Scientist Claims Humans 'will live to age of 150'

Everything else!

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k

User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Jeff V wrote:The trick isn't merely to extend life, but extend the productive years. While people live longer than they ever have historically, we're all pretty much geezerfied by 65 and this hasn't changed appreciably (although the definition of geezerfied probably has).
That certainly is the main issue. I don't think anybody who is interested in extending human lifespan thinks that 70 more years of life on a respirator with a feeding tube is really the way to go. I don't think many would call that "life" in any meaningful sense.

Assuming that such a thing could be done, let me throw some pretty arbitrary age definitions out there:

0-18 childhood/adolescence
19-30 young adult
31-50 middle age
51-65 golden years
66-75 infirmity

Now let's say some magic anti-aging treatment comes along and gives us a simple x2 multiplier to everything but childhood/adolescence.

I don't think any of us are itching for 20 years of infirmity... and perhaps many don't see the value of 30 years of watching Matlock and going to Denny's. ;)

But, think about how sweet it would be to have your "20's" last for over 20 years.

From my own anecdotal evidence (thus completely useless, natch)... I recently turned 28, am involved in scientific research, absolutely love it, but only have a BS... I should go to grad school... however, I am concerned about the "ticking clock" and being forced to live like a pauper (er, student) while earning that advanced degree. If I could take all the things I've learned since college, and put them back into my just-graduated-college former self, there would be no question as to what I would do.

The limitations of "getting older" make the question more complex. In essence: aging limits me.

I think everybody here can come up with a: "If I knew then, what I know now..." type situation.

This is why I think increasing lifespan is fundamentally good. Wisdom acquired through life experience on a longer time scale. That has to be good.

As an aside:

If you are concerned that the "population problem" would be exacerbated, you shouldn't be. Average liifespan has a pretty minuscule effect on population growth... the real issue is how many kids do you have?

Would it change if you live for 150 years? I would say no....
Jeff V
Posts: 36421
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Post by Jeff V »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Would it change if you live for 150 years? I would say no....
I think it was Jared Diamond who tied lifespan to the reproductive cycle. Basically, women start going to shit once the reproductive years are over (with some alloted overspill to raise the last of the young'uns to a self-sufficient state). Men live a shorter lifespan because their purpose is to provide food, shelter and defense - 3 things that become more difficult as one gets older. As we reach our 40's and 50's, our bodies start slowing down on repairs (I can attest to this; I skinned my knee in March and the spot is still clearly visible). It takes a lot of energy to repair broken bones and such, and nature pulls the plug when there are diminishing returns.

If whatever extends our life extends the useful years, then it is also extending the productive years. This would lead to some increase in population, if for no other reason than some religions and cultures demand it. Population levels didn't reach its current state naturally; it got out of hand once we were better able to extend life and treat once-incurable disease.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Jeff V wrote:If whatever extends our life extends the useful years, then it is also extending the productive years. This would lead to some increase in population, if for no other reason than some religions and cultures demand it. Population levels didn't reach its current state naturally; it got out of hand once we were better able to extend life and treat once-incurable disease.
Standard of living seems to relate more to population growth than anything else. Poor people have more babies. It seems unlikely that in our capatalistic society, that poor people will have access to these type of treatments (which is a whole 'nother can of worms - possibly also a can of Whoopass that the meek will unleash when they finally realize how absolutely f-ed they are).

However, in the industrialized nations, population growth rates are going down and people are having children much later in life. I believe this trend will continue as our lifespans (or "healthspans" if you want to only talk about periods of healthy life) increase... people may be having their first kid when they turn 60. Certainly there will be some that will churn out babies like rabbits... but I don't think there will be enough to make much of a difference... as there are people in the US who have 11 kids, but the growth rate still goes down.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70220
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Post by LordMortis »

31-50 middle age
:shock: I am not middle aged.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43793
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Post by Kraken »

Little Raven wrote:You're only 20 years older than I am. I no longer consider 20 years to be all that long a time. Can't you bust out a good "life begins at 50" story?
No, I can't. I'm not 50 yet, for one thing. Don't get me wrong: I'm not depressed or unhappy. Life is pretty good. But the passion has pretty well gone out of it. I guess the positive angle is that passion isn't everything. At my age, my life is very well settled. I don't have to worry too much about money. I don't agonize over relationships or where I'm going to live or what I'm going to do with my life. The odds of my running off to a tropical paradise with some Lolita are very nearly zero. All the big questions are pretty well resolved, and if that's boring, it's also comforting.

And you're right: 20 years isn't that long. The cliche is certainly true: the older you get, the faster time passes, subjectively. I've got almost exactly 19 years left until age 66.5, when I can draw Social Security and therefore retire. That really doesn't sound like very long to me, especially when I think about trying to save enough money. The years seem to flash by. Especially the summers. Oddly enough, winter still seems to drag on forever.

I think the subjective acceleration of time derives from each year being a smaller percentage of your total life. When you're five years old, a year is 20% of you life. When you're 50, it's 2% -- maybe a year feels ten times shorter? I wonder if this acceleration effect would continue into this hypothetical 150-year lifespan.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

LordMortis wrote:
31-50 middle age
:shock: I am not middle aged.
I said the definition was arbitrary. :mrgreen:
User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13689
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: New England...or under your bed

Post by $iljanus »

TOKYO -- As dawn breaks over the world's largest metropolis, Keizo Miura, a sinewy centenarian, is already dressed in his charcoal gray tracksuit and pumped to sweat.

Before a hearty breakfast of seaweed and eggs, Miura races through his indoor exercises, wincing as his neck -- still tender from a collarbone injury -- momentarily reminds him that he was born in 1904. The man who has become a role model in graying Japan sucks it up, shaking off the pain the way he did last year when he skied down Europe's Mont Blanc at age 99. In a Tokyo minute, he is out the front door for his daily two-mile power walk.

"I still feel good," said Miura, who in 1981 became the oldest man to scale Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa's tallest peak, and is training for an expedition to the Italian Alps next year. "There's really nothing so amazing about me . . . but my son, now he is amazing."

That would be Yuichiro Miura, 72, who in May 2003 became the oldest man to reach the summit of Mount Everest after a two-month assault on the world's highest peak.

The Miuras are among the fast-growing ranks of super-seniors -- Japan's extraordinarily fit old folks. In a country where the average life span has extended to 81.9 years, Japan's elderly are not only the longest-lived but statistically the healthiest seniors in the world. The typical Japanese now enjoys at least 75 years of relative good health, according to the World Health Organization. That exceeds by nearly six years the average for Americans -- who rank 23rd -- and by three years the average for the French, whose seniors are warming the benches in seventh place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

Lets face it. When it comes to health in this country we just suck. Hmm, I can use a doughnut right about now...
Black lives matter!

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
Post Reply