
How to live forever: meet the extreme life-extensionists - namirez
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/jun/23/how-to-live-forever-meet-the-extreme-life-extensionists-immortal-science
======
DigitalTerminal
"(Is it possible the future will become a refuge for the rich, who experience
life as a sequence of exquisite events and who might not understand the
concept of entropy as relief or escape?)" Can physically and emotionally
healthy people actually view death as a relief or escape? This idea seems
completely insane to me. As an aside, people who want to die shouldn't/won't
be forced to use longevity enhancing therapies to live longer, but I really
think some psychological care should be considered for anyone refusing them.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> Can physically and emotionally healthy people actually view death as a
> relief or escape?

I think before that should have come the question whether a person who is only
invested in their own life, and not interested in the tapestry or river of
life, for lack of a better word, could be considered emotionally healthy?

Yes, I want to see and experience life, my own and that of others, but I'd
rather die at some point, and know other life will exist, than live forever
and squat on it. We can't be forever young, that is, some things will never be
new to us again. Yeah, life is still fun, but not as fun as it could be _for
someone else_. To me, that matters.

from
[https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/20935/...](https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/20935/1/The%20Capacity%20to%20Begin-80%20Arendt%27s%20Concept%20of%20%27Natality%27.pdf)

> _Arendt argues that human action is contained within the notion of plurality
> as the most basic condition of human life, which in turn rests on her
> concept of 'natality'. In an almost poetical way she writes in this same
> essay how the world is constantly being refilled by strangers, outsiders and
> newcomers who act and react in an unforeseeable manner, in ways that cannot
> be calculated or predicated by those already familiar and stationed there,
> who will eventually leave and be replaced by others. The very fact that we
> come into the world through natural birth shows that the world is
> continuously being transformed and renewed through birth. Thus, 'natality'
> highlights this emphasis on the capacity of new beginnings with each and
> every birth._

I'd say natality more than makes up for mortality, while immortality removes
natality, and doesn't even begin to cover the loss.

I'd rather there is something beautiful I miss out on, than something mediocre
I get to experience, doubly so if it's _made_ mediocre by my insisting on
experiencing everything that goes on. And on top of that, there is the
mediocrity of the lens through which we experience things, our own mediocrity,
that also should not be increased lightly. New life makes life, the universe
and everything better, it just happens to not extend my own life to infinity.
But I can't have it both ways, not in an intellectualy and morally honest way,
they way I see it. If everybody was truly immortal, as we are now, and for the
reasons we want it, everybody will start to suck super badly real quick, and
they'll suck too much to even notice it. The majestic and ever fresh river of
life would turn into a petty, stinky puddle. Or I could wish for immortality
myself, and mortality for everyone else -- but what would that make me, and
what about friendship and love?

~~~
riffraff
you are positing that an extended amortal life is at the expense of someone
elses' birth.

But why should it be?

If we're talking SF, we might as well agree on a method to handle that, e.g.
force people to go off-planet at some age and make room for new people. The
universe is big enough.

(I meant to write a novella on this for a long time :)

~~~
PavlovsCat
> you are positing that an extended amortal life is at the expense of someone
> elses' birth.

> But why should it be?

That's the default, considering we live on a finite planet with finite
resources, and even without immortality on the expensive of others is already
quite the thing. I'd say the burden is on showing how that could change, not
to mention why it absolutely must and will change... rather than just assuming
it.

> we're talking SF

I'm "just" talking immortality, that I take for granted in this context, not
additional things. At the least, those additional things can't just go one
way, just because assuming immortality is assuming something hitherto
impossible, doesn't warrant assuming other impossible things, _while
dismissing_ other possibilities, both possible and hitherto impossible, just
because they'd spoil the parade.

Why would some live at the expense of others, or prevent others being born?
Well, having "eternity" to lose, one must not let anything unpredictable
happen, one certainly must not let anyone have the ability to harm oneself.
The universe is _too_ big to let anyone just get away and potentially hatch
unpredictability. That is certainly a way to look at it, and it only takes a
few with enough power to have that outlook for my dystopia to occur -- while
your utopia would require _nobody_ with power going that route, everybody
always agreeing on "playing nice".

We can't even agree on a way so people don't starve and die for lack of water,
we can't exactly agree to not ruin the planet, potentially leading to
catastrophic shifts in rather short timespans, we already live at the expense
of those who might be born after us -- but we're going to handle immortality
well, if only we had it? We're greedy and murderous about shitty trivialities,
about trinkets -- but we'll play nice when it comes to something like living
forever? Seems unlikely, certainly not a given.

The possiblity of immortality combined with the fact of ongoing concentration
of wealth and power, plus automation, might lead to a rapid depopulation of
the planet indeed, but not by moving anyone anywhere. Why keep people around
that are nothing but a potential threat, that serve no use, that are not even
an exploitable resource, because they take up more space and resources than
means of production requiring no workers that are orders of magnitude more
powerful, and after some point plain unnecessary either way? After people
"have everything", not by being content and loving life and the world, but by
owning it personally, what they still need is for nothing else to be able to
rise up.

(I also meant to write a short story once, about a little girl who skipped the
weekly dose of the government mandated antidote for the biological weapon
terrorists supposedly unleashed, say, 150 years ago, because she wonders if
it's even true that not taking it is lethal, since nobody she knows ever
failed to take it even once. She manages to hide the pain and the skin
discolorations that appear after a few days, finally staying up all night the
last night gritting her teeth before the day the next weekly dose is given
out, sneaking into the bathroom early to wash off her sweat, before her mother
wakes her. It was supposed to begin with her vowing to never do that again,
then starting to ask questions about the past, but I never got beyond that.)

~~~
chr1
Immortality + no other technology improvement is not a realistic assumption,
that's why you get to a non-realistic result of "people have to die
eventually" from it.

The immortality is not a thing you take and then have to kill others to not
allow them to take it from you.

The only way to not die is to have a huge society that invents new treatments,
discovers new physics, builds machines to prevent death from random comets,
from earth's magnetic field running out, or sun exploding. The mere 7 billion
we have now is not enough for any of this.

------
clouddrover
> _Gerontologists are not hoping to end death, he says. Instead, “We’re
> interested in people not getting sick when they get old.”_

Yes, an increased healthspan is a better initial goal than an increased
lifespan.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I'm convinced at this point that most of the conditions and diseases we
associated with "old age" are actually a result of lifestyle choices, or at
least aggravated by them. Just eat a balanced diet, get regular exercise, and
maintain a healthy weight and you'll be better off than the majority.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
This is for the most part, incorrect. Please see this video of Aubrey de Grey,
where he explains that those lifestyle choices you describe, while very
helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long life, and have a
relatively small effect at that.

They can sometimes have large effect on the negative side, where if we measure
effect in people in poor conditions, where they have severely bad lifestyle
choices, due to malnutrition or poisoning for example, or complete lack of
vitamin sources, etc. Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but
a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot.

If your genes are telling you to live to 70, you will not live to 100, no
matter how many cabbages you eat or how many days spend hiking in the woods.

To really increase lifespan beyond that we need actual new technology. There
is no rational model in which the effect of good lifestyle choices would be an
argument for not pursuing genetic and otherwise interventions to increase real
lifespan.

[1] [https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-
ta...](https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-takes-a-big-
toll-on-your-lifespan-but-excellent-nutrition-only-adds-small-benefit-
compared-to-an-average-one/)

~~~
lm28469
> while very helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long
> life, and have a relatively small effect at that.

> Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot
> increase lifespan by a lot.

Depends on your definition of "living", being obese/out of shape and on
constant medication for diabetes/heart issues, not being able to do the most
basic exercises, &c. isn't life by my standards. I don't care if I die at 40,
at least I would have reached my peak physical and mental shape.

To me fighting to increase lifespan is complete non sense, look around, we
don't need more time, we just need less work, mindless activities and gadgets.
We spend our lives slaving away until we're literally too old to do it anymore
to buy shit we don't need. I notice it all the time around me, most people are
miserable, they live in the constant hope of a better day by thinking about
their next weekend or vacation, some people in their 20s already talk about
what they'll do when they retire (at fucking 67 years old). Increasing our
lifespan won't do anything meaningful besides putting more strain on the
world, both economically and ecologically.

Like most things, it was figured out a long time ago by people who had way way
way more time to spend on thinking and less time to spend on mindless
information consumption. Take Seneca for example:

> A person like him has not lived; he has merely tarried awhile in life. Nor
> has he died late in life; he has simply been a long time dying. He has lived
> eighty years, has he? That depends upon the date from which you reckon his
> death! ... [He] has lived eighty years, has he? Nay, he has existed eighty
> years, unless perchance you mean by "he has lived" what we mean when we say
> that a tree "lives."

> No man can have a peaceful life who thinks too much about lengthening it, or
> believes that living through many consulships is a great blessing. Rehearse
> this thought every day, that you may be able to depart from life
> contentedly; for many men clutch and cling to life, even as those who are
> carried down a rushing stream clutch and cling to briars and sharp rocks.

> Show me that the good in life does not depend upon life's length, but upon
> the use we make of it; also, that it is possible, or rather usual, for a man
> who has lived long to have lived too little.

> We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long
> life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
People who reason like that sound to me as though they have built all these
mind structures, thought patterns and beliefs, just in order to "deal with"
and get around the (certainly horrendous) fact that they have little time,
that they will die really soon, that people they love will die, and they can
do nothing about it.

This is a reasonable thing to do. When there was no practical way to actually
extend life (not by 2 years by excercising all the time) - yes, people had to
deal with that. These facts were hard to process emotionally, and people
needed these reasons and made up stories about the obviously preposterous
presupposition that "we don't really want to live longer, that's not what life
is about".

Basically those people gave up all hope and made their internal emotional
world support that, support them in this hard position.

It was needed.

But I think it is time to let go of that. The times are changing and it looks
like we can actually extend the lifespan. Maybe not this year, maybe not even
this decade - sure. But soon. Don't let old beliefs stand in the way of
progress. It has never worked and only creates unnecessary strain on the
people holding those beliefs. The world is moving in that direction and there
is little you can do to stop it. And for a good reason. Saying "we don't
need/want to live longer" is neither rational nor truthful.

~~~
lm28469
> Don't let old beliefs stand in the way of progress.

That's a very dangerous thing though. Humans are very good at destroying
things, not so much as replacing them with good alternatives. Religion is the
prime example, "God is dead", and what do people have left ? Pure
individualism, narcissism, egotism, lack of communities, lack of purpose;
these are the new building blocks of our societies. And it's very well
documented; loneliness epidemic, depression epidemic, people literally dying
of sins, gluttony, sloth, ...

What good is it to live longer if it's still in the same degenerate ways ?
Work more ? Consume more ? If you can't live a fulfilling life in ~80 years
you won't do better with 120. The analogy of a kid always wanting more, no
matter the consequences, really holds up.

Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part
in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if
you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.

> What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the
> worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily? For we are
> mistaken when we look forward to death; the major portion of death has
> already passed. Whatever years lie behind us are in death's hands.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
> What good is it to live longer if it's still in the same degenerate ways ?
> Work more ? Consume more ? If you can't live a fulfilling life in ~80 years
> you won't do better with 120. The analogy of a kid always wanting more, no
> matter the consequences, really holds up.

If you don't have answers to those questions for yourself, it sounds like you
don't have a working spirituality in your system.. In that case yes, it is
easy to think "why live longer", because the underlying question for such a
person is really "why live at all?".

This is certainly an important problem in the west and a lot of work is being
done on it, but it is not directly related to the longevity research, they are
different areas. The problem in that case is not longevity or health, it is
the spiritual questions. Earlier, religions were answering those questions for
many people. Today, many of them struggle yes. But it has nothing to do with
longevity. Guiding any choices in the technological advancements and
increasing physical human life quality because someone does not see the point
in everything is not very wise at least, because by extension that argument
would work for any other technological advancement we are doing. Why make new
computers? Why make electric cars? Why fight pollution? Why go to the moon?
"Why solve the world hunger, those people will just start consuming and
working mindlessly, there is no point, etc.".

To me personally I have tons of answers for those questions, and it's not
consumption or "work"(whatever people mean by that).

In any case I wish for everyone to find their own spirituality of course,
which might be a religion (buddhism for example is doing just fine, just as it
has been for many more thousands of years than even christianity), or some
more modern way of acquiring spirituality like modern spiritual teachers,
retreats, meditation, psychedelic experiences, asketism, some philosophies,
etc. Those things do not exist for no reason, they are exactly the west's more
effective answers to obsolete religions. They serve the same purpose. But this
is not a question of the longevity field, why mix up the two?

> Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part
> in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if
> you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.

Again, no shit. But if you can enjoy 1 year, you will enjoy the 100 years so
much more as well. This argument goes both ways.

------
winchling
It seems inevitable. Repairing the natural damage that human bodies accumulate
as they age will quickly become the cheapest way to treat and prevent heart
disease and cancer in ordinary people. The small research community involved
in life extension is a beacon of activity and optimism. The mega-rich are (or
soon will be) lining up to fund it all both for profit and for their own
personal life extention.

------
blue_devil
And yet life expectancy in the US has been dropping steadily, at the longest
sustained decline since 1915-1918 [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-
news/us-life-expectancy...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-life-
expectancy-drops-third-year-row-reflecting-rising-drug-overdose-suicide-
rates-180970942/)

~~~
afthonos
Indeed. The problem of extending life has both scientific and social
dimensions. We are currently working on the scientific aspect, but, in at
least in the US, failing at the social one.

~~~
amanaplanacanal
As a society we don't treat mental health with the same urgency we treat
physical health. As if they are two different things, and mental health is
about our "choices", whereas physical health is just stuff that happens to us.

It is at root very moralistic and judgemental.

------
unnouinceput
"You do not add years to your youth, you add years to your old age" \- can't
remember where I've read this but it struck me a lot. And worrying about your
age when you'll die is not living your life to the fullest

~~~
whatshisface
Most ways of preserving your health, for example not smoking, add years to
your youth.

------
rcar1046
Think how rich the early adopters will be when the wealth they’ve accumulated
to afford life extension is able to compound for 100 years.

------
xvilka
The only good way is to sponsor or crowdfund corresponding research. See
SENS[1] foundation as a good example of such funding.

[1] [https://www.sens.org/](https://www.sens.org/)

------
alpineidyll3
Death is a an evolved feature of living systems, and will continue to be.
These people are merely wasting what time they have on narcissism, and
tragically misunderstand what life is about.

------
Odenwaelder
The problem with this approach is: You don't know if this lifestyle caused you
reaching a certain age, there is no scientific basis whatsoever. Which turns
it into a religion.

~~~
tapland
You can measure the group against the population in general to see if you have
a significant change, if it only had an effect on people starting before age
X, what the causes of death were (some could be omitted) etc, so I guess there
is, we're just lacking data since it requires a lot more people doing this to
get old first.

------
gnode
I feel like gerontology is only tangentially related to the concept of
immortality. No matter how biological life extension advances, you are still a
highly vulnerable organism in a dangerous world. Something resembling actual
immortality, in my mind, is a necessarily transhumanist field.

------
tempodox
Living Forever made easy: The more money you throw at me, the longer you'll
live. Living literally forever requires a lifetime subscription, obviously.

------
Theodores
150 pills a day would impose a lot on my gut, I can't imagine that this would
extend my life.

I am wondering if there is more to it than eating healthily, what about times
of occasional fasting? Some of the real old timers did go through wartime
rationing or worse. For years we had 100+ year old Japanese people taking the
honours for oldest and always put that down to a diet of fish.

But all of them lived through WW2 with the whole place firebombed into
starvation. So they had a healthy diet plus this period where they must have
had their bodies purge every bit of useless fat and strange mystery growth in
their middle age.

Other parts of the world have had the starvation or the healthy eating but not
in the combination that happened in Japan.

We generally have some exercise based regime to get rid of middle age spread.
It does not work in most cases. So a spare tyre generally gets carried around
for the rest of one's life, increasing the metabolic load and requiring more
work from the vital organs. The radical option for getting rid of the spare
tyre is to have the discipline of an athlete and to practically starve until
the target weight is arrived at. In this deeper detox I am sure that one's
relationship with bad foods can be reset too.

