Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Dealing with my somewhat prematurely elderly father of 73 and his issues (my gps all lived relatively heartily into their 80 and 90s) I have to conclude my options in a few decades will be self-limited to driving my car off a cliff if I can't upload myself into a robot husk.

What I'm saying is that supercentenarianism seems heavily overrated.




If you are in bad shape at 73, you are probably not going to make it to 100. This is called 'compression of morbidity'. As people age better, the period of disability & lower quality of life shrinks, so you tend to live longer in good health but then once something goes wrong, you'll be dead quickly. A lot of centenarians are pretty active, even driving cars, until months or weeks before they die (and they may simply die in their sleep unexpectedly). It's the people who are in bad health in their 50s or 60s who can look forward to decades of expensive & painful ill health before they finally die... In any case, most centenarians I've seen interviewed seem happy to be alive, and don't wish for the sweet mercy of oblivion, so I am happy to take them at their word that they find their life worth living.


Most definitely, my father has recently been falling which is understandable with his Parkinson's but concerning as it is a recent development. My mother is exhibiting far more vitality and will probably outdo my gps as they all lived relatively unhealthy mid-Century American lives but into their 80s and 90s.


    > supercentenarianism seems heavily overrated.
Definitely true.

The oldest of the old don't have a quality of life that makes me (and many others) enthused about advanced age: cognitive-impairment, blindness, deafness, immobility, frailty, chronic disease-- all of these are "on the table" as normal expectations except for a few very rare exceptions.

Not to mention that at such advanced age, whether it's 95 or 105, people often need constant 24/7 care, usually from dedicated family members who sacrifice their time to extend the time of another.


I think it is a gamble. My grandmother was in a very good shape till around 100, she lived till 106 but she was sleeping most of the time (at least 16 hours a day) and the last time she took a walk in the yard was at around 104.

The point? She had a very good life up to at least 90 years old, much more than most people I know personally. Reaching 100 is not the point, living 95 good years is.


As if all the cars won't be self-driving in a few decades...


Why are those your options?


In a lot of places around the world, assisted suicide isn't an option.

Not the op, but after watching nearly all of my relatives loose their minds to dementia, altimeters (edit: mood swings can be a...) or something else in later life, the idea of being trapped in that state for any amount of time is terrifying. I know it sounds trite, but having a fast motorbike squirrelled away (even if it's entirely unrealistic in actuality, for a number of reasons) is surprisingly soporific.


I have witnessed people in my life go insane and now witnessed first-hand dementia with my father and I wouldn't wish either on my worst enemies.


Altimeters: Not even once.


Maybe not a bad idea, though. Buddy of mine plans to take up skydiving when he retires so he can pack his parachute wrong when the time comes.


I either need to stop using spellcheck when distracted or start wondering how early onset this might actually be o.0




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: