
Indefinite lifespan - montefeltro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_lifespan
======
lutusp
I can't understand why people who think about longevity miss the logical error
built into it -- as biological causes of death are remedied, the prospect of
non-biological causes of death go up until they become the cause of death
instead.

This graphic (PDF warning) --

[http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistic...](http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/2014-Injury-
Facts-43.pdf)

\-- shows that a person's lifetime (say, 75 years) probability of dying of any
of the top four _non-biological_ causes of death (suicide, car crash, toxic
exposure, falling) is 0.033 (roughly 1 in 30). Let's say this is for a normal
biologically limited lifetime of 75 years. Using this as a basis, the Binomial
Theorem shows that we have a probability of .000448 _per year_ of dying of any
one of these causes, and, for 75 years, this probability produces the quoted
chance of 0.033 for any of these four causes. For longer lifetimes, this
outcome means that:

    
    
             Age  Probability
        ----------------------
              75       0.0330
             100       0.0438
             200       0.0857
             500       0.2007
            1000       0.3612
            2000       0.5919
            5000       0.8936
    

This outcome, for four common non-biological causes of death, means that
_there is no "indefinite lifespan"_ \-- all that happens is the way we die
changes. I hate to rain on your parade, but this discussion of longevity fails
to notice an elephant in the room.

My Python code for this result:

    
    
        #!/usr/bin/env python
        # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
        
        from scipy.stats import *
        
        k = 0
        p = .000448
        
        print('    %8s %12s' % ('Age','Probability'))
        
        print('    %s' % ('-' * 24))
        
        for n in (75,100,200,500,1000,2000,5000):
          r = 1 - binom.pmf(k,n,p)
          print('    %8.0f %12.4f' % (n,r))

~~~
Mangalor
lol, so we would still have an over 50% chance of living to 1,000 years old?
That sounds pretty good if you ask me.

And this is without even considering other technological advances that would
increase safety during the time from 75-5000? Heck, we even have the prospect
of self-driving cars _now_ which would significantly decrease the chances of
dying in a car crash. I think this only shows how robust the indefinite
lifespan theory might be.

------
exratione
Actuarial escape velocity is a term popularized by Aubrey de Grey, first put
forward a while back and then in a 2004 PLoS Biology paper [1] following some
of the bioethics debates of the past decade. Most of you will probably recall
those debates in the context of somatic cell nuclear transfer, embryonic stem
cells, and therapeutic cloning, but the various appointed bodies pontificated
on aging and longevity science as well. Generally to say how terrible it was
to even think about extending healthy human life, but hey, what can you
expect? That is more or less the default position that most people still hold
today [2].

To a certain degree one has to come to terms with the fact that most people in
the world hold incoherent views on the topic of aging to death. If asked most
of them say they want to: they want to do exactly the same thing they see
other people doing. Conformity is a hell of a drug. But if asked if they want
to suffer heart disease or Alzheimer's, they don't want that.

Then there is the hairshirt environmentalist death cult that tells us we're
destroying the world, there are too many people, and we should all die. That
is not actually much of an exaggeration of the actual viewpoints espoused.
This has so pervaded society that you can find the average person on the
street is concerned about living too long because they are someone burning up
a limit faster. It's ridiculous. People look at the horrible consequences of
war and kleptocracy in various regions [3], and buy into the propaganda that
this would somehow go away if fewer people were involved: that it isn't the
mass murder, or the oppression, or the theft of resources, or the enforced
poverty, but just a matter of how many people there are. They fuse this into
the desire to confirm to the lives of their parents, and justify the continued
lemming-like walk towards the suffering and pain and disease of aging.

But if you ask them if we should cure any of those diseases, they're all for
that. They just don't want to live longer. But this is the greatest
incoherence: age-related diseases are age-related diseases because they are
caused by the underlying processes of aging. The only true cure is to repair
the damage of aging [4] that causes these diseases. As for all machines, if
you fix the damage it lasts longer in good condition [5]. Extension of healthy
life and true cures for age-related disease are flip sides of the same coin.

And if treatments for aging were widespread and available, all those people
who say they want to die on the same schedule as their parents would use them,
and live longer, and get over it. But without their support the necessary
research will not run fast enough to save most of them. They'll die for their
wrong ideas, right on the eve of the transition to a world of indefinite life
spans achieved through medical science that can control the causes of aging.

[1]:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC423155/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC423155/)

[2]: [http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-
beyond-...](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/living-to-120-and-beyond-
americans-views-on-aging-medical-advances-and-radical-life-extension/)

[3]: [https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/08/there-is-no-
over...](https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/08/there-is-no-
overpopulation-only-waste-corruption-and-inhumanity.php)

[4]: [http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-
research](http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research)

[5]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_theory_of_aging_and...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_theory_of_aging_and_longevity)

------
Zikes
Aren't there creatures right now that have effectively indefinite lifespans?

If I recall, some varieties of jellyfish and lobster have this.

~~~
readerrrr
Maybe in a perfect environment. They haven't evolved planned death because the
chances of surviving longer aren't very high. From an evolutionary perspective
death enables: mutations, variety and adaptation. Without it a species will
stagnate and become extinct.

~~~
pyre
I think that the parent is referring to a jellyfish that 'lives forever' by
reverting back to a polyp, and starting the life cycle over. For humans this
would be effectively like reverting to a fetus and growing up again. You would
still be the same organism, but you would be a different personality / person.

