> Gerontologists are not hoping to end death, he says. Instead, “We’re interested in people not getting sick when they get old.”
Yes, an increased healthspan is a better initial goal than an increased lifespan.
Yes, an increased healthspan is a better initial goal than an increased lifespan.
ALL of (*ok maybe 99%) of "life extensionalists" or longevity enthusiasts are working on extending the useful lifespan, not just the technical heartbeat-covering lifespan. This is a given. What they mean by extending the total lifespan is that it is done using integral methods, improving the overall health of a human, meaning that it will increase total lifespan also, but since it is working on the general health, it will also by extension increase the useful lifespan, because the health at every point in life will increase, and points which were not useful (healthy) before interventions would become useful. This is not something longevity people just "forget", there is no crusade for a mathematical birth-to-death age increase, these people are not stupid.
The religious explanation for the longer lives of early humans, I think it is that there were very few people and they needed the longer lifespans in order to reproduce more and somehow humanity became more degenerate down the line; also back then people could marry their sisters so I suppose there were very few recessive genes (guess that could also contribute to the longer lifespans) :) ?
So perhaps the DNA could be somehow cleaned up and people could live 900 year life-spans ?
Also, in a post messianic age, in the Old Testament it was written than people dying in their 120th year would be considered to die young (I vaguely remember reading that just because in the christian post-messianic age you wouldn't die at all)?
Look at the shapes of this and to what do they converge:
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/08/Survival-Curves-U...
(That comes from this article by the way: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy)
Im trying to find a chart of the evolution of age-specific mortality rate that very clearly shows that we have a mortality plateau up until about 30-35 years, and then the rate increases linearly. It is quite humbling.
EDIT: This is the best I found: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerardo_Chowell/publica...
It is from Canada. The aforementioned book shows time series of several countries and periods, and helps driving the point home that (non-intentional) adult mortality has been more or less fixed since a long time ago.
Sorry, too long ago to remember the source, and if it has any backing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20093668
For some reason, we converge on the same few observations, most of which have nothing to do with actually increasing the human lifespan.
They can sometimes have large effect on the negative side, where if we measure effect in people in poor conditions, where they have severely bad lifestyle choices, due to malnutrition or poisoning for example, or complete lack of vitamin sources, etc. Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot.
If your genes are telling you to live to 70, you will not live to 100, no matter how many cabbages you eat or how many days spend hiking in the woods.
To really increase lifespan beyond that we need actual new technology. There is no rational model in which the effect of good lifestyle choices would be an argument for not pursuing genetic and otherwise interventions to increase real lifespan.
[1] https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-ta...
> Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot.
Depends on your definition of "living", being obese/out of shape and on constant medication for diabetes/heart issues, not being able to do the most basic exercises, &c. isn't life by my standards. I don't care if I die at 40, at least I would have reached my peak physical and mental shape.
To me fighting to increase lifespan is complete non sense, look around, we don't need more time, we just need less work, mindless activities and gadgets. We spend our lives slaving away until we're literally too old to do it anymore to buy shit we don't need. I notice it all the time around me, most people are miserable, they live in the constant hope of a better day by thinking about their next weekend or vacation, some people in their 20s already talk about what they'll do when they retire (at fucking 67 years old). Increasing our lifespan won't do anything meaningful besides putting more strain on the world, both economically and ecologically.
Like most things, it was figured out a long time ago by people who had way way way more time to spend on thinking and less time to spend on mindless information consumption. Take Seneca for example:
> A person like him has not lived; he has merely tarried awhile in life. Nor has he died late in life; he has simply been a long time dying. He has lived eighty years, has he? That depends upon the date from which you reckon his death! ... [He] has lived eighty years, has he? Nay, he has existed eighty years, unless perchance you mean by "he has lived" what we mean when we say that a tree "lives."
> No man can have a peaceful life who thinks too much about lengthening it, or believes that living through many consulships is a great blessing. Rehearse this thought every day, that you may be able to depart from life contentedly; for many men clutch and cling to life, even as those who are carried down a rushing stream clutch and cling to briars and sharp rocks.
> Show me that the good in life does not depend upon life's length, but upon the use we make of it; also, that it is possible, or rather usual, for a man who has lived long to have lived too little.
> We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul.
This is a reasonable thing to do. When there was no practical way to actually extend life (not by 2 years by excercising all the time) - yes, people had to deal with that. These facts were hard to process emotionally, and people needed these reasons and made up stories about the obviously preposterous presupposition that "we don't really want to live longer, that's not what life is about".
Basically those people gave up all hope and made their internal emotional world support that, support them in this hard position.
It was needed.
But I think it is time to let go of that. The times are changing and it looks like we can actually extend the lifespan. Maybe not this year, maybe not even this decade - sure. But soon. Don't let old beliefs stand in the way of progress. It has never worked and only creates unnecessary strain on the people holding those beliefs. The world is moving in that direction and there is little you can do to stop it. And for a good reason. Saying "we don't need/want to live longer" is neither rational nor truthful.
That's a very dangerous thing though. Humans are very good at destroying things, not so much as replacing them with good alternatives. Religion is the prime example, "God is dead", and what do people have left ? Pure individualism, narcissism, egotism, lack of communities, lack of purpose; these are the new building blocks of our societies. And it's very well documented; loneliness epidemic, depression epidemic, people literally dying of sins, gluttony, sloth, ...
What good is it to live longer if it's still in the same degenerate ways ? Work more ? Consume more ? If you can't live a fulfilling life in ~80 years you won't do better with 120. The analogy of a kid always wanting more, no matter the consequences, really holds up.
Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.
> What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily? For we are mistaken when we look forward to death; the major portion of death has already passed. Whatever years lie behind us are in death's hands.
If you don't have answers to those questions for yourself, it sounds like you don't have a working spirituality in your system.. In that case yes, it is easy to think "why live longer", because the underlying question for such a person is really "why live at all?".
This is certainly an important problem in the west and a lot of work is being done on it, but it is not directly related to the longevity research, they are different areas. The problem in that case is not longevity or health, it is the spiritual questions. Earlier, religions were answering those questions for many people. Today, many of them struggle yes. But it has nothing to do with longevity. Guiding any choices in the technological advancements and increasing physical human life quality because someone does not see the point in everything is not very wise at least, because by extension that argument would work for any other technological advancement we are doing. Why make new computers? Why make electric cars? Why fight pollution? Why go to the moon? "Why solve the world hunger, those people will just start consuming and working mindlessly, there is no point, etc.".
To me personally I have tons of answers for those questions, and it's not consumption or "work"(whatever people mean by that).
In any case I wish for everyone to find their own spirituality of course, which might be a religion (buddhism for example is doing just fine, just as it has been for many more thousands of years than even christianity), or some more modern way of acquiring spirituality like modern spiritual teachers, retreats, meditation, psychedelic experiences, asketism, some philosophies, etc. Those things do not exist for no reason, they are exactly the west's more effective answers to obsolete religions. They serve the same purpose. But this is not a question of the longevity field, why mix up the two?
> Life is a really fucking long time if you throw away the bs we all take part in. And again, Seneca sounds on point to me. No matter how long you live, if you're not able to enjoy this gift, 50, 150, 250 years won't be enough.
Again, no shit. But if you can enjoy 1 year, you will enjoy the 100 years so much more as well. This argument goes both ways.
Many people believe things that simply aren’t true and you can’t convince them otherwise.
A new generation comes along and challenges entrenched ideas and progress is made.
Perhaps we can grow past this way of thinking?
What does the science say about your thoughts on the subject?