so the probability of being alive falls super-
exponentially: p(being alive) = a _exp(-exp(b_ t)).

I'm pretty sure there ain't nothing you can do about this. Why not? Because
evolution built it pretty strongly into our genes. Here's how I see it: if an
organism arose which had this "death gene" turned off, it would not adapt to
sudden changes in the environment. It might be susceptible to a novel
infectious agent which wipes out the whole species. Thus evolution tends to
weed out immortal or very long-lived organisms.

Don't forget how natural selection works. It's not single creatures that
adapt; it's about whole species. The only way for a species to adapt is for
some of its individuals to die and be replaced by their offspring which differ
genetically from their parents.

Evolution needs death to work. Hence death is built-in.

Look at this scary graph (with a logarithmic y axis!):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_of_mortality#/media/File:USGompertzCurve.svg)

and then tell me that medical advances will do anything to make you live to
200. Go on, I dare ya.

~~~
Symmetry
I'm not sure that makes any sense. If there are sudden changes in the
environment then the less fit animals will die off without any need for a
death gene. If there aren't any changes in the environment then there's no
need for animals to die off. Evolution works just fine with prokaryotes which
don't really get old in the sense that we do.

Also technology allows us to do many things that aren't allowed for by our
evolution, like flying to the Moon. Evolution isn't an all-powerful force but
something that works strictly through variation and selection. If we find the
physical process that cause aging and how to stop them then there's nothing
evolution can do to stop us.

~~~
alejohausner
Granted, sudden changes to the environment would kill off the less fit
individuals. So I'll change my argument a bit:

Suppose you've overcome infant mortality, and have also solved the problem of
adult mortality, so all subsequent people are immortal. Suppose moreover that
young adults insist on having more than zero children (that's likely to
continue, you'll agree). Now you've got a population that won't stop growing.
Resources are finite, and there will be mass starvation.

What are your options in such a scenario? Should you kill off old people, kill
off young people, or prevent all future babies?

Suppose you prevent all future babies. Then you end up with no more sex, no
more genetic variability, and now the whole species might be susceptible to a
sudden environmental change.

So my argument is that old people must die to make room for genetically-
different young people. Without natural death, there will be less room for
evolutionary adaptation.

~~~
Symmetry
The question you're asking there is one of human morality and politics rather
than evolution or technological feasibility. I'll tell you what solution
evolution "wants" to pick: population increase, starvation, and may the
fittest win. Obviously that's not something you or I would want but it's why
_evolution_ doesn't have any problem with creatures living indefinitely.

~~~
alejohausner
Well, I wasn't trying to make a moral argument, although I guess the way I
phrased things might suggest otherwise. Heck, I just have this strong
intuition that there's a countdown timer inside us, which will lead us
inexorably to death. Maybe I can't argue convincingly for it, but I feel there
have to be evolutionary reasons for why such a timer must exist, and the idea
of making room for young organisms seemed like a fruitful way towards an
explanation.

So here's a last and final argument for such a countdown timer: there are no
immortal species in nature. That's more of an "existence proof" than a
"constructive proof", but it does strongly argue that there is a reason why
death is necessary (without providing the reason, for I can't think of one
that will persuade you).

~~~
ItsDeathball
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organisms)

There are actually a few immortal or extremely long-lived species in nature.
Evolution still acts upon them because there are other selection forces at
work, like not being eaten by predators.

------
quinndupont
Ahh, yes, the fallacy of using history to predict the future, with math. This
is a fun kind of math problem, but it completely ignores a huge wildcard,
namely, human ingenuity and technology. These kinds of predictions have been
toppled many times before simply because they aren't about reality (biological
or physical properties), rather they are just calculations about ethereal
things. Sometimes mathematics maps on to the physical world in startling good
ways (the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"), but biology isn't
physics, and human life span is as much social and technological as it is
biological. Of course, history is probably our best tool to make such
estimations (we don't have any better guides)... until it isn't (that day some
new wonder drug is invented, or some new artificial body, etc)

~~~
andrewstuart2
> The fallacy of using history to predict the future, with math.

You say that as if we have anything aside from the past that we can use to
make predictions.

~~~
cookingrobot
You can look at the mechanics of the thing you're studying and make
predictions based on what's possible.

Like if you were watching the development of the space program you could make
a prediction about when we'd get to the moon, without just looking at the
historical top speed of airplanes we'd built before.

~~~
murbard2
Yes but that's still using the past. All we have to work with, in order to
formulate scientific theories, are correlations and patterns detected at some
point in the past.

Of course, some correlations and patterns are much stronger than others, and
we can be more confident in the predictions they yield.

So really the fallacy is about using too weak a model to predict the future.

------
matheweis
All religious aspects aside, it's amazing that this was documented back to at
least 2nd century BCE to within 2.5 years or so.

"... they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."
[https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%206%3A3](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%206%3A3)

... with the longest living person in modern times documented as being 122
yrs, 164 days:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment)

~~~
Nadya
The Bible isn't a good prediction of age.

    
    
      Seth lives to be 912 years of age.  (Gensis 5:8 ) 
      Enosh lived to be 905 years of age. (Gensis 5:11) 
      Reu had a son at 32 then lived another 207 years living to be 239 years of age. (Gensis 11:20-21) 
      Abraham lived to be 175 years of age (Gensis 25:7)
    

Also the passage you noted, Gensis 6:3, is often seen as referring to the
amount of time from when God determined to destroy mankind to when God sent a
global flood and not the lifetime of humans mandated by God.

~~~
pugio
Actually, the Jewish tradition is that Moses lived 120 years, and that, after
him, 120 years was the approximate cap on human life. Many Jewish well-
wishings end with something like "may you live until one hundred and twenty".

------
icebraining
"Ignoring, of course, the upward shift in the lifetime distribution that will
result from future medical advances."

~~~
hughes
Have we made even a single advancement that can increase the age to which
humans are capable of living?

We've made lots of progress on stuff that kills us early, but I can't think of
anything that makes our bodies actually last longer.

~~~
tired_man
You can have all the organ replacement you want. Once your drive train
(feet/ankles/knees/hips, which ultimately impact on your spine) is shot, all
you're gonna want to do is lie in bed.

~~~
Symmetry
Given things like hip replacements and anti-inflammatory drugs it might be
that we're better at keeping people mobile in advanced old age then we are at
keeping them alive.

~~~
tired_man
Report back when you have first hand experience with that hip. I think you'll
be unpleasantly surprised.

There's a lot of chicken counting going on when the future is discussed. We
have very effective pain medicines right now that many people can't have
because of their potential for abuse.

I wouldn't count on anything until you see actual meds on the market that some
group of "We Know What's Best For You" people hasn't declared evil.

------
bane
You know, I'm okay with this body not lasting. I'm not too terribly fond of it
anyway.

I just want a good and working migration plan.

~~~
tim333
Yeah, I second that. In most religious belief your soul or some part of you
lives on. And some people think you can contact them with seances and that the
spirits can influence what happens here. I don't see why we can't build an
electronic version of that in the future.

------
Symmetry
In terms of mechanisms for aging I think Nick Lane has some pretty good
arguments that it mostly has to do with evolution in your body's population of
mitochondria. The evidence with the unexpectedly long lives of hummingbirds is
at least suggestive.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1483179/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1483179/)

------
clamprecht
But if you multiply that 0.000001% by 7 billion people, what do you get?

~~~
schoen
It's not phrased as a "probability that an individual human will live to 130",
but as a "probability that any human will live to 130" (although I'm not sure
whether that's the calculation that the original author intended to do or
whether it was correct).

... but I think it was (if you assume the unlimited validity of that law as
ages increase, and its validity to everyone in the population), because I
tried to use that formula and my bc crashed (!), the first time I've ever seen
that. It was trying to compute e to the power of

-1196855871164164755229127183619028619603176.29243358214210581124

which was the probability of a particular individual surviving to 130
according to the formula. That is a super-small number, which dwarfs the human
population of 7 billion, so probably the original author _did_ mean to say the
thing about anyone-ever, and was probably correct within these assumptions
about exponentials and their applicability.

~~~
chiph
So someone like Lazarus Long has a (very small) chance to exist.

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

~~~
schoen
Well, the formula is defined for a probability of living to _any_ age -- it
gives some positive probability no matter what you put in.

But the probability of living to age 130 under this formula is already so low
as to be hard to visualize.

I think this formula is a bit off at the high end because I evaluated it for
120 -- an age that at least one person _has_ lived to -- and also got a
probability suggesting that this would never have happened in human history.
But it seems like the formula is still pretty close for almost all of the
population.

------
douche
I don't remember where I originally picked this up, but I recall reading that
generally, for warm-blooded mammals, there is a pretty strong correlation
between resting heart rate and lifespan. Except that humans are a huge
outlier.

Ah, here's the graph, possibly not from the most reputable source, but it's
what the googles found me first [http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-
science/how-many-heart-bea...](http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/how-
many-heart-beats-do-we-get)

I do sometimes wonder if the delaying of child-rearing has some effect on
lifespan. Historically, it's not uncommon to find mothers and fathers in their
mid teens, and adulthood was commonly understood to start at something like 16
or 18. In western countries, we're deferring child-rearing into the late
twenties, early thirties, and full adulthood keeps creeping upwards as well.

------
powertower
I'm 99.999999% certain I would not want to live that long.

~~~
EC1
Really? All I can think about is how to not die. The thought terrifies me. It
got to a point where it's my main motivator in what I do. I used to be lazy
and play video games all day and when I realized how finite and easy
destructible our lives are, I get crazy scared and work like crazy so I don't
waste my time. There's so much I want to learn and do. The only problem is the
limit of time.

Death is incredibly terrifying. I don't understand it and I don't want to, I
just want to live. Forever preferably.

~~~
PakG1
I would be quite interested in understanding why people find death terrifying.
I'm likely in a minority, but I look forward to death. That doesn't mean I'm
suicidal. It means that I view death as an important moment in my life, one
that will force me to measure whether I'm satisfied with the way I lived my
life. I'll no doubt have regrets, but I'll have smiles too. I could say that
being a person of faith may influence my looking forward to death, but I
imagine that even if I wasn't a person of faith, I'd still have a similar
mindset. I am very curious why people would want to live forever on this
earth. It seems like it'd become quite dreary and boring, especially if I
gradually lose control over all my normal physical and mental functions.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> I could say that being a person of faith may influence my looking forward to
> death

Rather heavily, yes. For the sake of argument, to put yourself into someone
else's position and understand it, consider how differently you might feel
about death if it simply meant a permanent cessation of consciousness. No more
thinking, ever; you're permanently and irrecoverably gone. Not "floating in a
black void" nothingness, but "there is no you anymore" nothingness.

Alternatively, if your faith includes the concept of a soul, imagine a soul
being irrevocably _destroyed_ ; it didn't go anywhere, it was just lost.

That might make it clearer why many people find death both terrifying and
horrific, no matter whether it occurs at 20 or 120.

> I am very curious why people would want to live forever on this earth. It
> seems like it'd become quite dreary and boring,

I find it easy enough to imagine a few billion years worth of possibilities.
There's always more to learn, to see, and to think. Even if you'd seen the
entire universe, other people are a literally endless supply of novelty.

And if you can't imagine an eternity of life interacting with other people in
happiness, _how exactly do you envision an afterlife_?

> especially if I gradually lose control over all my normal physical and
> mental functions.

Living forever doesn't mean becoming increasingly decrepit. The same processes
that create a hard stop at 120 are what make a 100-year-old systematically
less healthy than a 25-year-old, and they require the same fixes. Anything
that would successfully keep you alive forever must necessarily keep you free
of age-related health complications forever.

~~~
PakG1
_Alternatively, if your faith includes the concept of a soul, imagine a soul
being irrevocably destroyed; it didn 't go anywhere, it was just lost._

Yes, I'm trying to imagine that, and I don't see why it's such a big issue.
This seems so contradictory to what people claim their philosophies to be.
It's like the environment. People cry about how we're destroying the earth,
but they're not actually worried about the earth. They're worried about
themselves. It's like how Ian Malcolm comments derisively in _The Lost World_
that humans may not survive, but the earth would be just find. Somewhere some
microbes would survive underneath all the dirt blasted everywhere in the
apocalypse, and life would start again. I can understand the concept of
ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that
makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that _it just does_.

 _And if you can 't imagine an eternity of life interacting with other people
in happiness, how exactly do you envision an afterlife?_

Hehe, well, I think that's the key point, isn't it? You're talking about
interacting with other people in happiness for eternity. I specifically said
"forever on this earth", not "forever, period". I don't think you can achieve
what you're talking about on this earth. We've had centuries of modern
civilization to figure out how to stop both large-scale wars and petty
relationship spats, and it's debatable whether we'll reach a level that has no
pain. Yes, we've gotten better, especially if you read some of the literature
on the topic, but age-old problems remain and I find no reason to think that
they'll one day disappear.

 _Living forever doesn 't mean becoming increasingly decrepit. The same
processes that create a hard stop at 120 are what make a 100-year-old
systematically less healthy than a 25-year-old, and they require the same
fixes. Anything that would successfully keep you alive forever must
necessarily keep you free of age-related health complications forever._

I actually deal with my worries about this issue in a comment below. I think
people go about this subject very selfishly without thinking of the greater
consequences.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be
> able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the
> fact that it just does.

Hard to explain (surprising to even _have_ to explain), but it seems worth a
shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea
of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother
you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any
part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm
done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that
concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self"
should be quite analogous.

Both are horrifying atrocities. Both need to stop. And I don't understand how
the latter can seem any _less_ horrific than the former. Yet far more
attention is paid to the former, while a hundred and fifty thousand people die
every day.

> You're talking about interacting with other people in happiness for
> eternity. I specifically said "forever on this earth", not "forever,
> period". I don't think you can achieve what you're talking about on this
> earth. We've had centuries of modern civilization to figure out how to stop
> both large-scale wars and petty relationship spats, and it's debatable
> whether we'll reach a level that has no pain. Yes, we've gotten better,
> especially if you read some of the literature on the topic, but age-old
> problems remain and I find no reason to think that they'll one day
> disappear.

Fixing mortality is one of many things that needs to happen. Given all the
time in the world, I'm quite confident we can fix the various lesser problems
(and next to mortality, everything is a lesser problem). Fixing scarcity would
go a long way. AI (or something very much like it) seems like the surest path,
though it requires a great deal of care to get right.

And I don't see why we should be limited to "this earth", or "this universe"
if it turns out there are others. Forever is a very long time.

I have hope. And more importantly, I'm working towards those goals.

> I actually deal with my worries about this issue in a comment below. I think
> people go about this subject very selfishly without thinking of the greater
> consequences.

If you're referring to your comment about economic disparity making longevity
a privilege: probably, but not for long. It's too important not to make
universally available. And to be explicitly clear: I don't think _anyone_
should die; I'm not just worried about myself or those I care about (though
I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about them _more_ ). But I think it's
entirely possible to build a world in which _nobody_ dies.

That itself may lead to problems, but they'll be problems worth having and
worth solving, and we'll have plenty of time to solve them.

~~~
PakG1
_Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a
shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer 's; does the idea
of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother
you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any
part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm
done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that
concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self"
should be quite analogous._

I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being
dismissive about it. Unfortunately, I'd say it's difficult to compare
Alzheimer's with cessation of existence in this manner. One is the process of
losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing
control of yourself is no doubt hard.

However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process.
The process of suffering leading to death can horrific, especially if disease
is the cause. The end result of not existing, I am not able to put in the same
sentence like you do. Even after carefully reading your explanation, it seems
to me that you've done a masterful job explaining why the process is
horrifying. But I already agree with that. You haven't been able to explain to
me why the result after the process is over is so scary.

It may be possible we'd just end up going in circles about this, which would
be too bad. I am seriously waiting for someone to explain to me in a manner
that I can understand why cessation of existence is so terrifying to them.

edit addendum: Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved
even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot
be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that
humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany. We have enough food to end world
hunger today. The problem is distribution and individuals willing to sacrifice
for the greater good. This is true for both third world nations that
experience famine and inner city slums in the first world. The political will
simply isn't there. Don't get me wrong, I really do wish I could think better
of humanity.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being
> dismissive about it.

And I appreciate that you're attempting to understand another point of view.
Thank you.

> One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be
> extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard.

There's a difference here between what I'm talking about and what you're
talking about, and it's a critically important one: there's a big difference
between "losing control of yourself" and "losing yourself". I mentioned
degenerative mental disorders specifically because that's a case where you're
not still "in there" somewhere. I'm talking about the case where there's no
"you" left. You are your mind; if your mind is gone, there's no "you" anymore.

The distinction is important for people who would equate that entirely with
death. You thought I was talking about the process, but I'm very much talking
about the end result.

It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease
where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done
forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to
forget, what's wrong with that?".

> However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process.

So am I. The process varies depending on how you die. The result is always the
same: no more you. The suffering is nothing compared to the non-existence at
the end; suffering can be lived through and gotten past, but death cannot.
(This point of view is rather diametrically opposed to the one that views
death as a potential "end to suffering".)

> You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is
> over is so scary.

Fear isn't a required component, though it's certainly a healthy reaction
(same as if something large and hungry is running at you: danger, thing to
avoid, fight against it or flee from it). The key point is that it's a
horrible atrocity for anyone to die. One less mind in the world; one less
light in the darkness; one less set of unique experiences; one sentient being
annihilated forever.

For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is
not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as
if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we
define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life _is_ , and death
_isn 't_. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced;
there's a difference in fundamental value systems here.

> Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new
> technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily
> resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that
> humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany.

I very much doubt the future will look like Star Trek; I think we can do much
better, though fiction certainly provides some useful inspiration. How soon we
can get there is another question entirely.

I want to make this world better, because 1) wanting to do so is a required
first step to make it happen, and 2) if you start from the premise that it's
the only one we've got, then we have to make the most of it. I personally feel
that mortality and death is the biggest evil in the world, and the one worth
spending the most effort to fight first, but it certainly isn't the last one,
and when we're done with it we shouldn't hang up our tools and rest.

For a bit of writing I find particularly inspiring on this topic, see
[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html](http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)
; it's a transparent allegory, but one I find quite compelling.

> I really do wish I could think better of humanity.

You're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the problem?
Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at least as
big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale.

The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And
deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve.

~~~
PakG1
_For what it 's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer
is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's
as if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we
define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life is, and death
isn't. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced;
there's a difference in fundamental value systems here._

You do a very good job of making me see that it's coming down to a difference
in axiomatic statements of belief; there's not much deeper to go in splitting
the atom. Once we get to that point, I guess there's not much else to say
except make your choice and live with it.

 _You 're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the
problem? Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at
least as big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale.

The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And
deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve._

I don't agree that I have this perspective. However, the method I have in
solving these problems are very integrated with my faith. I've personally
concluded that we live in a broken and fallen world and are incapable of
fixing it, but a higher power exists who can fix us. However, I won't try to
have that discussion here. Certainly, I do things within my power to make
things better. While I'm not a gamechanger like Elon Musk, I personally
volunteer however I can in areas of poverty around the world, broken families,
etc.

But thank you for the discussion. It was enlightening.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I had hoped that it wouldn't come down to axioms. I'm still curious to hear
your response to the question from my previous comment:

It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease
where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done
forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to
forget, what's wrong with that?".

That's the part I'm most curious about. I realize that you don't personally
believe death is a transition to non-existence, but you also acknowledged that
others did feel that way, and you wondered how even given that basis one might
feel horrified by that non-existence (rather than the process leading to it).
Given that, if the above doesn't explain it, I don't think I understand where
you're coming from.

Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic
disagreement is about non-existence itself?

> However, the method I have in solving these problems are very integrated
> with my faith. I've personally concluded that we live in a broken and fallen
> world and are incapable of fixing it, but a higher power exists who can fix
> us. However, I won't try to have that discussion here.

Neither will I, and I appreciate you separating the discussion from that.
However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being
incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to
make _this_ life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can't be made
perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. The phrase
"pray to God but keep rowing to shore" comes to mind, as well as "God helps
those who help themselves". I'm not bothered when others have faith; it does
bother me, though, when faith in a higher power causes people to give up on
humanity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In any case, I do very much appreciate the opportunity for a discussion with
someone who, despite having a very different point of view, was willing to
discuss things in reasonable terms and make an effort to understand a
differing point of view.

~~~
PakG1
_Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic
disagreement is about non-existence itself?_

I'm sorry to say that I have no idea what you're talking about up to this
point. But it doesn't seem to matter, as I think we agree that the axiomatic
disagreement is about whether non-existence itself is something to fear (at
least, I think we agree on what we're disagreeing about).

 _However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being
incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to
make this life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can 't be made
perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. .... I'm not
bothered when others have faith; it does bother me, though, when faith in a
higher power causes people to give up on humanity. Don't let the perfect be
the enemy of the good._

I think you're misunderstanding me still on where I stand on this. I think
it's my responsibility to do what I can to improve things here where I am,
both in my community and on my entire planet. Admittedly, that's also
integrated with my faith, and it's certainly not an ideal I wish to discard
(which in turn makes the idea that my faith makes me wish to discard that
ideal all the more ludicrous).

Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have
not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into
people who can make this world a better place. And that includes everything
from being more charitable, empathetic, and forgiving every day to having
motive and drive to throw away personal riches and futures for a lifetime of
thankless service in the trenches of fighting poverty, corruption, unjust war,
and more. Not all of us can be Bill Gates and set up a foundation that can
really make a difference. But I do believe that everything starts in the
hearts of individual people. Unfortunately many people are too petty, selfish,
or jaded to care, despite the rare amazing stories of real selflessness. The
higher power I believe gives me back hope for people to change.

Sorry for the late reply. :)

~~~
JoshTriplett
[This is probably getting a bit deep in the thread for HN; happy to continue
via private mail. See my profile.]

> I think we agree that the axiomatic disagreement is about whether non-
> existence itself is something to fear (at least, I think we agree on what
> we're disagreeing about).

While that's something we disagree on, I don't think that's the root of the
axiomatic difference; that's why I'm curious. Earlier in the thread, you said:

> I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be
> able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the
> fact that it just does.

That's one step removed from any underlying difference in values or axioms.
Axiomatically, we clearly disagree on _whether_ death equates to non-
existence, but your statement above seems to suggest you're interested in
understanding where other people are coming from despite that: why, assuming
that premise, someone might find such non-existence horrifying. To which I'd
provided an answer in the form of an analogy to degenerative mental diseases,
and never got a response to that.

That's the part I'm curious about: I don't understand a mindset that can find
a degenerative mental disorder horrifying (which I'm assuming you agree with)
without finding the end result horrifying as well. I'm genuinely curious to
understand that.

> Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have
> not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into
> people who can make this world a better place. [...]

Sounds like we're talking about similar things but fundamentally disagreeing
over attribution, then. Or possibly definition of terms, because I have no
idea what you mean by "humanity" if you don't mean "humans", since you're
subsequently talking about "individual humans" / "individual people" making
the world a better place.

~~~
PakG1
I think we're about at the conclusion anyway because roadblocks in our minds
are making us go in circles.

 _That 's the part I'm curious about: I don't understand a mindset that can
find a degenerative mental disorder horrifying (which I'm assuming you agree
with) without finding the end result horrifying as well. I'm genuinely curious
to understand that._

This is a fundamental thing we can't seem to make each other understand in
terms of why we differ. The process is horrifying to me, but the result is a
conclusion that does not horrify me. The phrase "rest in peace" comes to mind
here, which I posit many people are willing to say about those who have passed
away, whether or not the speaker believes in an afterlife or higher power. Yet
they cannot think this way for themselves. I have no theory for this except
that perhaps those people are unable to make peace with their end and/or
themselves, which is unfortunately a circular argument. I'm not saying that's
the case for you. I'm simply saying I can't come up with a better answer, and
nobody's been able to explain it to me except that they're afraid because
they're afraid.

So to recap, I am saying yes, the process is horrifying, but the end result
(death and actual non-existence, not just senility) is what it is and doesn't
have to be horrifying. And I believe you are saying that since the process is
horrifying, the end result is also necessarily horrifying. I do not see the If
A Then B logical path that necessity necessitates for your statements to
become acceptable to me.

But if you believe there's a way to break the circle of our discussion, you of
course are welcome to email me also. :)

------
norea-armozel
For me, death is just another fact of life but I don't think dying from old
age will be one of those facts that will be around for much longer (in terms
of a century). Yet diseases, accidents, and murder will still be there to cut
life short to be sure.

I just think it's odd that there's a great many essays on the matter of death
where people argue it's preferable to accept it than to fight it even if it's
futile. I'd rather go out with a bang than a whimper. At least then I know I
tried and I didn't let death off too easy.

------
jpstory
"So...you're saying theres a chance!"

------
thomasfoster96
In other words, John Citizen statistically won't live to age 130. Someone who
is better off health wise and is less of a risk taker than the average
American - I bet given a lifetime of modern day medicine or better, you've got
a great shot at 130.

~~~
pixl97
The key is 'or better'. And no, even with the best modern (as in today)
medicine you have no chance of 130. The convergence of accruing damage along
with DNA that is not optimized for such long life puts a lot of pressure on
the older body. It is very likely that the solution to the age 'problem' will
occur at a much younger age with genetic manipulation to avoid or prolong the
issues that occur at old age. The question then becomes, if you manipulate
your DNA, are you human, or a human subspecies?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> The question then becomes, if you manipulate your DNA, are you human, or a
> human subspecies?

That doesn't seem like a particularly interesting question. It wouldn't change
the conclusion that humans can't naturally live past 120. And that conclusion
itself becomes unimportant if we can reliably work around it.

------
maaku
Also ignoring animals that do have indefinite natural lifespans...

~~~
pixl97
Eh, might as well compare apples and oranges and expect it to describe a
banana.

Most animals that live well over 100 years have a very low metabolism. For
example turtles and tortoises. Other living organisms that have biological
immortality are generally simple creatures. As in all the components of the
creature can be replaced and the creature doesn't change in function. Fish,
for example can live hundreds of years, but their biology is considerably
different than a mammals. That said, whales and alligators can have extremely
long lives. It may be that water acts as sunblock and reduces the amount of UV
damage allowing life to continue much longer than most land animals.

~~~
maaku
Right, but it puts a lie to many of the theories that involve mortality being
an inevitable result of biological chemistry -- e.g. that cells can only
divide so many times before they MUST die.

The reality is that for just about every aging related failure mode, there is
an example of some animal somewhere that is able to fix or otherwise defend
against that very form of damage, a proof by example that such damage is not
inevitable or irreversible.

------
murbard2
That title is literally the dumbest sentence in the entire article, which is
an outlier in an otherwise interesting piece.

~~~
sctb
We reverted the submission title from “99.999999% certainty that no human will
ever live to the age of 130” to the article's.

