Ageing studies in five animals suggests how to reverse decline(nature.com)
nature.com
Ageing studies in five animals suggests how to reverse decline
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01040-x
284 comments
I made a comment a few days ago in the context of increasing complexity of a lot of things in our lives, in which I mentioned
> The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35470905#35477122
This is one thing where aging slower could be very important for us. Increasing complexity alone requires more time for developing, planning, handling and maintaining a lot of our devices and infrastructure. Experience gained over long periods is worth much more. It also requires a higher up-front "penalty" in the form of more education before we can even get started with being productive in many interesting and worthwhile projects. For example, compare starting with Linux kernel programming in the 1990s vs. now, or building a house many decades ago vs. now.
On the other hand, our capacity to place the anto-aging benefits with the right people are questionable. We can only hope that higher-level processes, not controlled by us, will still lead us to good outcomes overall. Similar with a lot of stuff already going on which we hardly have any direct control over, even in cases where "in theory" (meaning a theory that does things like "if we all just..", disregarding that coordination and information are physical and cost time and energy and a working algorithm) we could. So adding one more thing for the universe to sort out for us may not make much of a difference anyway, and having the moneyed classes go first, probably for a long time because the anti-aging solution probably won't be a simple pill, but a complex ongoing long-term process, might still work out. For humanity as a whole, if not for the (less lucky) individuals. It probably widens the gaps even more, in wealth and in education and in opportunities. Might still be worth a shot.
> The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35470905#35477122
This is one thing where aging slower could be very important for us. Increasing complexity alone requires more time for developing, planning, handling and maintaining a lot of our devices and infrastructure. Experience gained over long periods is worth much more. It also requires a higher up-front "penalty" in the form of more education before we can even get started with being productive in many interesting and worthwhile projects. For example, compare starting with Linux kernel programming in the 1990s vs. now, or building a house many decades ago vs. now.
On the other hand, our capacity to place the anto-aging benefits with the right people are questionable. We can only hope that higher-level processes, not controlled by us, will still lead us to good outcomes overall. Similar with a lot of stuff already going on which we hardly have any direct control over, even in cases where "in theory" (meaning a theory that does things like "if we all just..", disregarding that coordination and information are physical and cost time and energy and a working algorithm) we could. So adding one more thing for the universe to sort out for us may not make much of a difference anyway, and having the moneyed classes go first, probably for a long time because the anti-aging solution probably won't be a simple pill, but a complex ongoing long-term process, might still work out. For humanity as a whole, if not for the (less lucky) individuals. It probably widens the gaps even more, in wealth and in education and in opportunities. Might still be worth a shot.
But there are so, so many things abstracted away from our need to understand them.
People a 120 years ago had to memorize trig tables.
People 60 years ago had to learn how to operate a slide rule and understand how to handle accuracy.
People 30 years ago had to learn how to do algebra and calculus.
People 10 years ago needed to know how to set up the equations to ask Wolfram Alpha to solve the problem.
Today, we're closing in on being able to say, "Draw up plans to build a mixed-use building on this plot with at least 20,000 square feet of retail and 60 residential units." And getting back an answer.
People a 120 years ago had to memorize trig tables.
People 60 years ago had to learn how to operate a slide rule and understand how to handle accuracy.
People 30 years ago had to learn how to do algebra and calculus.
People 10 years ago needed to know how to set up the equations to ask Wolfram Alpha to solve the problem.
Today, we're closing in on being able to say, "Draw up plans to build a mixed-use building on this plot with at least 20,000 square feet of retail and 60 residential units." And getting back an answer.
Your postulates are wrong
* Nobody ever had to memorize trig tables (unless you mean the values for 30, 45 and 60 degrees)
* Understanding accuracy is not associated with just slide rules. It is ubiquitous whenever you make measurements. Moreso if you calculate with these measured values.
* People have been learning algebra and calculus for hundreds of years. They still are doing so.
* Symbolic math programs like maxima, maple, wolfram alpha, sage and others only solve some problems, but they have been used for 40 years or more for particular situations.
Given this, forgive me if I think your conclusion is flawed. You can ask a LLM model that answer today. And you will get an answer.
Understanding what that answer means and how it is a form of hooey still requires domain knowledge. And it will for a very long time.
* Nobody ever had to memorize trig tables (unless you mean the values for 30, 45 and 60 degrees)
* Understanding accuracy is not associated with just slide rules. It is ubiquitous whenever you make measurements. Moreso if you calculate with these measured values.
* People have been learning algebra and calculus for hundreds of years. They still are doing so.
* Symbolic math programs like maxima, maple, wolfram alpha, sage and others only solve some problems, but they have been used for 40 years or more for particular situations.
Given this, forgive me if I think your conclusion is flawed. You can ask a LLM model that answer today. And you will get an answer.
Understanding what that answer means and how it is a form of hooey still requires domain knowledge. And it will for a very long time.
Trig tables: I remember reading that, but I can't find a cite and I'm happy to concede the point here, but having to have a book (you do acknowledge that such tables were a thing?) that you physically look things up in is hardly better.
Accuracy: first, I can't believe I cross-wired accuracy and precision. Still, you seem to be responding as if I had gotten it right, so I'll respond in kind: sure, understanding precision is still an important concept, but it was much more so when working with a mechanical device that managed at most 2-4 digits of precision. I'm guessing that with 64-bit values, precision isn't a big topic of conversation outside of NASA. (That's hyperbole)
You're saying that algebra and calculus are just as tedious/necessary now as they were 30 years ago? To be clear, I'm sort of fudging -- Mathematica is actually 34 years old. But my point is that tools like it have changed who needs to learn the techniques, and what learning the techniques look like. And of course it's easier to be certain that basically no one today needs to know how to use a slide rule than to say no one needs to be able to solve a quadratic -- the more recent the change, the less absolute it will be.
Finally, "a very long time" seems optimistic. As an analogy, there were articles written in 2010 saying that it would be "a very long time" before computers beat anyone reasonably skilled at Go. It was less than ten years later that the very best humans couldn't beat computers.
It's impossible to know where fast progress will be made vs. slow. I purposefully chose a hyperbolic example to illustrate the point, and it's entirely possible that architecture won't be a field handled well by AI/ML in ten years. But I think it's certain that over the next several years, multiple fields that humans regard as being as complex and domain-knowledge-dependent as architecture will be automated.
Accuracy: first, I can't believe I cross-wired accuracy and precision. Still, you seem to be responding as if I had gotten it right, so I'll respond in kind: sure, understanding precision is still an important concept, but it was much more so when working with a mechanical device that managed at most 2-4 digits of precision. I'm guessing that with 64-bit values, precision isn't a big topic of conversation outside of NASA. (That's hyperbole)
You're saying that algebra and calculus are just as tedious/necessary now as they were 30 years ago? To be clear, I'm sort of fudging -- Mathematica is actually 34 years old. But my point is that tools like it have changed who needs to learn the techniques, and what learning the techniques look like. And of course it's easier to be certain that basically no one today needs to know how to use a slide rule than to say no one needs to be able to solve a quadratic -- the more recent the change, the less absolute it will be.
Finally, "a very long time" seems optimistic. As an analogy, there were articles written in 2010 saying that it would be "a very long time" before computers beat anyone reasonably skilled at Go. It was less than ten years later that the very best humans couldn't beat computers.
It's impossible to know where fast progress will be made vs. slow. I purposefully chose a hyperbolic example to illustrate the point, and it's entirely possible that architecture won't be a field handled well by AI/ML in ten years. But I think it's certain that over the next several years, multiple fields that humans regard as being as complex and domain-knowledge-dependent as architecture will be automated.
> ... an answer.
Heh Heh Heh
People -20 years ago need to learn algebra, calculus, slide rules, accuracy, and trig tables as the answers they're getting don't work and they're not sure what to do.
Heh Heh Heh
People -20 years ago need to learn algebra, calculus, slide rules, accuracy, and trig tables as the answers they're getting don't work and they're not sure what to do.
I suppose that might be true if something catastrophic happens, but hopefully that's unlikely. We'll see...
Arrgh, I meant precision, not accuracy. I feel ashamed for the confusion.
Not everyone thinks abstracting away all that stuff was a good idea.
I get that, but I disagree pretty strongly. We are far past the point where a single human can learn and understand everything from first principles. It means that many of us would be in for a very difficult time if the zombie apocalypse happens (people still show up for the TV show Survivor not knowing how to make fire!?) but I, for one, like the fact that my car doesn't have a manual spark advance.
I don't think we're talking about a human learning/understanding everything from first principles, but I agree with you that our collective distance from understanding even the basic structures of what makes these things work is getting way too large. I'm probably jaded because I'm a millennial, so I grew up during the transition from analog to digital and understand both worlds. When I encounter or work with young people today they are actually much closer to geriatrics than to my generation in that, to many of them, so much of the technology they rely on is indistinguishable from magic. I think this is bad.
>It means that many of us would be in for a very difficult time if the zombie apocalypse happens
People grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge you'd need to learn and retain to survive one of these. Mostly, we're just lazy and don't do it because we think our computers will do it for us.
>It means that many of us would be in for a very difficult time if the zombie apocalypse happens
People grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge you'd need to learn and retain to survive one of these. Mostly, we're just lazy and don't do it because we think our computers will do it for us.
> People grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge you'd need to learn and retain
There are whole shelves of books on how to grow food, and other shelves on how to build shelter. I haven't watched a lot of Survivor or Naked and Afraid, but what I have seen makes me think there's more to survival than can be learned in a few months, let's say. And that's just basic survival. If we want to retain even an 18th century standard of living, we'd need to understand how to build steam engines, a cotton gin, etc., etc. I don't like our odds. To be clear: some people would survive. But my half-assed guess would be that the human population might drop to less than a million.
There are whole shelves of books on how to grow food, and other shelves on how to build shelter. I haven't watched a lot of Survivor or Naked and Afraid, but what I have seen makes me think there's more to survival than can be learned in a few months, let's say. And that's just basic survival. If we want to retain even an 18th century standard of living, we'd need to understand how to build steam engines, a cotton gin, etc., etc. I don't like our odds. To be clear: some people would survive. But my half-assed guess would be that the human population might drop to less than a million.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how it would radically alter human existence and civilization in ways we can hardly fathom.
That said, death is rather terrible so I am in favor of curing aging to the extent that we can, while working hard to ensure things don’t go into the shitter in the process.
That said, death is rather terrible so I am in favor of curing aging to the extent that we can, while working hard to ensure things don’t go into the shitter in the process.
Do you have a better solution though? I don't see why you dismiss this, it's a real enough problem. If people lived centuries, it would just be eternal tyranny of the old and decrepit over the young and beautiful. It would be a stagnant and ugly world. We already have gerontocracy, even with regular lifespans.
The history of humanity suggests repeating the same mistakes through inexperience leads to stagnation as much as anything else. People die, died at younger ages in the past, and we had many of the same issues. It doesn't take the same people to do the same things.
The history of humanity also suggests that old rich people are the worst and society and it’s very lucky that they have to die and relinquish power.
I don't think you understand where this research is going. The aim is not to have people living forever. The aim is for all of us to live for a long time in a body of a 25 year old. There won't be a gerontocracy because there won't be old people.
Old people have more wisdom than young people. And for those Americans complaining about be victims of tyrannical old people, why do y’all keep voting for Pelosi,, Hillary, Trump, Biden, Feinstein, McConnell, and the other dinosaurs that didn’t make it through the first cut when casting Cocoon?
More experienced people have more wisdom then less experienced people. That doesn't really correlate with age though, plenty of people have lived a long time and not seen much of anything.
As for old people in politics, it's because there's a lot of old people who get to vote.
If it were up to me, your vote would depend on some rough measure of remaining time in the society, plus you'd get to vote for your underage children.
As for old people in politics, it's because there's a lot of old people who get to vote.
If it were up to me, your vote would depend on some rough measure of remaining time in the society, plus you'd get to vote for your underage children.
> As for old people in politics, it's because there's a lot of old people who get to vote.
That’s only a small part of it. You can’t get anywhere in US politics without being in one of the two main parties, both of which have become in-effect oligarchies. Age and wealth are big factors in getting ahead in oligarchies.
So voters have little choice but to vote for one of these two oligarchies which are both stacked with rich old people. It’s not that much different from the Roman republic, except that instead of a single senatorial class you get to choose between two competing parties of patricians.
That’s only a small part of it. You can’t get anywhere in US politics without being in one of the two main parties, both of which have become in-effect oligarchies. Age and wealth are big factors in getting ahead in oligarchies.
So voters have little choice but to vote for one of these two oligarchies which are both stacked with rich old people. It’s not that much different from the Roman republic, except that instead of a single senatorial class you get to choose between two competing parties of patricians.
If it were up to me we would raise the voting age to 25, and maybe restrict it to homeowners and small business owners with more than X revenue or more than Y full time employees.
Too many people are voting emotionally based on something someone told them one time about how the world should be.
Not enough people voting based on having to grapple with accomplishing something difficult, wanting to improve the circumstances of their community, and seeing what human nature looks like over time.
But no one asked me.
Too many people are voting emotionally based on something someone told them one time about how the world should be.
Not enough people voting based on having to grapple with accomplishing something difficult, wanting to improve the circumstances of their community, and seeing what human nature looks like over time.
But no one asked me.
Good thing nobody asked you, because a tyranny like that would be worth taking up arms against.
I'll note many countries did have voting restrictions like that, and it did nothing good.
I'll note many countries did have voting restrictions like that, and it did nothing good.
You are calling a system where ~70% of people can make decisions about government representation a tyranny? When there are also codified hard limits of what the government can do to citizens as well?
Yes, I am. A government is best measured by how it treats it minorities. A government that disenfranchises a substantial proportion of its competent population is one that deserves to be removed with arms if necessary - it has no legitimacy whatsoever.
Including the early US (fifty acres of land in most states).
But homeowners and businesspeople couldn't possibly vote based on emotions?
Or are you suggesting they don't vote based on what they've been told the world should be?
Or are you suggesting they don't vote based on what they've been told the world should be?
We’ll I think the point is that if I’ve inherited a home as part of a loved one’s estate or was gifted a home by virtue of generational wealth then I am naturally too mature to vote based on emotions. QED
I do agree with your second point (emotional voting seems to be common imho).
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people" - Probably Jefferson?
I wish that the voting population were more knowledgeable about civics, the issues at hand and basic economic theory (i.e. no such thing as free money/services, that someone pays and not just everyone but you). I get a spew of party talking points for any interaction. I don't get a sense they even understand what they are saying. (Hence the reason for the first quote).
A lot of people I see (or am exposed to), don't read the news and base their decisions on clickbait-y articles (without even reading it) or shared/liked articles with dubious authenticity from their family/friends.
I get a sense of massive tribalism and am completely dumbfounded about it all.
To quote Jefferson again: “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people" - Probably Jefferson?
I wish that the voting population were more knowledgeable about civics, the issues at hand and basic economic theory (i.e. no such thing as free money/services, that someone pays and not just everyone but you). I get a spew of party talking points for any interaction. I don't get a sense they even understand what they are saying. (Hence the reason for the first quote).
A lot of people I see (or am exposed to), don't read the news and base their decisions on clickbait-y articles (without even reading it) or shared/liked articles with dubious authenticity from their family/friends.
I get a sense of massive tribalism and am completely dumbfounded about it all.
To quote Jefferson again: “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
Perhaps. But then we should not let anyone vote who has hit escape velocity. The person you described might be very well off at which point they are a single issue voter -- low tax rates.
I’m ok with that.
That was how it used to be in lots of places. But it was not allowed to last because the wealthy eligible voters kept selfishly exploiting those that had no voting rights.
> restrict [voting] to homeowners and small business owners
What a great way to jumpstart a new feudal age. Lawmakers start pandering those two groups, eventually burning the bridge of mobility and turning all the renting working people into de-facto slaves.
I am very relieved that nobody asked you.
What a great way to jumpstart a new feudal age. Lawmakers start pandering those two groups, eventually burning the bridge of mobility and turning all the renting working people into de-facto slaves.
I am very relieved that nobody asked you.
I feel like anyone who demonstrates responsibility for themself should be given the right to vote. So, maybe even as young as 11 or so. But, that would never happen.
What is very telling here is people aren’t offended by the comment I replied to, which is enthusiastically advocating for age discrimination.
It's just that your comment is simply so much more extreme that it took the focus away. I find that deplorable too.
But restricting vote to property owners is the kind of thing that'd make me seriously consider fomenting armed insurrection.
But restricting vote to property owners is the kind of thing that'd make me seriously consider fomenting armed insurrection.
[deleted]
It’s not more extreme, on a rational level. It’s literally the system the US had in the past, as opposed to disenfranchising old people which is just stupid and cruel.
Most HN commenters seem to not understand that the majority of Americans are homeowners. The “mobile” city dweller is an exception. And although it might hurt feelings, most Americans probably don’t want to have policy shaped by people who are so mobile they can vote in bad policy and then move to somewhere else with little cost to themselves.
Similar to most commenters on the internet don’t realize the TSA didn’t use to exist. The airlines dealt with security and everything was faster and more pleasant.
Not all progress is good. Sometimes society makes mistakes and we need to figure out how to course correct.
Most HN commenters seem to not understand that the majority of Americans are homeowners. The “mobile” city dweller is an exception. And although it might hurt feelings, most Americans probably don’t want to have policy shaped by people who are so mobile they can vote in bad policy and then move to somewhere else with little cost to themselves.
Similar to most commenters on the internet don’t realize the TSA didn’t use to exist. The airlines dealt with security and everything was faster and more pleasant.
Not all progress is good. Sometimes society makes mistakes and we need to figure out how to course correct.
It would disenfranchise about 35% totally. Yes, it's extreme. That the US like many other countries were not in any way democratic before does not make it less extreme.
And as I said, if I was a citizen of a country that decided to disenfranchise 35% of the population, then despite being a homeowner it'd be time to organise an armed insurrection; it's totally intolerable and a government that tries something like that needs to be overthrown with force.
And as I said, if I was a citizen of a country that decided to disenfranchise 35% of the population, then despite being a homeowner it'd be time to organise an armed insurrection; it's totally intolerable and a government that tries something like that needs to be overthrown with force.
So what happens when the poorest 51% vote themselves all the money from the richest 49%?
Our current politics isn’t even representative of what people want, it is a mind control contest. Whoever can manipulate the population the best wins.
What if I changed my suggestion to only people who pay net taxes get to vote. This would disqualify people living on social security so the comment I was replying to would get their wish.
Voting isn’t a natural right, the way speech or self defense is. Voting is participating in making decisions about how the country will be run and what force can be used to curtail other members of the society.
The whole concept of universal suffrage was probably silly to begin with. There should be a buy-in. If you can’t even pull your life together, why should you be empowered to influence how I live mine?
Also, why is is somehow less radical to want to disenfranchise the elderly?
Our current politics isn’t even representative of what people want, it is a mind control contest. Whoever can manipulate the population the best wins.
What if I changed my suggestion to only people who pay net taxes get to vote. This would disqualify people living on social security so the comment I was replying to would get their wish.
Voting isn’t a natural right, the way speech or self defense is. Voting is participating in making decisions about how the country will be run and what force can be used to curtail other members of the society.
The whole concept of universal suffrage was probably silly to begin with. There should be a buy-in. If you can’t even pull your life together, why should you be empowered to influence how I live mine?
Also, why is is somehow less radical to want to disenfranchise the elderly?
> So what happens when the poorest 51% vote themselves all the money from the richest 49%?
Then the richest 49% will need to decide if the society they live in is worth that, or if they want to leave or otherwise separate.
> Our current politics isn’t even representative of what people want, it is a mind control contest. Whoever can manipulate the population the best wins.
I agree with that, but the solution is not to strip people of rights out of the assumption you know who knows best - that's the playbook of a substantial proportion of brutally oppressive, authoritarian movements who started with a notion of wanting what was "best" only to find out the people they claimed to want the best for had their own ideas of what that meant.
> The whole concept of universal suffrage was probably silly to begin with. There should be a buy-in. If you can’t even pull your life together, why should you be empowered to influence how I live mine?
The whole concept of universal suffrage is based on the concept that if you're not willing to give me a say, you have no legitimacy for demanding any say over my life whatsoever, and so can expect to face years or decades of resistance - however long it takes until you lose. No government will in the long run survive ongoing disenfranchisement, because a proportion of those you oppress will always be prepared to fight for freedom.
> What if I changed my suggestion to only people who pay net taxes get to vote. This would disqualify people living on social security so the comment I was replying to would get their wish.
Property requirement by proxy. Time for an armed revolution.
> Also, why is is somehow less radical to want to disenfranchise the elderly?
It's only marginally so as long as the proposal you replied to was vague on the extent of it, proposing to weight the value of the vote somehow based on the time they'd have to live with the consequences. That could be taken to outright disenfranchise the oldest, or slightly skewing it. Had they come out with something firmer, and you hadn't proposed something very direct with clear parallels to past real-life disenfranchisement they might have been the focus of the same level of opposition instead of you.
To be very clear, I think any disenfranchisement is unjustified. As it is, the US, and the UK where I live, can hardly be considered democracies given their horrible electoral systems have a similar effect for anyone who disagrees with the main options, but at least they don't go so far as to openly deprive any significant competent population group the vote (though I do consider the disenfranchisement of portions of convicted felons to be blatantly undemocratic and unjustified as well).
Then the richest 49% will need to decide if the society they live in is worth that, or if they want to leave or otherwise separate.
> Our current politics isn’t even representative of what people want, it is a mind control contest. Whoever can manipulate the population the best wins.
I agree with that, but the solution is not to strip people of rights out of the assumption you know who knows best - that's the playbook of a substantial proportion of brutally oppressive, authoritarian movements who started with a notion of wanting what was "best" only to find out the people they claimed to want the best for had their own ideas of what that meant.
> The whole concept of universal suffrage was probably silly to begin with. There should be a buy-in. If you can’t even pull your life together, why should you be empowered to influence how I live mine?
The whole concept of universal suffrage is based on the concept that if you're not willing to give me a say, you have no legitimacy for demanding any say over my life whatsoever, and so can expect to face years or decades of resistance - however long it takes until you lose. No government will in the long run survive ongoing disenfranchisement, because a proportion of those you oppress will always be prepared to fight for freedom.
> What if I changed my suggestion to only people who pay net taxes get to vote. This would disqualify people living on social security so the comment I was replying to would get their wish.
Property requirement by proxy. Time for an armed revolution.
> Also, why is is somehow less radical to want to disenfranchise the elderly?
It's only marginally so as long as the proposal you replied to was vague on the extent of it, proposing to weight the value of the vote somehow based on the time they'd have to live with the consequences. That could be taken to outright disenfranchise the oldest, or slightly skewing it. Had they come out with something firmer, and you hadn't proposed something very direct with clear parallels to past real-life disenfranchisement they might have been the focus of the same level of opposition instead of you.
To be very clear, I think any disenfranchisement is unjustified. As it is, the US, and the UK where I live, can hardly be considered democracies given their horrible electoral systems have a similar effect for anyone who disagrees with the main options, but at least they don't go so far as to openly deprive any significant competent population group the vote (though I do consider the disenfranchisement of portions of convicted felons to be blatantly undemocratic and unjustified as well).
Ok, how about this proposal:
No more get out the vote campaigns. No more encouraging people to vote. The new message is ‘voting is your right, use it wisely.’
‘Vote responsibly.’
Everyone would have the right to vote, but would be encouraged only to vote when they feel educated about the issues and/or candidates.
And encouraged to abstain if and when they are unclear about what they are voting for.
‘I voted’ would no longer be a point of pride. Voting would be messaged as something to be done carefully, and anything resembling ballot harvesting would be totally illegal. In the broadest possible terms. People would need to care enough to actually figure when and how to vote.
No more get out the vote campaigns. No more encouraging people to vote. The new message is ‘voting is your right, use it wisely.’
‘Vote responsibly.’
Everyone would have the right to vote, but would be encouraged only to vote when they feel educated about the issues and/or candidates.
And encouraged to abstain if and when they are unclear about what they are voting for.
‘I voted’ would no longer be a point of pride. Voting would be messaged as something to be done carefully, and anything resembling ballot harvesting would be totally illegal. In the broadest possible terms. People would need to care enough to actually figure when and how to vote.
Well if there is one thing we agree on, it is that disenfranchisement of felons is simply disgusting.
I think everyone commenting missed my point that casually talking about disenfranchising the elderly is horrific when you just substitute in some other less popular criteria.
Two thoughts come to mind:
One, all those in favor of living forever will out live the detractors.
Two, enshrine the right to die before making everybody live forever. Our bodies break down, parts stop working. Sure you might cure death, but what happens to those that will forever suffer due to some ailment that isn't curable? Do you let masses of people endlessly suffer just because someone can't fathom letting go?
One, all those in favor of living forever will out live the detractors.
Two, enshrine the right to die before making everybody live forever. Our bodies break down, parts stop working. Sure you might cure death, but what happens to those that will forever suffer due to some ailment that isn't curable? Do you let masses of people endlessly suffer just because someone can't fathom letting go?
Your theoretical scenario is equally concerning. In a world where the status quo is "everyone dies after a certain age", then a drug that cures aging is a drastic change to the equilibrium and we should proceed with caution so that this change doesn't disrupt the equilibrium enough to lead to eventual extinction of the population.
In a world where the status quo is "nobody ages", then having everyone die after a certain age is also a drastic change to the already proven equilibrium.
In both cases, it's a drastic change, so in both cases we should proceed with caution.
(Related) I seem to recall an example of wolves and rabbits in equilibrium, with the wolves controlling the rabbit population. Take away the wolves and the rabbit population increases to the point where they eat all the vegetation and eventually all starve. (I'm not sure where I remember this from, or if it's even true)
In a world where the status quo is "nobody ages", then having everyone die after a certain age is also a drastic change to the already proven equilibrium.
In both cases, it's a drastic change, so in both cases we should proceed with caution.
(Related) I seem to recall an example of wolves and rabbits in equilibrium, with the wolves controlling the rabbit population. Take away the wolves and the rabbit population increases to the point where they eat all the vegetation and eventually all starve. (I'm not sure where I remember this from, or if it's even true)
> we should proceed with caution
We're talking about people dying. Would you "proceed with caution" pulling a person from a burning building, because of some vague reasons about status quos and upsetting balances? No, you'd save their life. There are times to proceed with caution, but it's not when billions of lives are at stake, equilibrium or not.
Freeing the slaves was a drastic change to a "proven equilibrium" economic situation. If we could have done it even a year earlier than we did, we should have. It was unconscionable that it even took that long. And messing up the comfy status quo and throwing the economy out of balance were absolutely reasons that slave-owners gave as to why they should be allowed to own humans forever. It was all bullshit. Fuck your equilibrium; billions of people are dying!
We're talking about people dying. Would you "proceed with caution" pulling a person from a burning building, because of some vague reasons about status quos and upsetting balances? No, you'd save their life. There are times to proceed with caution, but it's not when billions of lives are at stake, equilibrium or not.
Freeing the slaves was a drastic change to a "proven equilibrium" economic situation. If we could have done it even a year earlier than we did, we should have. It was unconscionable that it even took that long. And messing up the comfy status quo and throwing the economy out of balance were absolutely reasons that slave-owners gave as to why they should be allowed to own humans forever. It was all bullshit. Fuck your equilibrium; billions of people are dying!
Not the same, because if we were already living longer, our societies would have been adapted to that environment.
We don't have to convince the people who want to die of anything. We just have to wait for them to die.
I wouldn't qualify those in favor of death as misanthropes, they have a very valid point, even if some have it for the wrong reasons. Humanity is not ready for the wealthy to live forever. They say science advances one funeral at a time, and that is true for all of humanity.
Political, legal, and economical systems would have to be prepared before that, otherwise countries would stagnate as undying parasites embed themselves in society for centuries. As they won't want competition, the most effective antiaging treatments would be priced out of the commoners forever. In some countries like USA people struggle to pay for insulin, much less antiaging treatments.
Edit: regarding your question, if people lived naturally forever, and it became a problem just recently, I think they're already adapted to living forever, and the problems come from something new. Anyway, let's suppose the problems are caused by overpopulation, then the solution would be to limit reproduction, and let the population fall down a bit as accidents/murders happen naturally.
Political, legal, and economical systems would have to be prepared before that, otherwise countries would stagnate as undying parasites embed themselves in society for centuries. As they won't want competition, the most effective antiaging treatments would be priced out of the commoners forever. In some countries like USA people struggle to pay for insulin, much less antiaging treatments.
Edit: regarding your question, if people lived naturally forever, and it became a problem just recently, I think they're already adapted to living forever, and the problems come from something new. Anyway, let's suppose the problems are caused by overpopulation, then the solution would be to limit reproduction, and let the population fall down a bit as accidents/murders happen naturally.
Even if every problem you mentioned was real, "let's kill literally everyone until we figure things out" does not seem a reasonable response.
Christians for one believe death is already taken care of. God man Trojan horsed himself into the other side and cleaned the place up.
It’s more of a question of whether somebody would want to stay in this world forever vs go elsewhere after death.
It’s more of a question of whether somebody would want to stay in this world forever vs go elsewhere after death.
If you look around, you can pretty readily see what people in power do: consolidate power, consolidate wealth. I mean, seriously, look at the U.S.: rich country, but so many struggling in the middle or below. Even though we live an age of information, we are easily controlled by those who have the money and influence.
Now, imagine them living forever. You could almost guarantee how crummy the world would become, with an elite few running everything.
On top of that, if you believe that adding new people is important, eventually you run out of room/resources/etc.
So, for these reasons, death as part of our life cycle is a good thing. Fortunately, we didn't have to invent it.
Now, imagine them living forever. You could almost guarantee how crummy the world would become, with an elite few running everything.
On top of that, if you believe that adding new people is important, eventually you run out of room/resources/etc.
So, for these reasons, death as part of our life cycle is a good thing. Fortunately, we didn't have to invent it.
I'd prefer to live in a world where wealth was a little more concentrated and I lived to 150 than a world where it's a little less concentrated and I lived to 75.
If you look at the demographics for most countries, we're not running into an overpopulation problem anywhere in the developed world.
If banning medical care after 50 reduced inequality by reducing lifespans should we do it?
If you look at the demographics for most countries, we're not running into an overpopulation problem anywhere in the developed world.
If banning medical care after 50 reduced inequality by reducing lifespans should we do it?
Yeah imagine how great it would for all the wealth and power to be held by people over 100 years older than you. We could have presidents from before WWI telling us about how they bought a house for $100 dollars and disparaging the youth for not doing the same in a market that is, oh by the way, many times more expensive because these old folks just won’t die.
Then let's solve those problems as well?
I do not think death is going away any time soon, we are not even able to extend lifetimes by a meaningful amount yet. For now, we can more meaningfully discuss a world where poeple are living for 150 years.
Running out of resources is not necessarily an eventuality. Arguably, it would be possible to live sustainably but regardless of people dying or not, we are not doing that anyway. That's a separate discussion.
Running out of room is a serious concern. I do not have a good answer to that.
I do not think death is going away any time soon, we are not even able to extend lifetimes by a meaningful amount yet. For now, we can more meaningfully discuss a world where poeple are living for 150 years.
Running out of resources is not necessarily an eventuality. Arguably, it would be possible to live sustainably but regardless of people dying or not, we are not doing that anyway. That's a separate discussion.
Running out of room is a serious concern. I do not have a good answer to that.
There's unlimited space and resources available in space. Even on the Earth, we could sustainably support many more people with some very modest adjustments to the way we live. (Eating more vegetables, not being assholes about nuclear power, etc)
Most people that say we are running out of room have never been to West Texas. Or Siberia. Or Alaska. They make these comments from traffic congested suburbia or in the middle of Venice, Italy in August.
Yeah.. If we're talking about imposing taxes and environmental restrictions on people in proportion to the damage they're doing to the biosphere, I'm on board
I just hate it when people talk about not having kids or not curing cancer because of some Malthusian desire to see humanity wither and die
I just hate it when people talk about not having kids or not curing cancer because of some Malthusian desire to see humanity wither and die
It does raise an interesting question re: should you be allowed to have kids if you want to live forever?
To me it's always seemed like an interesting and somewhat fair trade. Also prevents the whole "perpetual population expansion" issue.
To me it's always seemed like an interesting and somewhat fair trade. Also prevents the whole "perpetual population expansion" issue.
I love Bostrom but holy s- is that a long-winded fable.
I was going to have GPT-4 summarize it, but:
"Input too long, submit something shorter."
"Input too long, submit something shorter."
You can give it the article in parts. Here is the summary by GPT-4:
In a kingdom plagued by a dragon that demands a daily human sacrifice, the people have come to accept the beast as an inevitable fact of life. The dragon represents human aging and the sacrifices symbolize the lives lost to senescence. Eventually, a boy challenges the kingdom's resignation to the dragon's tyranny, igniting a movement to find a way to kill the dragon.
Technological advancements lead to the development of a missile capable of killing the dragon. Despite initial resistance from the king and his advisors, who worry about the social ramifications of killing the dragon, the beast is eventually slain, and the people celebrate their newfound freedom.
The fable teaches several moral lessons:
Acceptance of the "inevitable" can blind us to the suffering it causes. A static view of technology may cause us to underestimate the possibility of finding solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems. Society may prioritize damage control over addressing the root cause of an issue. Societal good must ultimately benefit individuals. A sense of proportion and priority is essential. Rhetoric can obscure the truth and hinder progress. Addressing urgent problems, like aging, should be a top priority. Societal reorganization and adaptation will be necessary after overcoming long-standing challenges. In conclusion, the fable urges society to invest in research to extend the human health-span, combat aging, and improve the quality of life, rather than merely accepting it as an inescapable fact.
In a kingdom plagued by a dragon that demands a daily human sacrifice, the people have come to accept the beast as an inevitable fact of life. The dragon represents human aging and the sacrifices symbolize the lives lost to senescence. Eventually, a boy challenges the kingdom's resignation to the dragon's tyranny, igniting a movement to find a way to kill the dragon.
Technological advancements lead to the development of a missile capable of killing the dragon. Despite initial resistance from the king and his advisors, who worry about the social ramifications of killing the dragon, the beast is eventually slain, and the people celebrate their newfound freedom.
The fable teaches several moral lessons:
Acceptance of the "inevitable" can blind us to the suffering it causes. A static view of technology may cause us to underestimate the possibility of finding solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems. Society may prioritize damage control over addressing the root cause of an issue. Societal good must ultimately benefit individuals. A sense of proportion and priority is essential. Rhetoric can obscure the truth and hinder progress. Addressing urgent problems, like aging, should be a top priority. Societal reorganization and adaptation will be necessary after overcoming long-standing challenges. In conclusion, the fable urges society to invest in research to extend the human health-span, combat aging, and improve the quality of life, rather than merely accepting it as an inescapable fact.
Thanks, but I was just piling on to the parent comment's complaint of the fable being too long :-)
Since misanthropy is hatred of the human species, it is those that care only about longevity of individuals with no regards for its effects on the species as a whole that are more likely to be misanthropes.
Whilst a lot of comments focus on death, I think it's important to also think about the benefits of treating the diseases of aging, such a cognitive decline.
I'm sure most people have seen their parents or grand-parents decline cognitively. This is sad for the individual, the family and also effects society by draining resources. Any research that can mitigate this is worthwhile in my opinion.
I'm sure most people have seen their parents or grand-parents decline cognitively. This is sad for the individual, the family and also effects society by draining resources. Any research that can mitigate this is worthwhile in my opinion.
There's also economics to consider. In the US spending on social security and healthcare for the elderly are two of the largest spending categories. Imagine reversing aging and cutting both of those out of the budget. Not only would we bring back a ton of experienced workers but we would also cut federal spending by ~30%.
I follow the longevity space a bit and I believe the implication of nucleosomes in the aging process is a new idea?
Wonder why nucleosomes become less frequent as we age ... I know cancer mitigation can sometimes be the reason for these kinds of dimunitions.
Wonder why nucleosomes become less frequent as we age ... I know cancer mitigation can sometimes be the reason for these kinds of dimunitions.
What's the current status of longevity research? Do we know what causes aging and what allows some animals to love much longer than orders?
On a coarse-grained level the 9 main different mechanisms that make up "aging" have been known for at least a decade now[0].
Each of those areas has different and often vast variations of sub-mechanisms that need to be tackled and worked around, to ultimately "reverse"/stop aging. Some are being more concretely researched than others (.
The impact of tackling some of those areas are also smaller than some of the others, and to my knowledge there is no clear picture yet which of those are "low hanging fruits" (or if there are any), where solving e.g. 3 of them will increase average lifespan by 20 years. It could also be the case that it's mostly a long tail were each if them makes up for minor lifespan increases.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174/
Each of those areas has different and often vast variations of sub-mechanisms that need to be tackled and worked around, to ultimately "reverse"/stop aging. Some are being more concretely researched than others (.
The impact of tackling some of those areas are also smaller than some of the others, and to my knowledge there is no clear picture yet which of those are "low hanging fruits" (or if there are any), where solving e.g. 3 of them will increase average lifespan by 20 years. It could also be the case that it's mostly a long tail were each if them makes up for minor lifespan increases.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174/
I've been very interested in David Sinclair's work at Harvard on the Information Theory of Aging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLZEEOZlTzo&t=357s
I think the simplest answer is that aging is an accumulation of dna errors and your body reaches a point where it doesn't know what the "correct" dna was.
Some species have adapted better error correction.
Some species have adapted better error correction.
This is only a small part of it. Organisms are not just a clean slate representation of their DNA.
The accumulated state of "errors" on other levels (e.g. misfolded proteins and heavy metals which the organism doesn't have any mechanisms to discard) also play a major role.
The accumulated state of "errors" on other levels (e.g. misfolded proteins and heavy metals which the organism doesn't have any mechanisms to discard) also play a major role.
That's ultimately related to DNA errors as well. You can read more about it by searching for "DNA damage theory of aging". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging
As far as I know, this is the most widely accepted theory for aging.
The body will repair if it can. Even things like re-growing limbs are theoretically possible but are prevented by tissue damage such that the body doesn't "remember" what used to be there. Aka scar tissue. https://www.livescience.com/59194-could-humans-ever-regenera...
As far as I know, this is the most widely accepted theory for aging.
The body will repair if it can. Even things like re-growing limbs are theoretically possible but are prevented by tissue damage such that the body doesn't "remember" what used to be there. Aka scar tissue. https://www.livescience.com/59194-could-humans-ever-regenera...
> That's ultimately related to DNA errors as well.
No it is not. Sure, you could try to frame everything as DNA errors, but at some point that just becomes so convoluted and out of touch with what's actually happening that it fails to be a useful model.
Wikipedia article you link also doesn't state that DNA errors are the _only_ cause of aging. Overall I would say that the article mostly represents the view from 15-20 years ago. That's ages in biochemical research times. I would in part ascribe that view to the fact that DNA sequencing was a hot research topic back then and for the first time became accessible to a wide audience of researchers. That hype cooled off a bit once it was recognized that mostly static snaphots of DNA only offer a limited picture of what happens in organisms, and research focus shifted more towards all the more dynamic processes in organisms (some of which are quite far removed from DNA interactions).
> As far as I know, this is the most widely accepted theory for aging.
As mentioned in a sibling comment, the "current" most widely accepted framework is the "hallmarks of aging"[0], where DNA errors and epigentic alterations (points accounted for in the DNA damage theory), cover only 2 out of 9 hallmarks. That paper is cited in basically every introduction of a paper that is tangentially related to longevity research and their mechanisms nowadays. The same authors also recently published an updated list of hallmarks[1], adding 3 new ones (also all non-DNA error related).
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174
[1]: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01377-0
No it is not. Sure, you could try to frame everything as DNA errors, but at some point that just becomes so convoluted and out of touch with what's actually happening that it fails to be a useful model.
Wikipedia article you link also doesn't state that DNA errors are the _only_ cause of aging. Overall I would say that the article mostly represents the view from 15-20 years ago. That's ages in biochemical research times. I would in part ascribe that view to the fact that DNA sequencing was a hot research topic back then and for the first time became accessible to a wide audience of researchers. That hype cooled off a bit once it was recognized that mostly static snaphots of DNA only offer a limited picture of what happens in organisms, and research focus shifted more towards all the more dynamic processes in organisms (some of which are quite far removed from DNA interactions).
> As far as I know, this is the most widely accepted theory for aging.
As mentioned in a sibling comment, the "current" most widely accepted framework is the "hallmarks of aging"[0], where DNA errors and epigentic alterations (points accounted for in the DNA damage theory), cover only 2 out of 9 hallmarks. That paper is cited in basically every introduction of a paper that is tangentially related to longevity research and their mechanisms nowadays. The same authors also recently published an updated list of hallmarks[1], adding 3 new ones (also all non-DNA error related).
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174
[1]: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01377-0
So if we backup our DNA at 20, we can use CRISPR at 50 to restore it and return young?
This is very hard to do. How do you get CRISPR to every cell in the body without incidentally killing you?
Ironic that you're worried about doing something that can "incidentally" kill you - to prevent something that will definitely kill you.
Depends on how old you are. If you’re 50 and contemplating a procedure that could make you 20 but might kill you, you’d probably defer. Maybe when you’re 70 or 90 you might see things differently.
If I'm 50 I would probably wait 10-20 years until the procedure becomes more reliable, but if I'm 70 I'd probably go for it even with 50/50 chance.
I think this is what will eventually be done, FWIW. The technology is now too difficult but eventually will be a solvable problem.
I doubt it's inevitable. Resource limits and the unpredictability of innovation make it too uncertain.
All this research will be wasted only to learn we age and die as it's the best tradeoff for our performance prior to death. That is, unless we're content being a collection of dysfunctional, amorphous tumors and call this a "life", or be passive and unmoving, and do and achieve nothing, but do it over centuries.
Why would this be unique to this point in time versus others say, pre antibiotics?
To assume we’ve reached the upper limit of longevity and medicine is a bold claim.
To assume we’ve reached the upper limit of longevity and medicine is a bold claim.
The goal is to prevent and possibly reverse aging so you would remain healthy. What you do with those extra years is your business.
Unlikely.
Life is optimized for species evolution/survival. From a logical perspective, individuals should be optimized for transmitting beneficial traits to the next generation and, after this, it's better if they don't stick around to fight for resources - nature Planned Obsolescence.
Not always so, see "Grandmother effect".
It's highly beneficial to keep around older members that can 1) work for their offspring or 2) provide important guidance and knowledge transfer.
It's highly beneficial to keep around older members that can 1) work for their offspring or 2) provide important guidance and knowledge transfer.
That could be the partial exception that proves the rule (partial because there seems to be no "great(N+1) grandmother effect" as great grandmothers would start to compete with grandmothers, with low to none returns to human species).
Are there other examples, besides high level primates?
Moreover, that precise example hints that it shouldn't be so difficult to tweak the human substrate to improve the lifespan since Nature was able to do it in such a short time.
Moreover, that precise example hints that it shouldn't be so difficult to tweak the human substrate to improve the lifespan since Nature was able to do it in such a short time.
Well, if that's what the research shows than the effort wasn't "wasted". Don't confuse your opinions with facts.
Human lifespan and healthspan have increased notably in recent centuries.
I also expect there to be tradeoffs, as there so often are in life. Perhaps, though, we will be able to trade those costs for other costs that we prefer or can more easily afford.
I also expect there to be tradeoffs, as there so often are in life. Perhaps, though, we will be able to trade those costs for other costs that we prefer or can more easily afford.
So, you're saying don't solve any of these problems because it's all too hard?
No, I didn't say that.
I said "you're not trying to solve a problem, you're trying introduce problems into a working solution".
I see I got downvoted up there, as if I'll steal your life by openly sharing a valid opinion. Humans are such a sorry species sometimes.
I said "you're not trying to solve a problem, you're trying introduce problems into a working solution".
I see I got downvoted up there, as if I'll steal your life by openly sharing a valid opinion. Humans are such a sorry species sometimes.
I don't consider it a working solution. To me, it's a bug.
I guess that’s just an opinion?
I’ve spent time with friends and relatives who were 80+, many of whom told me them were tired of life and ready for “something new”, they had good lives but had enough.
Sure if they had younger bodies they might feel differently but most were quite able bodied and just felt it was time.
Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ?
I’ve spent time with friends and relatives who were 80+, many of whom told me them were tired of life and ready for “something new”, they had good lives but had enough.
Sure if they had younger bodies they might feel differently but most were quite able bodied and just felt it was time.
Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ?
> they had good lives but had enough
Yes, many people don't enjoy life, especially when their health deteriorates. I'm saying that to me, the fact that your health gradually gets worse until you die is a bug.
> Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ?
Nah, I don't think so.
Yes, many people don't enjoy life, especially when their health deteriorates. I'm saying that to me, the fact that your health gradually gets worse until you die is a bug.
> Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ?
Nah, I don't think so.
Were they as able bodied as they were aged 20-25 though? If 80 years is the cutoff at which we get bored with staying alive, would you rather spend those 80 years in a "biologically" 20-year-old body then make the conscious choice for "something new" or gradually deteriorate for about half of those 80 years then die without the choice not to?
The major religions all try to answer the question of death. Singularitarianism answers it by pointing to longevity research and saying death won't happen, that death is a bug (despite being omnipresent in biological nature and in accordance with entropy), and that anyone who doesn't adhere to this belief is an evil deathist.
What's the "working solution" you're talking about?
Children. And death. You can't have the former without the latter indefinitely. And you need the former for progress to happen. Old people aren't merely a less healthy version of young people. They're also people who have settled mentally and now they DEPEND on the environment staying the way they're familiar with it. They will try their best to prevent change. This means children can't thrive & take the next step. Notice I've not mentioned yet also that we can't have infinite people on that planet. But we can't, anyway.
Ugh. That's not really a solution, and you're generalising way too much about old people being stuck in their ways. While some definitely are, they're not all like that.
Condemning everyone to death, even the not-stuck-in-the-mud old people sounds pretty abhorrent, or maybe "tragic" might be the better word.
> Notice I've not mentioned yet also that we can't have infinite people on that planet.
Well, fortunately there's more than a single planet in this universe.
How feasible it becomes to live on planets-other-than-this-one over time is clearly not something we can say with any certainty at the moment though.
Hopefully that works out to be possible (in some good way), otherwise we're stuck with what you're suggesting. Which would suck. :(
Condemning everyone to death, even the not-stuck-in-the-mud old people sounds pretty abhorrent, or maybe "tragic" might be the better word.
> Notice I've not mentioned yet also that we can't have infinite people on that planet.
Well, fortunately there's more than a single planet in this universe.
How feasible it becomes to live on planets-other-than-this-one over time is clearly not something we can say with any certainty at the moment though.
Hopefully that works out to be possible (in some good way), otherwise we're stuck with what you're suggesting. Which would suck. :(
This reads kinda like "these facts are getting in the way of blind hope."
Be extremely suspect of patterns of the kind "we'll do X now, which will work when we invent Y far in the future". Say, electric cars can use clean energy now, so they'll be clean when we move to mostly clean energy in the future. OK, but today they indirectly run on oil, gas & coal. Or "we'll work on immortality now, which will be fine when we spread over the galaxy in the future".
These things need to co-happen at the same time, instead of dooming us all to a fruitless endeavor only to then realize the second critical part of the equation may never happen the way we thought it would.
Did you know your neurons can't go through mitosis? You can't regenerate a damaged brain. And it does get damaged in time, nothing can fix that. When you use something you wear it down, it deals with harsh environment that the organism tries to prevent as much as possible, but something's gotta give eventually.
When I said people settle mentally I didn't mean it CULTURALLY. I meant it BIOLOGICALLY. In ignorance one can claim that dead neurons may just get better and maybe we'll find ways to make them regenerate, but that's because they're clueless, so every implausible scenario seems equally likely to them as what's plausible.
In theory, a "life" may be possible to factor so it's infinitely flexible in infinite time. Whatever that life is, it won't be human at all. It won't be you, or anyone your know. We're built the way we're built and you can't change this without losing yourself in the process.
We have an 80 year old president in the US, Trump was also old, Putin is old, Xi is old, everyone is going incredibly old up there among the ruling elite, and may they be blessed with great health and all, but even when healthy, their decisions are firmly planted into the 20th century, you can't help that. And this matters. It's holding us back and in some cases threatening world peace and safety.
And by the way! The reason our biology makes us SETTLE DOWN in our concepts, knowledge, behavior, is because the alternative IS EVEN WORSE, and it is degradation, mental illness, loss of memory and so on. This is not about some problem with our health. It's a problem of entropy and it includes also machine models, not just human brain: https://www.nannyml.com/blog/91-of-ml-perfomance-degrade-in-...
We're all doomed to "either die a hero, or live long enough to see ourselves become the villain". I prefer to die a hero, and let other heroes grow in my place. How about you?
Be extremely suspect of patterns of the kind "we'll do X now, which will work when we invent Y far in the future". Say, electric cars can use clean energy now, so they'll be clean when we move to mostly clean energy in the future. OK, but today they indirectly run on oil, gas & coal. Or "we'll work on immortality now, which will be fine when we spread over the galaxy in the future".
These things need to co-happen at the same time, instead of dooming us all to a fruitless endeavor only to then realize the second critical part of the equation may never happen the way we thought it would.
Did you know your neurons can't go through mitosis? You can't regenerate a damaged brain. And it does get damaged in time, nothing can fix that. When you use something you wear it down, it deals with harsh environment that the organism tries to prevent as much as possible, but something's gotta give eventually.
When I said people settle mentally I didn't mean it CULTURALLY. I meant it BIOLOGICALLY. In ignorance one can claim that dead neurons may just get better and maybe we'll find ways to make them regenerate, but that's because they're clueless, so every implausible scenario seems equally likely to them as what's plausible.
In theory, a "life" may be possible to factor so it's infinitely flexible in infinite time. Whatever that life is, it won't be human at all. It won't be you, or anyone your know. We're built the way we're built and you can't change this without losing yourself in the process.
We have an 80 year old president in the US, Trump was also old, Putin is old, Xi is old, everyone is going incredibly old up there among the ruling elite, and may they be blessed with great health and all, but even when healthy, their decisions are firmly planted into the 20th century, you can't help that. And this matters. It's holding us back and in some cases threatening world peace and safety.
And by the way! The reason our biology makes us SETTLE DOWN in our concepts, knowledge, behavior, is because the alternative IS EVEN WORSE, and it is degradation, mental illness, loss of memory and so on. This is not about some problem with our health. It's a problem of entropy and it includes also machine models, not just human brain: https://www.nannyml.com/blog/91-of-ml-perfomance-degrade-in-...
We're all doomed to "either die a hero, or live long enough to see ourselves become the villain". I prefer to die a hero, and let other heroes grow in my place. How about you?
> Did you know your neurons can't go through mitosis? You can't regenerate a damaged brain.
Wow. Did you learn biology in 1970 or something, and not bother keeping an interest in the field?
You seem to have built a large amount of mental scaffolding on a foundation built of sand. Very, very, very loose sand. ;)
Wow. Did you learn biology in 1970 or something, and not bother keeping an interest in the field?
You seem to have built a large amount of mental scaffolding on a foundation built of sand. Very, very, very loose sand. ;)
You're mocking my supposedly outdated knowledge in an argument where you're the one who claims age and prior learning doesn't affect the ability to learn new information. Clearly zero self-awareness, I suppose.
What I said stands. If you need the details, adults see specialized neuron reproduction in he granule cell layer of the olfactory bulb & the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. The connectivity of these neurons is also strictly local. It's unclear if there's purpose to these divisions, or it's merely a sign of imperfect specialization & process.
If you wanna play with DNA and make forever living tumors, you may change this limitation. But as I said, the result won't be a human. And it will absolutely not be you.
What I said stands. If you need the details, adults see specialized neuron reproduction in he granule cell layer of the olfactory bulb & the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. The connectivity of these neurons is also strictly local. It's unclear if there's purpose to these divisions, or it's merely a sign of imperfect specialization & process.
If you wanna play with DNA and make forever living tumors, you may change this limitation. But as I said, the result won't be a human. And it will absolutely not be you.
Incidentally, while this is really interesting, what would be really useful is repairing, not reducing the pace of damage.
I am not sure why the title is written as «reverse decline»: I have not read that in the article. (Did I miss something?)
I am not sure why the title is written as «reverse decline»: I have not read that in the article. (Did I miss something?)
In the meantime, we're still waiting for a cure to baldness.
The cure to baldness is hit the gym and pack on 20lbs of muscle, shave your head, and stop caring.
It worked for Bezos!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEwmbZVVoAEfWJq.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEwmbZVVoAEfWJq.jpg
Is he on hormone therapy? I guess when you're a billionaire the doctors mix you up a good cocktail.
He's almost certainly on some form of juice given the speed with which I remember he packed that on at his age.
However, his amount of muscle isn't actually outside the realm of pure hard work unlike some of the Hollywood guys.
Rob McElhenney has a funny bit about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPOzOanrNyg
However, his amount of muscle isn't actually outside the realm of pure hard work unlike some of the Hollywood guys.
Rob McElhenney has a funny bit about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPOzOanrNyg
Hmm... wes, but I, not yet bald but so little hair on top that I shave it cut it (myself, using an electrical haircutter) very short, have noticed one big disadvantage.
I'm satisfied with my looks, but the heat (sun rays) and cold impact from the environment were significantly reduced with hair. I still notice the difference when I let my remaining hair grow longer during winter, and then cut it short again.
This winter I even had to wear something on my head in my apartment after cutting the hair, because I kept it pretty cool and just wore a bit thicker clothes. Except, my head.
It's a problem with sun and with cold. I now understand why people would ear it long in the past, before hats. It's such a great insulator!
I'm satisfied with my looks, but the heat (sun rays) and cold impact from the environment were significantly reduced with hair. I still notice the difference when I let my remaining hair grow longer during winter, and then cut it short again.
This winter I even had to wear something on my head in my apartment after cutting the hair, because I kept it pretty cool and just wore a bit thicker clothes. Except, my head.
It's a problem with sun and with cold. I now understand why people would ear it long in the past, before hats. It's such a great insulator!
I understand the struggle, I was never a hat person until I went bald - now that hats are necessary in the winter I have learned to enjoy them. I still opt for sunscreen in the summer though.
Hat's are wonderful, and it's quite criminal that they went out of fashion with Kennedy.
That said, don't run off and by just any old fedora or bucket hat. Get something cool, that works for your head and body shape. Pick something that says you.
Hats, along with socks and watches, are the only accessories that men can really show personality with in this day and age. It's a real same that so much of men's fashion is so devoid of personality.
That said, don't run off and by just any old fedora or bucket hat. Get something cool, that works for your head and body shape. Pick something that says you.
Hats, along with socks and watches, are the only accessories that men can really show personality with in this day and age. It's a real same that so much of men's fashion is so devoid of personality.
Beanies (I think Americans call them knit caps) keep your head warm and take ten years off your age.
Find a bucket hat that suits your style and wear it constantly--including indoors.
Especially if you are tall, the hat will prevent you from walking into low-hanging obstacles and winding up with scars on your head.
Especially if you are tall, the hat will prevent you from walking into low-hanging obstacles and winding up with scars on your head.
I think the thin guy bald look a la steve jobs is pretty nice too
You say this as if people aren't working on finding a cure for baldness. Of course they are, the profit motive is certainly there. The demand for such a cure is incredibly high.
[deleted]
Profound thought of the day.
finasteride exists doesn't it? It's mainly preventative but works.
It works for some, at the cost of seriously messing with your hormones. It’s like using a mallet to kill some ants.
> inhibiting insulin signalling can delay ageing and extend lifespan in many animals
Does this mean that the newer diet medications like Semaglutide could be accelerating aging since they increase the secretion of insulin from the beta cells?
Does this mean that the newer diet medications like Semaglutide could be accelerating aging since they increase the secretion of insulin from the beta cells?
Yeah interesting question, though losing weight via caloric restriction is probably still a big positive effect
Unclear, but some really preliminary research suggests it might actually neuroprotective [1] and cardioprotective [2]. A lot more research needs to be done though, it seems.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36191807/
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36515811/
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36191807/
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36515811/
It's also associated with thyroid tumors so I'd consider it a life shortener for that alone.
That so far hasn't been documented in humans. Also, being overweight is a life shortener itself, so the question is just which is riskier on-balance.
Fuck me, I hadn't heard about these. Those are some scary side effects.
> "When the team boosted the expression of histones in the cells, Pol II moved at a slower pace."
Does this mean that this statement would not be true for cells that reproduce very slowly (fat, skeleton) or not at all (lens cells, neurons)?
Does this mean that this statement would not be true for cells that reproduce very slowly (fat, skeleton) or not at all (lens cells, neurons)?
Interesting because pol II drives RNA transcription so not involved in replicating the DNA itself. Does pol II have a direct negative effect on DNA then or is it indirect or both?
I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever.
Death provides an opportunity for change. Often in the form of upheaval to political structures but more frequently in opening up social opportunities.
Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted.
Death provides an opportunity for change. Often in the form of upheaval to political structures but more frequently in opening up social opportunities.
Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted.
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. Death provides an opportunity for change
Immortality becoming a possibility is also an opportunity for changing our social structures. There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever.
> Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone
Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons.
Immortality becoming a possibility is also an opportunity for changing our social structures. There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever.
> Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone
Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons.
> Immortality becoming a possibility is also an opportunity for changing our social structures. There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever.
While that moment may provide an opportunity, my view is that a ossification will set in more broadly in the long term.
> Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons.
Possessing the capability for change is not the same as possessing the desire to see that change through. Those with power seek to hold on to it. An extreme example would be that of dictatorships and monarchies. Death ultimately limits the harm those people can cause while also providing a moment of instability which may be seized to alter the system.
Unless practical immortality coincides with fundamental and extreme shifts in our society and economy, it'd be a catastrophe.
While that moment may provide an opportunity, my view is that a ossification will set in more broadly in the long term.
> Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons.
Possessing the capability for change is not the same as possessing the desire to see that change through. Those with power seek to hold on to it. An extreme example would be that of dictatorships and monarchies. Death ultimately limits the harm those people can cause while also providing a moment of instability which may be seized to alter the system.
Unless practical immortality coincides with fundamental and extreme shifts in our society and economy, it'd be a catastrophe.
> it'd be a catastrophe.
Phew, so lucky we got this alternative scenario where literally everyone dies.
Phew, so lucky we got this alternative scenario where literally everyone dies.
>There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever.
Pretty sure this problem has been around since the dawn of civilization. It's not simple to keep money and power from concentrating in society
Pretty sure this problem has been around since the dawn of civilization. It's not simple to keep money and power from concentrating in society
Seems more likely that we create an immortality drug than we create a social governance scheme that doesn’t allow billionaires to very easily grow their wealth at society’s expense.
Sure, but the immortality drug will have to lead to social change. Every problem is also an opportunity.
We already have a problem and an opportunity to fix it.
A proposal that makes this problem worse does not seem likely to make the opportunity easier to take advantage of.
A proposal that makes this problem worse does not seem likely to make the opportunity easier to take advantage of.
I disagree. A bad situation can be ignored, a catastrophic situation cannot. This inevitably leads to revolutions.
And that is why the world no longer has any long lasting oppressive regimes. Oh wait…
Actually we don't. Of course we probably have different conceptions of what's considered "long lasting" in terms of civilizations, and even what constitutes "oppressive" to a catastrophic level, which was the context I specified.
I grant all of your points. But I think there would be some very clear upsides as well, assuming that longevity is available to more than just a few billionaires.
Years spent observing a field or topic with a well-trained eye is incredibly valuable. But by the time you're an expert, you typically have at best 3 decades and often much less to practice before serious decline kicks in. It would be a very different world where the number of experts and veterans rose by an order of magnitude.
Also, as I've come to see with my own advancing years, humans are very good at forgetting history and its lessons. The best way to maintain historical awareness is to simply have people around who lived through it. The current historical moment is an illustration of this - the world is sliding toward large-scale war just as the last of those who saw ww2 with their own eyes are leaving the scene. I don't think that's a coincidence.
Years spent observing a field or topic with a well-trained eye is incredibly valuable. But by the time you're an expert, you typically have at best 3 decades and often much less to practice before serious decline kicks in. It would be a very different world where the number of experts and veterans rose by an order of magnitude.
Also, as I've come to see with my own advancing years, humans are very good at forgetting history and its lessons. The best way to maintain historical awareness is to simply have people around who lived through it. The current historical moment is an illustration of this - the world is sliding toward large-scale war just as the last of those who saw ww2 with their own eyes are leaving the scene. I don't think that's a coincidence.
> Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted.
In our world, barring catastrophic collapse (which IMO is not at all unlikely within Bezos's lifespan), the latter seems almost certain.
In our world, barring catastrophic collapse (which IMO is not at all unlikely within Bezos's lifespan), the latter seems almost certain.
Honestly the current inequalities are already pretty striking.
Even within the rich western world.
Simple. Inflation.
Some new competitor will eventually crush MS and Amazon. To stay extremely rich forever, Bezos and Gates will have to also be great investors.
Then some other person like Musk comes with new ideas that blow even their massive fortunes out of the water.
Long term dominance in an eternal-life society is certainly not possible.
Some new competitor will eventually crush MS and Amazon. To stay extremely rich forever, Bezos and Gates will have to also be great investors.
Then some other person like Musk comes with new ideas that blow even their massive fortunes out of the water.
Long term dominance in an eternal-life society is certainly not possible.
Assuming a well regulated market with the rule of law and minimal barriers to entry and plenty of innovation happening, sure.
Take those things away through bad/ineffective government and you could very easily end up in a society where those in power use their power to stop others from innovating or accumulating any wealth.
Long lived institutions focused on consolidating and preserving their power can have a similar effect to long-lived people. The Catholic church's role in the Middle Ages, for example.
Take those things away through bad/ineffective government and you could very easily end up in a society where those in power use their power to stop others from innovating or accumulating any wealth.
Long lived institutions focused on consolidating and preserving their power can have a similar effect to long-lived people. The Catholic church's role in the Middle Ages, for example.
Or just mildly competent investors. If the economy is growing their wealth will compound. If the economy is shrinking they’ll still be rich and everyone will suffer.
Exactly. And people living longer means everyone has a bigger chance to succeed.
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever.
I’m not sure those are great examples of people clinging to power forever, considering they’re semi-retired / retired and neither were heavily involved in politics in the first place.
Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world.
I’m not sure those are great examples of people clinging to power forever, considering they’re semi-retired / retired and neither were heavily involved in politics in the first place.
Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world.
> I’m not sure those are great examples of people clinging to power forever, considering they’re semi-retired / retired and neither were heavily involved in politics in the first place
The desire to retire may have something to do with mortality.
> Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world
It's hard to understand why you went in this direction. The parent comment didn't mention race or sex, and there are entire continents of people that ought to disprove your world view.
The desire to retire may have something to do with mortality.
> Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world
It's hard to understand why you went in this direction. The parent comment didn't mention race or sex, and there are entire continents of people that ought to disprove your world view.
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever.
But what if Einstein had lived a few more decades?
But what if Einstein had lived a few more decades?
All I can see are activists billionaires deciding my fate. Depending upon your political bogeyman, Koch brothers or Soros would only continue to amass power.
Probably nothing special would have happened. Einstein did his great work between 1905 and 1915. Then he lived for 40 more years.
Yeah, I know. We’ve been having this inane conversation for a long time. I blogged about it 6 years ago.
https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...
https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...
Or, conversely, having to plan long-term because you'll be around for it. Imagine no statute of limitations on chucking barrels of toxic waste down a well.
Humans do okay with certain rates of change, but right now, the more nightmarish business is a problem for your great grandkids.
Humans do okay with certain rates of change, but right now, the more nightmarish business is a problem for your great grandkids.
> Imagine no statute of limitations on chucking barrels of toxic waste down a well.
I think that's an unfortunate example: burning fossil fuels is a much bigger problem, and it is not even long-term (most of us will be around for the consequences). Still we do it virtually without planning at all.
I think that's an unfortunate example: burning fossil fuels is a much bigger problem, and it is not even long-term (most of us will be around for the consequences). Still we do it virtually without planning at all.
Sure, but forgive me for saying, you first.
Why does this topic always comes up when talking about longevity? Did people read about this in a book or something? So what if they don’t die? I don’t consider those people evil, I’m not rich either. The thought of living forever or for a much longer period of time gets me very excited. I don’t care if the elite live longer or not.
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever.
I think we'd have to ban compound interest, somehow.
I think we'd have to ban compound interest, somehow.
I think you will like the show Altered Carbon :)
What's the point of living a longer life if there aren't enough working age people to pay into a safety net for the elderly? - The U.S has largely avoided that problem due to maintaining the middle part of the population age pyramid. But Europe and Japan aren't going to do well as their population ages and there aren't enough young workers to pay into it.
Wouldn't worry; reversing ageing implies the elderly won't need a safety net, and we'll all have longer to start families. Who knows, perhaps the second part will increase fertility rates back up to replacement levels…
And that's ignoring any of the economic transformation that AI will bring even without any genuinely novel breakthroughs.
And that's ignoring any of the economic transformation that AI will bring even without any genuinely novel breakthroughs.
Right now the issue is we can people alive but can't slow down aging. If we kept people alive by slowing down aging you wouldn't have to retire as early.
Living longer doesn't just extend the tail end of life, it extends the retirement age as well. Humans spend 20 years learning & work for 40. Imagine if we could work for 80 instead!!
Not to mention the productivity gains of having people who have the experience of workers in their 40's with the energy levels of people in their 30's would be a big productivity boon.
You mean work for 45-50 years :( they will likely move the retirement age from 67 to 70 in europoor. Some people start working fulltime at like 15-16.
Hopefully, if you live longer you'll be able to work longer as well... but then again, age discrimination is a thing.
I feel like a lot of the underlying biases behind ageism come from its association with age related health issues though. The only "justifications" for ageism that'd be left once it becomes sensible to assume the average 95 year old has the same cognitive ability as the average 30 year old would be related to expectations of upcoming parental leave and maybe the idea that for two candidates with the same CV, the younger one has accomplished as much in a shorter timeframe and is therefore a better bet. I don't know if there's a solution to these two issues but I doubt ageism would have more of an impact on a person's employability after a hypothetical cure for aging than before. Not to mention the fact that you can always selectively disclose info to potential employers to conceal your age, to some extent.
I wonder what immortality would do to fertility and demographics ... people dying often "gives" a place so someone new can fill the old place. But if everybody is immortal then the number of people on earth would just keep adding up, even with the demographic stagnation in developed countries.
Sirtuins are histone deacetylases, so by the logic of this article, they should increase aging?
"Ageing seems to affect cellular processes in the same way across five very different kinds of life — humans, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms — according to a study published in Nature on 12 April. The findings could help to explain what drives ageing and offer suggestions for how to reverse it..."
Well, given that ageing seems to affect cellular process across five very different kinds of life, the most obvious conclusion is that defeating the process has some unavoidable, bad tradeoffs. I mean, I'm 55 years old and not looking forward to dying, but let's be realistic here: we're not going to "reverse" ageing. Evolution has had billions of years to do it, and for whatever reason the conclusion is that either it's not possible, or the cost is not worth it. I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
Well, given that ageing seems to affect cellular process across five very different kinds of life, the most obvious conclusion is that defeating the process has some unavoidable, bad tradeoffs. I mean, I'm 55 years old and not looking forward to dying, but let's be realistic here: we're not going to "reverse" ageing. Evolution has had billions of years to do it, and for whatever reason the conclusion is that either it's not possible, or the cost is not worth it. I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
Evolution is not smart at all. It trends toward reproductive success and that's all. At the most basic level, natural selection is an emergent phenomena of an energy-scarce environment. That is no longer the case for humans. A single human now has access to orders of magnitude more energy than any of our ancestors. It no longer matters if keeping an individual from aging requires ten times the energy input of creating and raising a child. That entire realm of biological innovation is completely invisible to traditional evolution.
Evolution is not smart at all. It trends toward reproductive success and that's all. At the most basic level, natural selection is an emergent phenomena of an energy-scarce environment. That is no longer the case for humans. A single human now has access to orders of magnitude more energy than any of our ancestors. It no longer matters if keeping an individual from aging requires ten times the energy input of creating and raising a child. That entire realm of biological innovation is completely invisible to traditional evolution.
I think Smil had calculated this energy to an equivalent number of laborers working for us 24x7 (like slaves). IIRC it was like 172 or something. It may sound fantastic but once you start imagining what kind of human labor it would take to keep your home heated 24x7, manually achieve what your appliances accomplish (when was last time you had ice delivered or washed your clothes at the river?), your transportation, and have the weather forecast available at any moment, etc., etc., it becomes really clear that 1st worlders live like pharaohs.
I once tried to come up with a reasonable number and ended up with something like 24 slaves per person given a central European living style,
Do you have a link for your number, would be very interested.
Do you have a link for your number, would be very interested.
I believe it's in "Energy and Civilization: A History", and probably reprised in "How the World Really Works".
This is rando google search for it (so double check) but material looks correct to me:
"An average inhabitant of the Earth nowadays has at their disposal nearly 700 times more useful energy than their ancestors had at the beginning of the 19th century. Moreover, within a lifetime of people born just after the Second World War the rate had more than tripled, from about 10 to 34 GJ/capita between 1950 and 2020. Translating the last rate into more readily imaginable equivalents, it is as if an average Earthling has every year at their personal disposal about 800 kilograms (0.8 tons, or nearly six barrels) of crude oil, or about 1.5 tons of good bituminous coal. And when put in terms of physical labor, it is as if 60 adults would be working non-stop, day and night, for each average person; and for the inhabitants of affluent countries this equivalent of steadily laboring adults would be, depending on the specific country, mostly between 200 and 240."
So looks like my number was quite low.
The references to "Earthlings" makes me suspect this quote was pulled from "How the World Really Works", since it starts out with a thought exercise using an extraplanetary observer watching the progress of human civilization over millennia. If you like this kind of information, I would highly recommend Energy and Civilization, it's a fantastic and eye-opening book.
Edit: confirmed, above quote is from "How the World..".
This is rando google search for it (so double check) but material looks correct to me:
"An average inhabitant of the Earth nowadays has at their disposal nearly 700 times more useful energy than their ancestors had at the beginning of the 19th century. Moreover, within a lifetime of people born just after the Second World War the rate had more than tripled, from about 10 to 34 GJ/capita between 1950 and 2020. Translating the last rate into more readily imaginable equivalents, it is as if an average Earthling has every year at their personal disposal about 800 kilograms (0.8 tons, or nearly six barrels) of crude oil, or about 1.5 tons of good bituminous coal. And when put in terms of physical labor, it is as if 60 adults would be working non-stop, day and night, for each average person; and for the inhabitants of affluent countries this equivalent of steadily laboring adults would be, depending on the specific country, mostly between 200 and 240."
So looks like my number was quite low.
The references to "Earthlings" makes me suspect this quote was pulled from "How the World Really Works", since it starts out with a thought exercise using an extraplanetary observer watching the progress of human civilization over millennia. If you like this kind of information, I would highly recommend Energy and Civilization, it's a fantastic and eye-opening book.
Edit: confirmed, above quote is from "How the World..".
Awesome, thanks a bunch!
> A single human now has access to orders of magnitude more energy than any of our ancestors.
Now, but it's not clear at all how it will evolve in the fairly near future :-).
But I generally agree with your point on evolution: it is a random process. We tend to "personify" it ("evolution chose to make us like this"), but that's wrong: species that evolved to being less fit died, those that evolved to be more fit survived. Pure chance.
Now, but it's not clear at all how it will evolve in the fairly near future :-).
But I generally agree with your point on evolution: it is a random process. We tend to "personify" it ("evolution chose to make us like this"), but that's wrong: species that evolved to being less fit died, those that evolved to be more fit survived. Pure chance.
Evolution is not a random process. Natural selection acts on genetic variability in a population; selection is inherently non-random. A component of variability is due to random mutation. Just because evolution does not have a priori goals or fixed directionality does not mean it proceeds randomly.
Right, yeah obviously the selection part is not random ("the fittest survives").
I guess my point is that there is a tendency to say "evolution chose to make this because that's the optimal solution", where actually evolution may have "missed" the optimal solution.
But evolution is not an active process (of something choosing what's optimal), but a passive process (it does change, and some of those (random) changes win).
Or am I missing something?
I guess my point is that there is a tendency to say "evolution chose to make this because that's the optimal solution", where actually evolution may have "missed" the optimal solution.
But evolution is not an active process (of something choosing what's optimal), but a passive process (it does change, and some of those (random) changes win).
Or am I missing something?
I don't think you're missing something, although there are many nuances here. Selection certainly converges on local optima, but yes, there's nothing making a "choice" to do so (except with sexually selected traits and mate choice). It's just how it works.
In general it's unsurprising that selection misses hypothetical universal optima for the same reason it's unsurprising we didn't evolve wings even though that'd be an optimal way to escape lions. Evolution moves traits around fitness landscapes heavily contrained by exaptation. But interestingly many highly conserved mechanisms, e.g. essential cell machinery or metabolic pathways shared widely across the tree of life, have been shown to be maintained at absolute energetic and informational optima.
In general it's unsurprising that selection misses hypothetical universal optima for the same reason it's unsurprising we didn't evolve wings even though that'd be an optimal way to escape lions. Evolution moves traits around fitness landscapes heavily contrained by exaptation. But interestingly many highly conserved mechanisms, e.g. essential cell machinery or metabolic pathways shared widely across the tree of life, have been shown to be maintained at absolute energetic and informational optima.
> Evolution has had billions of years to do it, and for whatever reason the conclusion is that either it's not possible, or the cost is not worth it.
To be fair, in the "eyes" of evolution, once you stop breeding, you are effectively dead weight and a resource sink - there's been no benefit to evolving hyper-age solutions. I guess mayflies are the ur-example here - they grow, they breed once, they die and leave all the resources to the new crop.
Even if you kept breeding, as your age goes up, your ability (absent modern medicine and luxuries) to get your children to breeding age goes down (a 20 year old has a much better chance against a sabre-tooth tiger / flu / cold weather / etc. than a 70 year old...)
To be fair, in the "eyes" of evolution, once you stop breeding, you are effectively dead weight and a resource sink - there's been no benefit to evolving hyper-age solutions. I guess mayflies are the ur-example here - they grow, they breed once, they die and leave all the resources to the new crop.
Even if you kept breeding, as your age goes up, your ability (absent modern medicine and luxuries) to get your children to breeding age goes down (a 20 year old has a much better chance against a sabre-tooth tiger / flu / cold weather / etc. than a 70 year old...)
There is some thought that social animals that live past their breeding age still play a role in passing on their genes by increasing the fitness of their relations. For example, by helping your sibling's offspring pass on their genes, you are effectively helping pass on roughly 25% of your genes. I don't totally know where I read this but I'm pretty sure it's in selfish gene by Richard Dawkins.
This is pretty rare in nature, however. There are very few species that live past reproductive age, I think humans and cetaceans are the only ones who do it.
"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much — the wheel, New York, wars and so on — whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons". — Douglas Adams
Makes a ton of sense, doesn't it. We're attributing our preferences - biological, cultural, etc. - to the good stuff, then later on "discover", piece by piece, that we're not that special. I know many truly intelligent people who do feel humans are special and it's been blowing my mind for decades
I’m not so sure this is the case. Older humans have societal roles that free time and resources for younger humans to breed more and work more so the group has more resources. The invention of grandparents was a big thing for our ancestors.
And this is exactly why we don’t drop dead right after we have kids. We are optimized to stay alive and support our our offspring until they have the highest chance of survival and reproduction (and maybe their kids?) so 20+20+10?
Nowadays people don’t have kids until 30, so maybe there is some pressure towards 30+30+10?
Nowadays people don’t have kids until 30, so maybe there is some pressure towards 30+30+10?
Women outlive their reproductive years (and men too!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_hypothesis
Isn't the entire field of medical science just a list of things we've managed to do for the body that evolution failed to manage over the course of billennia?
No, the majority of health issues are personal. Evolution optimizes species not individuals, so while some kids need glasses most kids don’t.
Evolution’s response to massive physical trauma can be things like wariness of heights rather than a body that can fall arbitrarily distances.
Evolution’s response to massive physical trauma can be things like wariness of heights rather than a body that can fall arbitrarily distances.
To be more accurate, evolution optimizes populations, not species.
Anyway - there are dangers we've evolved resistance to. We have powerful immune systems that fights off tons of diseases. But they fail against some diseases, and medicine helps us there (sometimes). Some of these diseases are extremely widespread and threaten populations.
Am I misunderstanding your comment?
Anyway - there are dangers we've evolved resistance to. We have powerful immune systems that fights off tons of diseases. But they fail against some diseases, and medicine helps us there (sometimes). Some of these diseases are extremely widespread and threaten populations.
Am I misunderstanding your comment?
Largely yes, but I would point out that humanities resistance to disease is vastly better than individual resistance to disease.
For example Rabies has close to 100% fatality rate when untreated and has been a threat for vastly longer, but COVID more people over the last 100 years. So what’s a serious threat to an individual doesn’t necessarily mean a major threat to a larger population.
In that context there was likely significant protection offered by our aversion to the ill when we were primitive tribes with limited contact to each other. Such aversion could act as an external immune system causing most excessively deadly to burn out and pushing for ever less deadly strains over time.
For example Rabies has close to 100% fatality rate when untreated and has been a threat for vastly longer, but COVID more people over the last 100 years. So what’s a serious threat to an individual doesn’t necessarily mean a major threat to a larger population.
In that context there was likely significant protection offered by our aversion to the ill when we were primitive tribes with limited contact to each other. Such aversion could act as an external immune system causing most excessively deadly to burn out and pushing for ever less deadly strains over time.
Fair points. But do we actually have a biological aversion to illness? That strikes me as cultural (and fairly recent). I understand things like leper colonies to be exceptional, not typical. We've had various theories of disease before scientific ones and they mostly didn't consider contagion.
There’s competing reactions, taking care of sick family/tribe members has obvious benefits and prior exposure is likely. Anyway, it’s hard to say how much of this is cultural, but multiple cross cultural aversions at least have the side effect of reducing contact with disease.
“Pathogen avoidance: Uncanny stimuli may activate a cognitive mechanism that originally evolved to motivate the avoidance of potential sources of pathogens by eliciting a disgust response. "The more human an organism looks, the stronger the aversion to its defects, because (1) defects indicate disease, (2) more human-looking organisms are more closely related to human beings genetically, and (3) the probability of contracting disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and other parasites increases with genetic similarity."[8] The visual anomalies of androids, robots, and other animated human characters cause reactions of alarm and revulsion, similar to corpses and visibly diseased individuals.[9][10]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
People’s near universal aversion to the smell of rotting flesh and human shit are similar examples. Of course at the individual level this is less universal. Another possibility is heightened pain response around minor skin damage compared to larger injuries. Aka thorns and paper cuts hurt so much because that kind of injury was actually more dangerous than moderate blunt force trauma which damages more flesh but doesn’t risk infection.
PS: That said it’s not like we can actually test these theories. It’s mostly an interesting idea that seems plausible.
“Pathogen avoidance: Uncanny stimuli may activate a cognitive mechanism that originally evolved to motivate the avoidance of potential sources of pathogens by eliciting a disgust response. "The more human an organism looks, the stronger the aversion to its defects, because (1) defects indicate disease, (2) more human-looking organisms are more closely related to human beings genetically, and (3) the probability of contracting disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and other parasites increases with genetic similarity."[8] The visual anomalies of androids, robots, and other animated human characters cause reactions of alarm and revulsion, similar to corpses and visibly diseased individuals.[9][10]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
People’s near universal aversion to the smell of rotting flesh and human shit are similar examples. Of course at the individual level this is less universal. Another possibility is heightened pain response around minor skin damage compared to larger injuries. Aka thorns and paper cuts hurt so much because that kind of injury was actually more dangerous than moderate blunt force trauma which damages more flesh but doesn’t risk infection.
PS: That said it’s not like we can actually test these theories. It’s mostly an interesting idea that seems plausible.
It weren't for medical science I'd be dead multiple times over by now due to causes that someone with better genes would have survived.
> Evolution’s response to massive physical trauma can be things like wariness of heights rather than a body that can fall arbitrarily distances.
It can be either or both. Cats tend to survive falls very well, as do insects, but for different reasons.
> Evolution’s response to massive physical trauma can be things like wariness of heights rather than a body that can fall arbitrarily distances.
It can be either or both. Cats tend to survive falls very well, as do insects, but for different reasons.
I don't really get the distinction. I do get your point but x% of a species needing glasses is a species level error. And our entire species was susceptible to things like smallpox before we had vaccines for that stuff.
The threshold where kids “need glasses” isn’t the same threshold where people would be unable to survive in the wild without them.
Also, species level survival is based around fairly large families you see before birth control. Not everyone needs to make it.
Also, species level survival is based around fairly large families you see before birth control. Not everyone needs to make it.
That's the point though: we have much better infant mortality rate now, and the kids who grow up don't need to worry about their eyesight etc., ergo we're doing better than evolution alone.
Better by our own yardstick, but evolution can get plenty of people to adulthood without any medical issues.
A frog egg would presumably prefer an evolutionary strategy that involved fewer eggs and a more caring parent. However, the willingness to fail allows for more long term flexibility. Which is presumably why many species place their young in an immediate live or death struggle with their siblings.
A frog egg would presumably prefer an evolutionary strategy that involved fewer eggs and a more caring parent. However, the willingness to fail allows for more long term flexibility. Which is presumably why many species place their young in an immediate live or death struggle with their siblings.
Evolution is not optimizing for your personal happiness. There are some species that are virtually immortal [0] and even they can reproduce sexually.
It’s just better for you to die. Your DNA sucks, make room for your superiors (your children).
I jest, but dying is the smart choice. It’s like a giant AGI system letting a few of its minor instances being cut off: no problem, we’ll fork a few new ones. They might even be better.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii
It’s just better for you to die. Your DNA sucks, make room for your superiors (your children).
I jest, but dying is the smart choice. It’s like a giant AGI system letting a few of its minor instances being cut off: no problem, we’ll fork a few new ones. They might even be better.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii
and with gene therapy, all of this could be resolved
I’m not completely convinced I want it to be solved. While I don’t mind Mr Musk right now, it’s another thing entirely to have him and his friends around for eternity.
Why does it matter as long as you get To live forever?
Oh me too? In that case it’s even worse.
Lol. But to each their own, I’m -currently- middle class (struggling) and I’m very much looking forward to anti-aging.
To struggle longer?
I fail to see many win-win scenarios in a world where population density only increases.
I fail to see many win-win scenarios in a world where population density only increases.
> Evolution has had billions of years to do it, and for whatever reason the conclusion is that either it's not possible, or the cost is not worth it.
For a lot of history dying young was common due to forces that have nothing to do with our own biology. So maybe it's more that environmental conditions did not give any reason for evolution to select for longer life, or select against cells that age. Also it might be that there are trade offs about selecting against cells that age that may have been sucky in the past and not led to fast reproduction, but that those trade offs don't matter now.
For a lot of history dying young was common due to forces that have nothing to do with our own biology. So maybe it's more that environmental conditions did not give any reason for evolution to select for longer life, or select against cells that age. Also it might be that there are trade offs about selecting against cells that age that may have been sucky in the past and not led to fast reproduction, but that those trade offs don't matter now.
Cancer is possibly one of those reasons. Cancer cells can reproduce endlessly, so there is good reason to select against cells that do that.
Some animals age very, very little: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_senescence
Among them the Naked Mole Rat, a mammal.
So it looks like evolution can do it. But it usually doesn't.
Among them the Naked Mole Rat, a mammal.
So it looks like evolution can do it. But it usually doesn't.
In some animals old age has a reproductive advantage. As for turtles and some fishes:
Old age => Bigger => less predators + more eggs
For these species most of the new born are babies of very old females.
For these species most of the new born are babies of very old females.
> Evolution has had billions of years to do it, and for whatever reason the conclusion is that either it's not possible, or the cost is not worth it. I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
I think the reason this isn't a pretty solid argument for its infeasibility is that evolution optimizes for different things than we might choose to.
I think the reason this isn't a pretty solid argument for its infeasibility is that evolution optimizes for different things than we might choose to.
Cost to whom? The genes? Sure. But as an individual, I'm willing to pay that cost (decreased diversity among living individuals; society supporting a non-reproductive member etc).
We are not slaves to biological statistical optimization. Haven't been for what? half a million years.
We are not slaves to biological statistical optimization. Haven't been for what? half a million years.
Preventing aging is in most cases not beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint and it appears some animals, like octopi [0], have evolved self-destruction mechanisms [1] because normal aging mechanisms takes too long to kill them.
[0]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-figure-...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenoptosis
[0]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-figure-...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenoptosis
I don't think it's about being smarter than evolution or not. We're optimizing for different things. Evolution optimizes for reproductive success. Our society is optimizing for something more like overall well-being. Evolution doesn't care if your life sucks as long as you pass on your genes. We do.
> I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
Evolution has two things over us: it has infinite time, and infinite resources. It can afford to wait 200000 years, and to kill millions of individuals, to produce a change.
That's impressive, but it is also the opposite of smart.
Evolution has two things over us: it has infinite time, and infinite resources. It can afford to wait 200000 years, and to kill millions of individuals, to produce a change.
That's impressive, but it is also the opposite of smart.
There is some evidence that aging evolved following the permian extinction. Animals that evolved prior to the permian extinction such as the Tortoise often do not show traditional signs of aging. It's possible that aging evolved to improve species adaptability.
To be fair, bad genes need a way of being permanently kicked out of the mating pool. Death is perfectly effective at doing so.
i'm no expert, but i think dawkins explains this in his 'bottlewrack vs. splurge-weed' sketch
as far as your genes are concerned, it's just as good if two of your children carry them on as if you carry them on yourself; there is no particular reason a priori for evolution to favor one over the other
however, your gametes form a genetic bottleneck which reduces genetic diversity (chimerism) among the cells of your children compared to the genetic diversity among your own cells
due to mutations during your lifespan, genetic diversity within your body increases, which increases the prevalence of genes that cause individual cells and tissues to compete with one another rather than cooperating; in the extreme, we call this 'cancer'
so we have genes like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53 which both cause aging (by suppressing stem cells, so you can't regenerate) and suppress cancer; more generally, many aging processes are known to suppress cancer directly
but more generally you can see genes' investment of resources in your offspring, rather than in you, as a way to protect that investment from cancer: if you get cancer, it almost never kills your offspring, so your genes can toss your worthless body onto the trash heap and continue on their merry way unmolested
of course you may feel differently about the importance of your own body surviving than (the optimization goals of the natural selection process selecting) your genes do
as far as your genes are concerned, it's just as good if two of your children carry them on as if you carry them on yourself; there is no particular reason a priori for evolution to favor one over the other
however, your gametes form a genetic bottleneck which reduces genetic diversity (chimerism) among the cells of your children compared to the genetic diversity among your own cells
due to mutations during your lifespan, genetic diversity within your body increases, which increases the prevalence of genes that cause individual cells and tissues to compete with one another rather than cooperating; in the extreme, we call this 'cancer'
so we have genes like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53 which both cause aging (by suppressing stem cells, so you can't regenerate) and suppress cancer; more generally, many aging processes are known to suppress cancer directly
but more generally you can see genes' investment of resources in your offspring, rather than in you, as a way to protect that investment from cancer: if you get cancer, it almost never kills your offspring, so your genes can toss your worthless body onto the trash heap and continue on their merry way unmolested
of course you may feel differently about the importance of your own body surviving than (the optimization goals of the natural selection process selecting) your genes do
> due to mutations during your lifespan, genetic diversity within your body increases, which increases the prevalence of genes that cause individual cells and tissues to compete with one another rather than cooperating; in the extreme, we call this 'cancer'
This is a good summary. Only thing to keep in mind is that an increase in genetic diversity need not imply a unidirectional march towards cancer, but an increase in risk. One of the most interesting paradoxes of cancer initiation research currently is the presence of "cancer-causing" mutations in phenotypically normal cells for decades prior to the appearance of the first cancer cell (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27059373/ for instance).
What's remarkable to me about this aging study and others like it is that they are able to reverse some aspect of aging despite the accumulation of genetic diversity with age as you point out. Perhaps what they're reversing was never really dependent on mutation accumulation with age, or that the presence of mutations does not fully explain the age-related degeneration they're interested in reversing.
This is a good summary. Only thing to keep in mind is that an increase in genetic diversity need not imply a unidirectional march towards cancer, but an increase in risk. One of the most interesting paradoxes of cancer initiation research currently is the presence of "cancer-causing" mutations in phenotypically normal cells for decades prior to the appearance of the first cancer cell (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27059373/ for instance).
What's remarkable to me about this aging study and others like it is that they are able to reverse some aspect of aging despite the accumulation of genetic diversity with age as you point out. Perhaps what they're reversing was never really dependent on mutation accumulation with age, or that the presence of mutations does not fully explain the age-related degeneration they're interested in reversing.
Is there much evolutionary pressure for a longer lifespan? As long as you have offspring and live long enough to raise them, there may not be much pressure to increase lifespan.
You're assuming that reduced aging is a huge evolutionary benefit. It seems pretty obvious by looking at difference species that's not true. Look at lifespans across species. The difference in species lifespan is over two orders of magnitude. So evolution has made progress on this.
Evolution only prioritizes lifespan as much as it needs to vs other reproductive goals.
Evolution only prioritizes lifespan as much as it needs to vs other reproductive goals.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_ageing. It seems that there's only slight or negative evolutionary pressure against ageing.
Well there's evidence that goes against your conclusion. Turritopsis dohrnii is a living example of a species which can reverse its age (and as far as we know, can do so indefinitely). It is quite a successful species.
> the most obvious conclusion is that defeating the process has some unavoidable, bad tradeoffs
I think it's related to reproduction - immortality would mean you're competing against your offspring for resources.
I think it's related to reproduction - immortality would mean you're competing against your offspring for resources.
Paolo Bacigalupi explored the other side of that coin in his short story Pop Squad (also made into an episode of Love, Death, and Robots). If you live forever, what's the point of having offspring?
It also touches on a theme of The Hydrogen Sonata (and elsewhere in the Culture series): with unlimited time to practice, how far will one go to perfect one's art (music in this case)?
It also touches on a theme of The Hydrogen Sonata (and elsewhere in the Culture series): with unlimited time to practice, how far will one go to perfect one's art (music in this case)?
Slowing down aging would also slow down evolutionary selection. As others mentioned, it’s very unclear that evolutionary selection, which optimizes for reproduction, would benefit from longevity besides what humans already have - elders living past reproductive age, helping raise following generations. The actual living humans are much more incentivized to solve the longevity problem.
Why would you need evolutionary selection if we’d be in total control of our species? In theory we’d be able to adapt our bodies as needed, manually.
I get it, for example, in botany where genetic diversity is crucial for the survival of a plant species.
I get it, for example, in botany where genetic diversity is crucial for the survival of a plant species.
Not total control.
We could engineer away things that might eventually in some future crisis prove to be a deciding factor in our survival. We could easily engineer away genes that might have gone on to outlive us as humans, and then end up outcompeted by them. Or we could engineer ourselves into different variants, and compete with each other.
In the end you can’t second guess evolution.
We could engineer away things that might eventually in some future crisis prove to be a deciding factor in our survival. We could easily engineer away genes that might have gone on to outlive us as humans, and then end up outcompeted by them. Or we could engineer ourselves into different variants, and compete with each other.
In the end you can’t second guess evolution.
Senescence is error correction. We have babies and die instead of living forever and budding because 'compressing' an organism down to millions of gametes which are then 'decompressed' by growing new organisms from them is relatively pass/fail. If it works then you get a faithful copy. If it doesn't then the result typically gets recycled.
yes, but there are species not too dissimilar from us who live much longer lives - bowhead whales, for example, can live to 200. and extended lifespan goes along with extended healthspan - so we don't have to live the last 30-40 years of our life in pain, fear of cancer, etc.
Personally I have a very different set goals and values than the "selfish gene".
Myself I've taken a solemn vow to become the world's oldest living human ...or die trying.
For all we know ageing might be an evolutionary process to free future generations from crappy dictators and absolute rulers.
For all we know ageing might be an evolutionary process to free future generations from crappy dictators and absolute rulers.
Let's be realistic here: we're not going to "reverse" ageing.
The article title is unfortunate. A better description of what may be possible, per language deeper down in the article -- and what would be arguably much more feasible -- is "drugs that slow the aging process".
I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
Evolution "designed" us to drop off by age 45 or so due to some combination of poor nutrition, opportunistic infections, etc (and other factors, like violence from other humans). Yet we've managed to tweak that built-in expiration date, not just by qualitative factors (like better nutrition, basic healthcare) but to a significant extent by "structural" interventions like antibiotics, antivirals, and vaccines of various sorts.
I suspect that -- if indeed anti-aging treatments become available -- they'll eventually be seen as part of the latter category. As with these, there will be side effects (and just the same, the hope will be they can also be managed).
Eventually, it'll be just another pragmatic thing that people do (alas, the wealthier among us at first most likely).
With that in mind, there's no need to anthropomorphize evolution any more than necessary. It's just a mathematical framework to describe what's been happening over billions of years. There's no hidden "intelligent design" (sorry to use the phrase) behind it, on whose toes we need to be leery of stepping upon.
It may be more helpful to think of evolution as, if anything -- more of a giant hack, on top of an endless series of kludges. Some of which may turn out to be easily patched, or otherwise mitigated.
The article title is unfortunate. A better description of what may be possible, per language deeper down in the article -- and what would be arguably much more feasible -- is "drugs that slow the aging process".
I don't think we are smarter than evolution, in this regard.
Evolution "designed" us to drop off by age 45 or so due to some combination of poor nutrition, opportunistic infections, etc (and other factors, like violence from other humans). Yet we've managed to tweak that built-in expiration date, not just by qualitative factors (like better nutrition, basic healthcare) but to a significant extent by "structural" interventions like antibiotics, antivirals, and vaccines of various sorts.
I suspect that -- if indeed anti-aging treatments become available -- they'll eventually be seen as part of the latter category. As with these, there will be side effects (and just the same, the hope will be they can also be managed).
Eventually, it'll be just another pragmatic thing that people do (alas, the wealthier among us at first most likely).
With that in mind, there's no need to anthropomorphize evolution any more than necessary. It's just a mathematical framework to describe what's been happening over billions of years. There's no hidden "intelligent design" (sorry to use the phrase) behind it, on whose toes we need to be leery of stepping upon.
It may be more helpful to think of evolution as, if anything -- more of a giant hack, on top of an endless series of kludges. Some of which may turn out to be easily patched, or otherwise mitigated.
A species needs to reproduce to evolve and stay competitive, and then at that point they only need to live long enough to reproduce. I presume the lifespan of a species is roughly optimized for that.
Meanwhile... the life expectancy in the United States is on the decline.
> The declines in life expectancy since 2019 are largely driven by the pandemic.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...
True, but to be fair it would be even lower if it wasn't for scientific research like this
Yikes - hopefully one of the mutant insects doesn’t escape. Having an insect live 20% longer as a species could significantly increase their dominance.
Do they simply tell that if we slow the cell cycle (histones over-expression), then cells will age slowly?
Death is a feature not a bug
Yes, we should always leave death as an option. Conversation over.
Well, even if we solve Biological decay, that doesn't mean we are impervious to damage.
"Death should be an option therefore I demand that you die"
Huh? Who said anything about prohibiting death? Nobody is going to demand that you take anti-aging therapies if you don't want them. Who are you to tell everyone else that they're not allowed to live?
Huh? Who said anything about prohibiting death? Nobody is going to demand that you take anti-aging therapies if you don't want them. Who are you to tell everyone else that they're not allowed to live?
"Death should be an option therefore I demand that you die"
No one said that.
People are arguing against immortality and in favor of death. People who believe that can still choose death
No one said that.
People are arguing against immortality and in favor of death. People who believe that can still choose death
> Death is a feature not a bug
> Yes, we should always leave death as an option. Conversation over.
Weird to say "no one said that" in the comment threat that literally opened with that line. "Death is a feature not a bug" means "we should make sure people continue to die." Then you seem to agree (that "yes" is rather out of place if you don't), but I admit to not being 100% clear on what you mean. Either way, it's absolutely not true that "no one" is demanding that I die of old age for the greater good. The originator of this comment thread is absolutely saying that, and he's not the only one.
> Yes, we should always leave death as an option. Conversation over.
Weird to say "no one said that" in the comment threat that literally opened with that line. "Death is a feature not a bug" means "we should make sure people continue to die." Then you seem to agree (that "yes" is rather out of place if you don't), but I admit to not being 100% clear on what you mean. Either way, it's absolutely not true that "no one" is demanding that I die of old age for the greater good. The originator of this comment thread is absolutely saying that, and he's not the only one.
The end after a lifetime of cultivation is a waste of the same, if decline is not an issue.
A feature for who?
Yip, time is worth something to us humans because it is scarce, without its scarcity it loses all value.
No, there is no reason to assert that scarcity determined importance. Air is not really scarce, yet it remains paramount - because it has real value. Time is a crucial resource: more useful time, more wealth; less, less wealth.
If one felt a resource is not to be wasted just because of scarcity, that would be a subjective naïve misperception.
If one felt a resource is not to be wasted just because of scarcity, that would be a subjective naïve misperception.
I didn't generalize that scarcity equals value though. Time is valuable to me, because it is scarce.
Time remains of value even when abundant. The logic that is valid for resources is valid for the instance of resource which is time.
Haven’t we solved aging by having children ?
It depends on if you have a more communal or individualistic outlook. We are always roughly the same age, but the individuals in the group have to age and die.
No, I don't think that «having children» could inhibit the development of prostatitis or wrinkles.
We're "solving" longevity right as the climate crisis gets really bad and we really start feeling the crunch of nonrenewable resources. Not keen on living until I'm 200 if the best I can get past 2050 is preindustrial squalor.
> we really start feeling the crunch of nonrenewable resources
This really just feels Malthusian. Many of the elements that are currently 'scarce' are not actually scarce, just not found in extremely high concentrations elsewhere. There's essentially a maximum price that these resources will reach (often not much higher than they currently are), before other methods/locations of extraction become viable. To suggest we'll revert to preindustrial squalor is absurd.
This really just feels Malthusian. Many of the elements that are currently 'scarce' are not actually scarce, just not found in extremely high concentrations elsewhere. There's essentially a maximum price that these resources will reach (often not much higher than they currently are), before other methods/locations of extraction become viable. To suggest we'll revert to preindustrial squalor is absurd.
Nick Bostrom has his analogy about technologies being like lottery balls. Most of the time we draw "white" balls and technology has almost no downsides, sometimes we draw a "gray" ball and there are pros and cons. We've never drawn a "black" ball technology out of reality's bag of tricks because we wouldn't be here discussing it if we had, although he suggests things like AI or homebrewed viruses could be a black ball.
Drawing ball after ball has kept humanity progressing. Extend his analogy a little further. What if there are no more white balls to draw? What if we are "impeded" from drawing them by the fact that there are now more gray and black balls to draw instead of white? Or, since we have to reach further into this lottery jar, what if we don't reach them in time?
Malthus rested his conclusion on the assumption that we would never hack agriculture the way we have (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc). You rest your conclusion on the assumption that we will always successfully draw a new trick out of the hat, like find ways to recover all the rare earth metals from phones for which we have no current mechanism for economic recycling. You rest your worldview on the idea that our potential is limitless, that humanity's progress is inevitable, a god-given right if you will. I rest my worldview on the idea that nothing is guaranteed, that complexity begets fragility and diminishing returns, and that entropy will always, always, have the last laugh.
Drawing ball after ball has kept humanity progressing. Extend his analogy a little further. What if there are no more white balls to draw? What if we are "impeded" from drawing them by the fact that there are now more gray and black balls to draw instead of white? Or, since we have to reach further into this lottery jar, what if we don't reach them in time?
Malthus rested his conclusion on the assumption that we would never hack agriculture the way we have (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc). You rest your conclusion on the assumption that we will always successfully draw a new trick out of the hat, like find ways to recover all the rare earth metals from phones for which we have no current mechanism for economic recycling. You rest your worldview on the idea that our potential is limitless, that humanity's progress is inevitable, a god-given right if you will. I rest my worldview on the idea that nothing is guaranteed, that complexity begets fragility and diminishing returns, and that entropy will always, always, have the last laugh.
In the vast majority of these cases, we're currently using up some of our light grey balls, while we've already drawn ten more slightly greyer balls, just sitting ready to be used. We can make batteries without cobalt. We can make energy without (significant) oil. We can grow food in towers efficiently. We'll do all of these if we need to, because they're better than just rolling over and deciding that technology just isn't worth it. Many of the balls waiting are even whiter than the ones we're currently using!
Yes, eventually we will find our hands empty for resource solutions. I do not expect it to be in my lifetime, whether it end by old age or nuclear fire.
Yes, eventually we will find our hands empty for resource solutions. I do not expect it to be in my lifetime, whether it end by old age or nuclear fire.
There's that hope of yours again. I guess it's quaint. I don't know when you think "eventually" will happen, but I'm 30 and pretty sure I get the dubious privilege of living to see it.
What if each drawn white ball makes the gray balls yet to be drawn a little more white and the black balls a little more gray?
What if the exact opposite.
Sure, but why would more knowledge lead to more danger, rather than less?
I come to think about the adage that scientific answers often bring with them more questions. Those ever expanding questions I sometimes imagine as an exponentially growing circumference of unknowns, surrounding a circle of what’s currently known.
Perhaps those unknowns could be thought of as corresponding to the gray and black balls, so that what’s dangerous is essentially that which we don’t fully understand and therefore cannot fully control.
Finally, I’m thinking that the area covered by all previously gathered knowledge (area because knowledge synergies with itself) will increasingly likely outweigh the danger that we uncover as the circumference of unknowns grows and dangers are discovered along the perimeter.
I come to think about the adage that scientific answers often bring with them more questions. Those ever expanding questions I sometimes imagine as an exponentially growing circumference of unknowns, surrounding a circle of what’s currently known.
Perhaps those unknowns could be thought of as corresponding to the gray and black balls, so that what’s dangerous is essentially that which we don’t fully understand and therefore cannot fully control.
Finally, I’m thinking that the area covered by all previously gathered knowledge (area because knowledge synergies with itself) will increasingly likely outweigh the danger that we uncover as the circumference of unknowns grows and dangers are discovered along the perimeter.
Why wouldn't it? Knowledge produces technology, technology magnifies capabilities, magnified capabilites create first- and second- order consequences that feed back on each other. Increased complexity demands increased energy to maintain, and increased catastrophe in the event of failure.
The natural world alone has disease, disaster, predators, and threats from space but would exist independent of knowledge. Technology allows us to mitigate those, and as a trade-off we get biological and chemical weapons, mass shootings, the Tsar Bomba, etc.
The natural world alone has disease, disaster, predators, and threats from space but would exist independent of knowledge. Technology allows us to mitigate those, and as a trade-off we get biological and chemical weapons, mass shootings, the Tsar Bomba, etc.
> before other methods/locations of extraction become viable.
That was an argument decades ago, but today, a) if we keep extracting more and more, then climate change will be worse and worse (all ready not looking good) and b) it seems like we are around the production peak of oil (of all kinds), while conventional peak oil was around 2008.
So yeah, energy is going down, because we don't have viable alternative to fossil fuels. What is unfortunate is that the end of fossil fuels is coming too slowly, so we still have plenty to mess up the climate. And then we won't have it anymore to face the consequences.
That was an argument decades ago, but today, a) if we keep extracting more and more, then climate change will be worse and worse (all ready not looking good) and b) it seems like we are around the production peak of oil (of all kinds), while conventional peak oil was around 2008.
So yeah, energy is going down, because we don't have viable alternative to fossil fuels. What is unfortunate is that the end of fossil fuels is coming too slowly, so we still have plenty to mess up the climate. And then we won't have it anymore to face the consequences.
On the other hand, if the older folks in positions of power cared about what the world would be like in 100 years we might actually start doing something about global warming et al.
I would happily give up gasoline, meat, etc. to live significantly longer. I think if everyone had to give it up, we'd see an even bigger push for good alternatives as well.
I don't think that's true or else there'd never be anyone eating red meat or drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes or choosing television over exercise.
Burning gasoline is known to give off pollutants that shorten our lives today but millions of peopole choose driving over health every day.
Burning gasoline is known to give off pollutants that shorten our lives today but millions of peopole choose driving over health every day.
I think that's a UI problem more than anything. Well, actually, most people in the US "choose" driving because they don't actually have any choice. But even if they do, they choose driving because getting in the car doesn't tell you what it's doing to your lifespan (or anyone else's - imagine if it factored in the likelihood of killing a pedestrian or one's own child in their oversized SUV). Literally nobody is thinking about that every time they get in the car, even very environmentally-minded people.
Netherlands here. Myself and several others I know have never driven for this reason. But I do get your point.
I don't think about those things every time I drive, but I have given it some serious thought. I choose to drive anyway.
Others would trade lifespan for mobility.
Which makes perfect sense, since you are in fact built to move (the brain is the natural boost of the organ for movement - for exploiting freedom).
Which makes perfect sense, since you are in fact built to move (the brain is the natural boost of the organ for movement - for exploiting freedom).
Also solving aging leads to a necessary choice. Mass famine and civilization collapse, or draconian population control. That will get messy fast, and I can see us choosing the former because of people deluding themselves into thinking such a choice need not be made at all.
https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon