Although, since they will eventually die of energy depletion from growing too large, if they actually stopped growing they might go on ... a lot longer?
> Although, since they will eventually die of energy depletion from growing too large, if they actually stopped growing they might go on ... a lot longer?
If humans stopped ageing they'd go on a lot longer, too. But as long as they can't it's a hypothetical scenario in both cases.
So give it a few more years and there should be some firm data on how negligibly senescent they actually are. Much of the present situation was a lack of good data.
Well, mole rats and whales are a lot closer to us so there is a higher probability that they will find something that translates well. Although even mice have their limits
If you read these articles, you're left wondering if there's some existing genetic solution waiting to be found that'll add a healthy 50 years to our lives.
Exercise. It's not "as healthy as I am now", but it makes a big difference. Anecdotal evidence, but my 73 year old father still rides his bike over mountains (and shot his best ever golf score last month). He does complain that he wishes he had the body of a 60 year old ;-) My wife's uncle has to be pushing 90 and still runs 2 km every day. If you just keep going, it's amazing what you can accomplish even in the later stages of life.
Obviously this is survivor bias, but if you look after yourself and have a bit of luck, there's no reason you can't be healthy enough to enjoy life well past 80.
I do a minimum of 5-10 hours a week of aerobic exercise (mostly cycling), to make time for more, I'd either have to quit my job or board the kids somewhere.
I also have some anecdotal evidence. My father was always an avid cyclist as well, until his hip joint wore out. He had to give it up, and in the space of a year turned into an old man. I'm sorry, unless something else kills you in your prime, it will happen to all of us sooner or later.
Try Google/Calico Labs, Genentech, Aubrey de Grey, Peter Thiel/SENS.org, Craig Venter/Human longevity, GenoPharmix, The Buck Institute, Berkeley Labs, Cynthia Kenyon, Brin, Page, Jack Ma, AOL 2.0.zuckerberg and the list goes on... this is real and it's happening.
“What controls aging? Biochemist Cynthia Kenyon has found a simple genetic mutation that can double the lifespan of a simple worm, C. elegans. The lessons from that discovery, and others, are pointing to how we might one day significantly extend youthful human life.” — http://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hin...
“Google Launches New Company, Calico, to Extend the Human Life Span” - http://goo.gl/2LgUKd
“The Race To Extend The Human Lifespan Is Heating Up: Google & Craig Venter Leading the Pack" - http://goo.gl/xrHWgv
“For too many of our friends and family, life has been cut short or the quality of their life is too often lacking. Arthur Levinson is one of the crazy ones who thinks it doesn’t have to be this way. There is no one better suited to lead this mission and I am excited to see the results.” - Apple CEO Tim Cook
“Ten years ago, we thought aging was probably the result of a slow decay, a sort of rusting. But Professor Kenyon has shown that it’s ... controlled by genes. That opens the possibility of slowing it down with drugs.” — Jeff Holly, Bristol University
Also see, "The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences honors transformative advances toward understanding living systems and extending human life. The prize was founded in 2013 by Sergey Brin and Anne Wojcicki, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, Yuri and Julia Milner, and Jack Ma and Cathy Zhang." https://breakthroughprize.org/Prize/2
Real space travel is not solved until aging and extending human life for a bit is solved. This is why I admire companies and individuals in this area over any other area. It's simply the most innovative accomplishment that can be done in the history of humankind and with the largest rewards.
This is wrong. Whales live longer because they are bigger. Larger animals have slower metabolisms and consequently longer lifespans. See this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15855403
But the article also mentions the naked mole rat, which is about the size of a mouse but lives ten times longer, and Brandt's bat, which weighs as much as a sugar cube but lives 40 years.
Why do people try to boost their metabolism (or demise) these days then? I strongly believe that being physically lazy (i.e. not expending much energy and keeping metabolism slow), but mentally active, and walking 30-45 minutes a day is the healthiest lifestyle one could have (if they can afford it).
Because heart disease is the main killer, and obesity and poor vascular fitness resulting from inactivity are major risk factors. Plus people want a tight ass.
I don't exercise and I'm fine although genetically I have 30% higher risk of obesity, so, just don't eat more than you have to and find pleasures in creation and discovery, in socializing, not in eating!
Whales also live longer because it's evolutionarily advantageous for them to live longer (they have a long, fragile reproductive cycle). There's little need for a fruit fly to live 100 years and historically it doesn't seem that there has been a great need for humans to do the same, either.
"They live a lot longer than human beings, yet they are living in the wild, without going to the doctor or any of the perks of human society.."
Followed by:
"By studying these whales and other extraordinarily long-lived creatures, de Magalhaes and colleagues hope we can find new medicines that will similarly slow down the human body’s decay and delay death."
Has to be one of the most ironic things I've seen lately and that's saying something. We are studying organisms that live long lives without medical intervention in hopes of creating medical interventions to keep humans alive longer. Take more pills, go to the doctor more, pay more money for "health". At some point, surely we will begin to question what it means to be alive. I'd love to live longer but not at the expense of quality of life and taking pills for the rest of my life is lower quality in my view.
Maybe human understanding will evolve and we will start studying these things in order to better understand the lifestyle that gets them this result rather than how to make a pill to replicate some piece of the chemistry.
Not only it is an inevitable fact of life, it (and death) is the single most important attribute of life. Especially in the case of humans aging and death limit the amount of damage one single person can do.
I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to change. Just that it shouldn't.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I completely disagree with you.
I would argue that the primary reasons people fail to better fulfill their potential are lack of time, poor health and grief or hopelessness in the face of death. I also strongly believe that the epidemic of disastrous short-term thinking among us (particularly our 'leaders') is directly linked to the fact that each of us knows we're going to die all too soon.
I could meet you halfway and say that in our current form, we may not be ideally suited for significantly longer lifespans-- but we can change ourselves with drugs, technology and genetic engineering, so it would be a temporary problem.
The only paradise I believe is possible is one we create, and we cannot do it with this pathetically paltry handful of decades we're allotted.
This could well be said about Hitler for example. He sure aimed high, and could achieve much more if more time was given to him (albeit ageing wasn't what stopped him, luckily).
I am slowly starting to believe the biggest threat to mankind are idealists living in their own tiny little mental bubble, far outside of harsh, unjust selfish real world. their well-intended ideas are based on some theoretical human beings that are selfless, pure hearted and will dedicate their life to help others. Usual Star trek thingie. Just that no human like that ever walked on this planet, and probably never won't (fingers crossed for that).
We have elections every 4 year to reflect just that - limit the damage that can be done by a single group of people in full control. it works, within its own limitations of course. All other options are well proven to be worse.
Next time you'll have an idea how to singlehandedly solve all mankind's problems, sit back, think about it one more time (no, 10 more times) and then go for a coffee. there has been countless individuals before with same/similar ideas. For some reason, world still works as it does.
It reminded my of a quote by Milan Kundera in The Unbearable Lightness of Being:
"Anyone who thinks that the Communist regimes of Central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals is overlooking a basic truth: The criminal regimes were made not by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise. They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers."
I found this in other places as well - e.g. in the autobiography of Jacek Kuroń (a figure in the Polish opposition against the communist regime, even though he was himself a socialist), culminating when he was in prison with a Nazi criminal. The later, even a decade or two after the war, was still convinced that he had been doing atrocities (he had no illusions about that) for a greater good (i.e. the new Pax Romana), a good that justifies anything.
Aging also doesn't stop the Kim dynasty from enslaving and murdering millions of North Koreans.
Imagine an alternate world where aging didn't happen naturally, and some people lived several hundred years before dying of accidents or non-age-related diseases. And suppose there really were some instances of long-lived dictators abusing their subjects for centuries. Would your recommended solution be to develop and release a pathogen that slowly crippled everyone's bodies and minds over the course of 80 years?
The rise and fall of the Third Reich is a perfect example of the counterbalance effect within our species, which longevity has little bearing on-- for every psychopathic, misguided or downright evil person bent on causing suffering & death, there are people willing to stop them. These people's longevity & capabilities will increase with those of the bad actors.
> I am slowly starting to believe the biggest threat to mankind are idealists living in their own tiny little mental bubble
Without them, we wouldn't have anything resembling the technology and social progress we've seen erupting like mad for the past couple hundred years. Is it a temporary phenomenon? Will we see another massive decline into an even more terrible 'dark ages'? No one knows. But dwelling on all the things that could go wrong is not how progress happens.
> Next time you'll have an idea how to singlehandedly solve all mankind's problems, sit back, think about it...
I don't know anyone who really believes they can do this, and I certainly wouldn't trust myself for the job. I give a fairly high probability that we kill ourselves off. However, predicting the future is a fool's game, and focusing on only the negatives is the practically the definition of self-defeating behavior.
> For some reason, world still works as it does.
It absolutely does not, our predecessors from 200 years ago would find the world we live in now fundamentally different to a very jarring degree on multiple levels. You can say that our basic social and governing structures are 'the same' if you use some crude metrics, and if you proposed that we've all been bossed around by the same secret society for thousands of years I might even entertain the notion, but 'the way the world works' changes in dramatic ways constantly. If it didn't, no school would ever need to update its curriculum.
We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer.
You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? Why would that change if you had 150 years? Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet...
We don't need drugs, technology and genetic engineering to live longer. We need less poverty (better/fairer distribution of wealth), less disease, and less war for a better quality of life.
Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barley habitable world.
I would argue that no one can, if that is your 'control' group and your experimental group gets 750 years.
> We need [...] a better quality of life.
Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that.
> I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world.
Well, neither of us can tell the future. However, I can imagine lots of scenarios where this isn't a problem, from a decline in birth rate (very likely, given well established trends), to exponentially better resource management (totally possible), to orbital habitats (less likely but not impossible).
> Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... [...] Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway?
I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you.
It's fine to agree to disagree, but when you start with "Sorry but no..." I can't help but be a tad annoyed.
>Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that.
Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life.
The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century.
> I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you.
Really? You ever been treated for depression? Maybe you should ask your Doctor about it...
Sorry, if I am being harsh but your original comment and followup comment are very troubling to me.
Life extension is BS. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first, then we can talk about living longer for individuals.
The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century.
People often go through negative experiences; they generally don't kill themselves in response. I'd like to be around in 2200 even if there's another war and depression between now and then.
Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first
>Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life.
Really? Then why are we so adamant on building hospitals and stopping wars? Not dying is necessary prerequisite of having a quality life. What you're wanting is a quality death.
> Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first
I agree with this in principle. Still, people are going to work on what their unique histories and interests lead them to, and I think it's far more likely that some of those people will discover life extension procedures than that we'll be able to convince everyone who isn't already working on building a beter, self-sustaining world for all to drop what they're doing and work only on that.
Also, whether or not I'm depressed, there are plenty of people who hate death that aren't (aging scientists who know they won't be able to fully pass along their expertise, for example). Actually, I'm pretty sure this is why religion was invented, and why the majority of people still cling to it with a white-knuckled grip.
I'm actually a religious person who does NOT believe that we keep our memories. Just saying :)
Other than that, yes, not passing on my experiences to my kids (or anyone, really) is something that is starting to annoy me. I know so much freaking stuff that will die with me.
People used to say the same 30 years ago of our current situation. "Who wants to be here in 30 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 7 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world."
Apocalyptic predictions have a very poor record of being right, even those purportedly based in science.
Why would that change if you had 150 years? It wouldn't necessarily change but you would have more time to fulfill your potential, giving you a better chance of doing so.
Yeah, we need all the things you listed for a better quality of life. Being able to live without ageing would help a lot to improve quality of life too. It would definitely help with having less disease, since we would have less age-related diseases, which are the biggest burden on society today.
You're assuming steady resource requirements and birthrate. Both of those things can change. You're also assuming we're eternally bound to this planet.
these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite. otherwise, this cash would be dedicated to matters you mention (and I fully agree with what you write).
Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. Living till 120 just for the sake of living sounds more like a nightmare - that tells me they are terrified of death, meaning all are godless in their heart no matter how often they practice their religion. I welcome it (hopefully at proper age) - I will make room for another generation, just like the previous one did for me. I have my time here, and that's enough.
these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite
Just like cell phones cost thousands of dollars and will only ever be toys for the rich.
Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects.
That's exactly what we're saying: aging is awful, and we should fix it.
I have my time here, and that's enough.
And that's why you'll refuse all medical treatment after you turn 60, right? (The expected lifespan for 20 year old people in 1850, before our godless and unnatural medicine started working: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)
> these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite
This is probably what concerns me the most. And in fact this is already reality. E.g. in my country if an average person discovers they have cancer, their chances are pretty grim in contrast with e.g. Switzerland. And there are countries which are really poor where a infection which is curable for $20 can kill people.
The thought of an eternal life obviously raises questions about the meaning of (eternal or not) life. Nobody has the right answer to those questions. That's why I think there will always be different (but equally valid) opinions about eternal (or very long) life.
I, for one, think that immortal humans will be less like elves and more like Gollum.
What I suspect is true but obviously can't prove: Person with completely healthy brain at age 200 would not be well functioning human being in the society.
When we grow we gain experience. That experience shows as habits, perceptions, attitudes and thought trains that makes functioning in the society easy. We learn to see the world trough the past experience. All this turns from asset to liability when society where you live changes beyond the global parameters our cognition settles into.
In other words: Our 'mental posture at large' is path dependent and it gradually settles into some state and becomes less malleable over the years. We can still learn new things and change our thinking, but internalizing the changes becomes increasingly harder in the core level. We don't even want to try to change certain notions because our identity is tied to our 'core beliefs'.
Society where people (especially rich and powerful people) would live 200s would be some kind of dystopia of geriatric thinking. Young wold have to kill the old or stage revolutions from time to time.
This could be true. But on the other hand it could also be that if we modify people to live longer lives that our brains will also remain plastic and malleable for longer.
What's with the contempt for rich people in debates like this? Being mad at rich people for living longer is no less silly than being mad at them for having cars, mobile phones, personal computers back in the day.
There are two points that you've conflated and dismissed glibly with one statement: the slightly longer (+5%? +10%) lifespans of the rich today, and the hypothetical doubling+ of lifespans being directly discussed here. They're totally different and can't be treated as one and the same. (Owning a car in 1910 and having a 200 year lifespan is a comparison so disingenuous that I'm not going to spend any more effort discussing it.)
The slight increase that wealth currently brings is unfortunate for those who don't benefit from it, but doesn't seem to draw widespread contempt or criticism. It does, and should, act as a spur to remove or mitigate the factors in poorer peoples' lives that stop them from living to the same age.
The 'contempt' in the parent --- pretty mild, and probably not contemptuous enough to accurately be called 'contempt' --- stems from the fact that the rich living much longer than everyone else would be yet another example of widening inequality in society. If we're talking some kind of treatment or technology that doubles lifespan, why shouldn't people be pissed off about not being able to access that? That's not a slight improvement like we're talking about above: that would effectively be an entire second life. I know for a fact that I'd be angry as hell knowing my fiancée would die at half the age of a rich person simply because we don't have the money to buy whatever it takes to make her live to 200+.
The very idea of some people having that whilst others radically and perhaps fatally undermines current human society, which is implicitly built on the idea that everyone only has one life.
It seems implicit in your comment that you think that this kind of imbalance is somehow fair or just or natural. Why shouldn't the aim always be to let everyone benefit from advances rather than just those who can afford it? You can argue that technological progress will allow life-extension to trickle-down, but that doesn't happened evenly or reliably, and seems a bad assumption upon which to base society's progress.
I don't think there's much wrong with inequality in cases like this. It's a bit like pirated software: someone gets a copy, but the original doesn't disappear. Some people live longer, but the other people don't live shorter. Sounds like plain old jealousy to me.
Anyway, my point with the cars and phones was: innovations will often be accessible only to rich people, at first, and then get commoditized later on. Some people say this is a big flaw in communism: if there's no rich upper class, who's gonna finance the fancy stuff?
I don't give a shit that people are expected to die after 100 years and society is built on that. I would sign for 200 years in an instant. Speaking of dystopia (like GP), robbing people of 100 years because it would hurt your feelings if they lived longer than you sounds like a few not-so-utopian scifi stories to me.
"Why shouldn't the aim always be to let everyone benefit from advances rather than just those who can afford it?"
Of course it should! Didn't mean to imply otherwise (tho I can see why one would interpret my comment that way). If you nip something in the bud (=upper class), you can be sure noone's gonna get it.
I believe it is. Being rich and powerful means you'll most likely want to remain such. You would act in the best of your own interest. Ageing has been the absolute guarantee that even the worst of human beings (dictators, criminals with a lot of power) will eventually lose their power thus stop damaging society as a whole.
You know how tatoos will look ridiculous on you when you get older? That never happened because by the time it could become a concern, older peole with tatoos became common too.
For your second concern - How do you know that this loss of adaptability isn't an effect of aging?
Yeah, someone always says something like this. I don't think humans living to 120-150 is going to destroy the world as long as we're productive. People like Warren Buffet or Stan Lee, for instance.
I don't think so, I think it greatly increases the amount of damage they do.
First, some people are willing to harm society, because the effects are so slow there is no way they could live through the consequences. It encourages short term goals over long term ones.
Second, evil people could be weeded out of society over time. There is only so much wrong one person can do before people realize what's going on. And there would be fewer inexperienced people they could abuse.
Well, there's the laws of physics, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics pushing the arrow of time forwards. Beyond that, not much is actually inevitable: people just prefer to rationalize anything awful as Inevitable because this gives them a comforting sense of metaphysics.
