
A growing body of research shows that life gets better as we get older - softdev12
http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-everything-you-think-about-aging-may-be-wrong-1417408057
======
exratione
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
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
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
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-...](http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/november/Molan/honey-as-topical-
agent.html)) 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.

~~~
efng
> There where actually a wide range of effective treatments for infections
> before antibotics.

Antibiotics have been a key vehicle for human life extension. If you think the
effect of honey(not sure what hunny is) on a topical wound is anything close
to what a modern antibiotic is capable of, you are not paying attention.

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

------
tomcam
True!

Source: Am old

------
tokenadult
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/2eb51e2...](http://www.demographic-
challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf)

[4]
[http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity....](http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx)

[5]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_...](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)

[6]
[http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...](http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html)

~~~
tomp
> In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to
> more than 100 years.

Not sure if you used the correct word (and if I interpret it correctly), but I
find the expected age of 100 a bit hard to believe, given that (1) humans
don't live longer than about 120 years, and (2) many die much younger than 80.

~~~
diego
Life expectancy simply means that 50% of those people will be dead by 100. It
could be that 99% of them are dead by 110.

That's a perfectly plausible distribution. Japan, for example, has over 50k
100+ inhabitants (and probably 0 over 120).

~~~
tomp
No, it doesn't. From Wikipefia:

> Life expectancy is a statistical average of the number of years a human
> lives

Therefore, if 3 people live until 110, and the fourth dies at 30, life
expectancy is 90 years.

In another part of his comment, tokenadult mentioned another estimate that
means what you're describing:

> Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to
> reach the age of 100

------
dschiptsov
Define "life".

~~~
bostik
A sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.

~~~
efng
not true. Currently only about 95% of people who have ever lived have died.

We might be the lucky 5%!

~~~
bostik
I doubt that. The remaining population are all in terminal condition.

