The Rush to Reassure Us that the Longevity Industry is Not Working on Longevity
When various talking heads unite to tell us that the longevity industry isn't actually working to extend human life span, and it is all about letting you die at the usual time with less arthritis and pain, I'm not entirely sure who they think needs to be reassured in this way. The character of the powers that be, in the English language world anyway, appears to be that they are terrified of all possible change, and project that fear onto the populace. Their propaganda follows that apparent view. Under the hood, from person to person, who knows why they think it is necessary to toe the current party line that work on the mechanisms of aging will not lengthen life spans. It continues to puzzle me.
Altos Labs has signed up a dream team of scientists, numerous Nobel laureates among them. They will start work in the spring at two labs in the US and one in the UK, with substantial input from researchers in Japan. Their aim is to rejuvenate human cells, not with an eye on immortality - as some reports have claimed - but to stave off the diseases of old age that inexorably drive us to the grave. "This is not about developing the first 1,000-year-old human; it's about ensuring old age is enjoyed and not endured. Who wants to extend lifespan if all that means is another 30 years of ill health? This is about increasing healthspan, not lifespan."
Phrases such as "solving ageing" and "solving death" are seen as wrong-headed. "Apart from being silly at the moment, it raises all kinds of societal issues. I think it's morally dubious. Huge things would percolate through society with a substantial increase in life expectancy brought about by human intervention. We're living longer and longer already. People are suffering from disability and loss of quality of life because of ageing. That's what we should be trying to fix. We should be trying to keep people healthier for longer before they drop off the perch. Stay healthy then drop dead, die in your sleep. I think that's what most people want."
" I'm not entirely sure who they think needs to be reassured in this way."
The masses need to be reassured. The general public freaks out when you talk about lengthening life. Everyone I have ever talked to about it says " I don't want to be in a wheelchair or with dementia longer". They cannot comprehend living longer in a more youthful condition no matter how much you explain it.
So why fight stupid? Sell the idea this way and NOBODY will be against disease reduction and we will get our longer life without their hysteria. Problem solved.
"Stay healthy then drop dead"
It seems that this BS never ends...
@Antonio
This is still preferable to slow and painful rot
But why would one drop dead if you are in a perfect health and feel like 20 y old
I know at least half a dozen people who explicitly think ending aging is a Bad Idea. The reasons range from "the planet can't support more people" to "it would be bad if people in power never die out".
But each of them is steadfast in their belief, and will brook no attempt to change their mind. Bringing up the question of "at what age would you like your mother to die" usually result in an answer like "she'll die when it's her time" or "after she's lived a full life".
Our self-selection bubbles can be quite strong. I put forth effort to notice mine and break out of it.
I remember episode of Star Trek Next Generation, Diana's mother was involved with a guy. This guy's culture required people to die at a specific age, meaning was to be terminated shortly, and her mother of course was against it. So, controversy on this topic in the episode.
@Cuberat: exactly. People who are old and sick accept death as a relief. They have gradually abandoned activities they used to enjoy due to frailty and won't be losing much when death finally gets them. In fact, I think that the infirmities of old age help people prepare psychologically. But who on earth would accept dying when strong and healthy? If such an absurdity were even possible it would make death even more of an outrage.
@Barbara
Just a few short centuries ago dying from accidents/wars/infectious diseases, predation , or even famine was one of the major causes for most of the people. Being over 80 was unimaginably ancient for the young adults of 15-17 years of age. And those were the majority. If you were able to ask them they would say that they don't want to live that long, especially with all the deterioration which comes with old age
@Dennis Towne
One way to convert them would be this thought experiment.
Let's image that there's a risky treatment which can make you 10 years younger but there's a 50% chance of you dying. That would go very well with "dictators never dying and overpopulation". One can run the numbers to get to the point where the treatment becomes population neutral, all else being equal. Even if you can have the same treatment in 10 years with the same probability eventually the population will decline. Now I cannot tell the formula from the top of my head but it has something to do with collapsing probabilities and markov random walk .
In fact, their opinion doesn't matter that much. For good and for bad.
As soon as there is any viable treatment it will become widely used. First by the rich and famous, where the looks are equal to status and income. Then by rest of the plebes. No society would be able effectively to ban it. Not a national scale, at least.
What matters is how fast the first treatment can arrive. And here the opinion on the investors, researchers and policy makers make a big difference. I mean a big difference from a personal POV. If a therapy is delayed or brought faster by 10 years it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things, but could mean a lot for me :)
Don't try to persuade other humans to live longer.
My body - my choice. Their bodies - their choices.
This motto applies to reproduction ( choose not to have a baby)
and to vaccines ( choose not to be vaccinated)
and to anti-AGEing / life extension ( choose to get old and die, even if successful treatments are available and cheap)
Humans who will choose to stay healthy and then drop dead, will do so for different reasons:
Some - because they will be bored with long life (80 years, 100 ?),
Some - because they don't want to contribute to overpopulation problem ( die early to reduce population.)
Some - because they don't want to make environmental pollution worse ( the smaller the population - the better environment will be)
Let them choose - this is the most ethical attitude one can have.
But to choose to be for ever young, for ever healthy, for ever ageless - will be difficult to achieve. And few humans will choose it [ it will be expensive- not many will be able to afford it]
Hi there, just a 2 cents. TL DR: I am slightly fuming inside...here we go again with healthyness. healthy aging. you willl age, healthily, and you will die.
'' Under the hood, from person to person, who knows why they think it is necessary to toe the current party line that work on the mechanisms of aging will not lengthen life spans. It continues to puzzle me.''
Because ethics...morals. Because give 'eternal lief' on silver platter free, and spittin on it.
Who would do that? Some people would, do that....they don't want it. It's not normal, it's not 'OK' to live much longer beyond the maximum MLSP, it's viewed like cracpot view, outlandish and even comical/a joke/farcical... ''Since when do people live a 1000 years......never. And you want to make me believe we are going to that.....you are a good comedian/joke teller, or a bad snake oil seller (if serious/taking yourself seriously)''.
"Phrases such as "solving ageing" and "solving death" are seen as wrong-headed. Apart from being silly at the moment, it raises all kinds of societal issues. I think it's morally dubious. Huge things would percolate through society with a substantial increase in life expectancy brought about by human intervention. We're living longer and longer already. People are suffering from disability and loss of quality of life because of ageing. That's what we should be trying to fix. We should be trying to keep people healthier for longer before they drop off the perch. Stay healthy then drop dead, die in your sleep. I think that's what most people want."
societal issues...solving aging, solving death, fightaging.org..............is silly.
it raises all kinds of societal issues. .......is morally dubious.
I'm repeating his words. (which I am not entirely aggreing with, I agree that we should improve health for a long lifespan; in health...and then you die before/around 120-130...or earlier.
But, that's it, I am not for the 'Healhy Aging, and then, Die, like every human in the past - Before/At 120' and that's it that's all there is to it.)
Yes, huge things will percolate in society when we live longer, the first being that seniors will be able to live longer, healthier and even (continue) work if they wish...thus, they will not just be a 'health care burden/tax burden' of 'decripiting aging people that need health care'...
Even so - Even If - all seniors went back to work...it's not the real point, jobs are transforming and automatization is the future, whether we like it or not; I'm not saying we have to replace all humans with robots/automathons that do the job faster/better...you can create jobs...for older people...
but many people are tired of living paycheque to paycheque pitance....and many people don't want to work anymore; I mean, working at what they Love - yes, but working in something they hate...no. Especially, doing a job yuo hate for - years....that's carreer destruction..
Just because need some money to pay rent/food in a capitalist society that works on money...what does this mean? It mean, as we saw with COVID that ravaged jobs..., people are tired of being 'short changed' and 'exploited' and 'living in poverty'...doing shty...jobs...that pay nothing and are Certainly Not what they planned to 'do for life'. Some people are happy at their jobs and everything is fine..but there is a large % who are not. And, most of them, are either Rich in a job they hate but pays a lot...or they are poor...in a job they hate - too AND pays nothing.
This combination of poverty + sht jobs no one want to do (for reason, are awful/sht) + starvation wages + covid thrown in (for good measure) + aging people (elders/seniors) + rising health care costs = bad. times.
That is why automatization and robotization, A.I. is the future...and will at some point 'Take some jobs/take the place of humans'..doing this (oftenly phys.) crapjobs...it'S kind of like automotive companies...full of robots making cars in chain/automatized cars creation...no human is actually making these cars/assembling them; it'S the car industries' assembly/factory robots that are fast/making them...
As bad as it sounds, certain things wil need change and thus automatization is inevitable...
and thus, certain jobs may end up disappearing...I won't say 'be replaced by robots' but, in between that...we just need to keep a lid on A.I./robotics...so that A.I. does not 'want to replace humans' when it figures out how to 'make other A.I./robots' and 'humans are a just stick in the fig. wheel' to be removed. Humans would become useless/a thorn for ultra advanced A.I. that is autonomous and doesn't need any human (that is where the ethics arrive - to not let A.I take over humans/replace them/or even...exterminate them if it learns of dire things (kill)).
We have to be able to adapt, a bit let's say, to the time's of tomorrow.. tomorrow will not necessarily be the same.
"Phrases such as "solving ageing" and "solving death" are seen as wrong-headed. Apart from being silly at the moment, it raises all kinds of societal issues. I think it's morally dubious. Huge things would percolate through society with a substantial increase in life expectancy brought about by human intervention. We're living longer and longer already. People are suffering from disability and loss of quality of life because of ageing. That's what we should be trying to fix. We should be trying to keep people healthier for longer before they drop off the perch. Stay healthy then drop dead, die in your sleep. I think that's what most people want."
It's because 'solving aging' is almost seen like wrong, not right...not 'natural', not normal...again...like...''you shouldn't Need to 'Solve??? Aging...there is notthing to -solve about it. It just Is...accept it / let it be...and die like everyone else in history.''
Their premise is like ''creating a problem when there is none''...creating bobos where none...
''aging??...a problem?? ...something to solve??....no, nothing to solve...you are creating a 'imaginary fake ''problem''' out of aging....aging...is not a problem...''
To them, it's a Solution.
And that's the (other) problem today.
Dying = Good, for them.
''We die...''
''Open the conjugating book on dying verb and repeat with me:
''I die. You die. We die. I died. You died. We died. I will die. We will die. You will die...
...did I say, you/I/we...all die?''.
So good for them that living above 120 is a sin and if it was offered to them, they reject it.
''too much problems with living too long...who wants to live Too Long...No One''.
Because, EVERYONE, Feellss that 'living above 120' is WAAAAYYY tooooo long...
(/S)
And they will make sarcastistic jokes of us and call us 'the joke' for thinkging 'solving aging' is a 'Thing....'..
But, who would be the (more) fool?
Right now, it's continuously the ethics/morals that hinder longevity and that people are told : ''people who believe in living however long they wish...be it a 1000 years...are selfish...and just deluding themselves...not gonna happen; and they are BS peddlers...and snake oil peddling...''
They 'ruin it' for 'healthy aging'...and other Serious Healthy Aging therapies:
''"Phrases such as "solving ageing" and "solving death" are seen as wrong-headed. Apart from being silly at the moment, it raises all kinds of societal issues. I think it's morally dubious. Huge things would percolate through society with a substantial increase in life expectancy brought about by human intervention. We're living longer and longer already. People are suffering from disability and loss of quality of life because of ageing. That's what we should be trying to fix. We should be trying to keep people healthier for longer before they drop off the perch. Stay healthy then drop dead, die in your sleep. I think that's what most people want."
''...We're living longer and longer already.''
Translation: ''we are living too long - quit it - and die on your time - don't be selfish - mortaliy it is''.
''...People are suffering from disability and loss of quality of life because of ageing. That's what we should be trying to fix.''
Certain people with disability (like me, had atherosclerosis)...absolutely believe in improving health...but you know waht else...they are also believe in FIXING/defeatign the Cause/...aging. And yes...improving health too. My god..someone is Asking FOR BOTH...''don't ask too much...''...''you should just be happy to be alive and healthy enough to write this...don'T WANT to live longer, healthier - and - not die at 120....don't want that; rather WANT dying in your time...as you age and die''.
''....We should be trying to keep people healthier for longer before they drop off the perch. Stay healthy then drop dead, die in your sleep. I think that's what most people want."
Absolutely...but for that's not enough. the fact is we still die.
''yes..but that's a fact...we die, nothing can change that''.
...and that'S the problem.
THinking we Can'T change that and that ALL there is to Look Forward too...is Health Aging.
Just a 2 cents.
PS: When people say that ''we should try to fix the disease of aging and improve health'' so old people can live healthy..and die in their sleep....at 120 or less...then, it means that defeating aging is seen as some anomaly and almost a lost cause; time wasted/money wasted...or even as they say ethically dubious/morally dubious - and if it did happen - they would reject it...cause they would be like : ''My gawd....we defeat aging...like I can't ACCEPT IT...I can't....I won't...I don't and will not...my head cannot Wrap around it...do not compute that/rejected - bullsht''
It means that humans are stubborn and fixed on the 'dying cult'...of 'we die'...and accept it/embrace it...and living centuries is like some satanic/devil/egomaniac dictator'S dream...a funny joke, and scary joke at the same time.
*mmortality -> selfish dictators in the making...never thinking that ending aging is a benefitial for all; but only the sole *mmortal individual (again with selfishness);
And now we have WW3 at our doors with Russia Ukraine....people will say : ''Oh so you want to be Vladimir Putin -an *mmortal autoritharian/dictator that will rule Forever on Earth...while everyone dies around...at 120 or less''
People are still Very Ingrained in the 'I age, I die...like my great-great-grand-parents...my grand-parents...my parents...and now me one day...and then later my children...and my children's children...they will all die..in ad vitam eternam repeat cycle - the cycle of life - as it was for humans for 3 million years...you can't change; it is Fixed/Natural...accept it and stop deluding with idée of grandeu/eternal life..it'S just in your head...''
@CANanonymity
I would be happy if we can make the life expectancy to 120. For me that would be close to extra 80 years until the next generations arrive and 200 will be the new 120s :)
PS:
Hi Nicholas! Just a 2 cents.
Absolutely...a choice....
but, Nicholas...a choice...to live die of aging..or not.
Humans never had that choice. We all die, it is not a choice; it is a fact/a reality with 100% truth. You, I , we die. (of aging I mean).
so what if , My body, my choice...to do not die of BODY-biological aging...
''oh you can't...because other people around die...what?? you want to be eternal like god??? gettouta here...with your 'my body my choice'...'the gov owns your body''.
PPS: Hi Cuberat! Thanks for that. Just a 2 c.
Yes, even reaching 140-150..is Incredible!!!! It would be such a marvel in humanity/history...as long as we are healthy enough and as they say 'die in your sleep - no pain'....but
that's just a small step...the Bigger Step is getting to that Milestone of 200 years...then 300..then 400...then maybe one day...Defeated Aging...for good; no more dying - of aging. Fin.
Extrinsic problems.. we can't do anything (accidents...) but the Big problem 'aging' - defeated/solved. But people are saying :
"Phrases such as "solving ageing" and "solving death" are seen as wrong-headed. Apart from being silly at the moment, it raises all kinds of societal issues.''
I know they mean well..and don't want to peddle 'snake oil' and make people on their guards...like with 'False Hopes of Eternal Life'...I understand that..to not give deceipt/deceiptful ideas...but it is not Deceiptful to wish to defeat aging and end death - of aging. But some people still think so and that is due to the deep ingrained 'humans die - die cult' since humans existed - like...our mind is 'programmed' on the fact ..we die..of aging.it's hard to 'dismantle' this deep ingrained die thought...that you die like your parents..grand-parents..children..etc...all humans, basically.
@CANanonymity
It could very well turn out that our brains cannot handle more than a few hundred years. At that point we would either probably stagnate or start forgetting, if the brain is elastic enough. So , if we assume that the brain can hold 500 years worth of important experience , then in in 500 more the half of it would have to be replaced only with faint shadow of the full memory. 500 more yers and we keep only 25% of the original personality. Now imagine 10 periods like this and suddenly your former self is so diluted that it is just a between 2 and 5%. Now if we imagine a technology to transfer/share memory and knowledge directly from the brain. (we already have an old-school one called books, but it is imperfect and not very direct). So imagine that you can share 10% of your memory/brain space. So, a recipient of those original 10% would be more you than you after 5000 of normal life.
All of this is highly hypothetical, of course. And if we take into account that 5K years is the time we had written history. And 10-12 thousand years we had civilization this time span might be enormous. And probably 70 thousand years is oldest date of behaviorally modern human.
So yes, it is hard to imagine living that long. And yet forever is much longer.
There was some calculation that if we keep the same mortality as a 20 yers old, we would have the live expectancy of about 800 years. Hardly a god-like. Of course some extereme outliers might live 10 times as much. For them boredom might be a real issue. Who knows. But let's jump from that bridge when we reach it..
p.s.
I have just checked and for males at age of 20 the chance of dying any given year is about 1/1000. (remarkably females have half of that probability, probably doing less stupid things)
So if we take a good round number and simply adding the probabilities than the p=1 will be reached in 1000 years.
PPPS: Re you bring solid points ...
there are still tons of limits; we're not out of the woods ((yet)sadly);
when I look at very long lived animals - it gives some assurance that it is not a far-fetched/far-flung joke to defeat aging - for humans. Galapagos Tortoise - 175 years; Bowhead whales - 268+ years; Greenland Sharks - 500+ years; Iceland artic clams - 512 years;
ok, this last one (clam) is not really 'on a brain'...but if giant mammals and other animals, reach centuries..and Do have a brain...it means that...we could run our brain for 200-300...maybe
500 years (not an assurance in humans of course..but a possibility...as they saying goes; ''you mean there is a possibility/there is....a chance..........('a snowball's chance in hell')''? Micro-chance better than 0 chance. If it's 0.00000000000001, better than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000.
A Heart That Beats for 500 Years: Age-Related Changes in Cardiac Proteasome Activity, Oxidative Protein Damage and Expression of Heat Shock Proteins, Inflammatory Factors, and Mitochondrial Complexes in Arctica islandica, the Longest-Living Noncolonial Animal
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271020/
(their hearts lasts extremely long, I think the brain can too but will need serious tuning...to this extreme lifespan; if a Greenland Shark, lives 500 years, and has a big brain, it's not unfeasable for humans).
PPPPS: yes....70,000 years...is hard to fathom....like ''I can't even fathom living to a 100...and you want me to believe to live to 70,000year old!? I ache living to a 100..imagine living 70K years I would be bored to death.....or heck 'be *mmortal/eternal life; INfinite Life...Unfathomable''...
yes, it is hard to fathom...because it never happened. But, some miracles do happen.
We are there. Infinite is very hard to fathom....because if Infinite.
Death, is Infinite - you die once, forever...we fathom it...maybe a little too much. Life is Finite.
120 finite, and that's what's being fathomed 'as fathomable-enough' (alas).
Yes, statistically, 800 years...becaus External factors/extrinsic accidents (you ahve a chance of being 'hit by lighening' in 800 years...just going 'outside' means you could die...since we expose ourselves 'to risks/dangers - car accidents..homicide..or some, suicide...''...but if you were did not 'bored out' over 800 years and lived in a bunker...alone or few people...who also lived as long; maybe as you sai..we might reached 8000 years....some trees live 5000 years....of course, we're not trees. I thin also they mean that mutations or other damage/limits will mean that 1000 years is pretty much the best we can do before we need to 'replace the Whole Entire Body' (à La Robocop/Cyborg);
true, with the 1 chance out of 1000 to die for men in their 20s....but that supposes the Current environment/conditions/and biological health cares....it does not accoutn the Futuer stuff that will happen; now if it does account it..than it would be as you said..due to other problems (like external problems/extrinsinc...men in wars, men in violence/accidents...young men thugs/crime...etc...which can cut their life short...overstressed); but other men who will not live this 'young life' may live longer and avoid these pitfalls of 'most men in their 20s dying of such'...I think that that 1/1000 will drop...to 1/10,000 at some point or lower; there is alwars a probability of 'accidents'; but as I said, if you live in a bunker 'closed' like a 'hermit' and you Avoid dangers...outside..you cut Lots of risks...now your life may be boring...but 'people take their chances/spin the roulette..when they leave their doorstep''....maybe life in the future will more 'recluse' because it protects you..just like a rat - in the wild...dies young...(stress); while a animal/like a rat taking care of 'in lab'...will live longer 'shielded/fed/healthcared...etc'...it means Risk Cutting/Risk reduction - to increase longevity (oh sure 'risk reduciton' = boring life 'never take any risks - live in fear 'of living'')...people that like 'living on the Edge' - take risks...it's a More Lively Life...but it can be a short-er one).