So many people think anti-aging science is just about living more years, but that's missing half the picture.
Anti-aging science is not just about living more years, it's about being able to live healthy and fulfilling lives both physically and mentally even as you age. Way too many people are broken by age before they die, to prevent that would be fantastic.
>So many people think anti-aging science is just about living more years, but that's missing half the picture. Anti-aging science is not just about living more years, it's about being able to live healthy and fulfilling lives both physically and mentally even as you age.
Thats's 2/3rds of the picture. The other 1/3rd of "anti-aging" is selling snake-oil fads to suckers and for people with anxieties to obsess over.
In this thread I've seen the overpopulation argument framed as theft. Here are all the others I've found.
Summary of pro death arguments:
Fairness
Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done this.)
Better to give money to the poor than science. (family, city, state, nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.)
Bad for society
Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistent)
Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.)
Stop having kids
Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136)
Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age)
Old people are expensive (50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your final year. Delay is profitable.)
Old people suck. (death is an inferior cure to robustness.)
Bad for individual
You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related)
You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?)
You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.)
Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)
People will force you to live forever (they aren't able to do this now, why would they begin to be?)
Do you think less people make progress faster? What's your target level of depriving life of existence? How do you plan to keep mankind robust from extinction events on a single planet? You might just need more people. What do you think our technology would look like if we had 10x less people for the last 100 years?
More people make more progress faster. Aren’t you glad your parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without you in it? If great minds like Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc., were still alive and productive today, the world would be a better place. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then.
Man up, save your family, save yourself.
P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horrible things comes true, even earlier.
The most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want the product to remind that they are old.
So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation.
>The most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want the product to remind that they are old
In the modern society, that is.
In previous eras/societies, it was a badge of honor to be among the elderly, and there were products/lifestyles associated to that that did fine.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It's just that items designed for the elderly are designed by young people who think this is what elderly people need. My mom uses quite a few items that are supposed to be designed for the elderly. Only a few really work whereas others simply don't work.
I don't think most elderly don't want to be reminded that they are old. They will happily use stuff that actually works for them.
I've seen this sort of argument many times before, most notably from Francis Fukuyama. The common thinking on the subject seems to be a deeply inaccurate decoupling of longevity and health.
Yes, we fear death, but we also fear the image of ourselves spending the final years of our lives bedridden and in pain. What we don't seem to understand is that patients in such poor health don't survive very long (despite the inevitable anecdotes about relatives who survived far too long in feeble condition, more a matter of perception than fact).
In other words, unhealthy people tend to have poor longevity.
Especially with dementia you can live a very long time. I have watched this with my dad now for more than 10 years and he may outlive my mom even though his mental capacity is not there anymore.
This has to do with mitochondrial metabolic processes being the most efficient to break down smaller quantities of sugar. There are mitochondrial mechanisms to break down a lot at once that are turned on in the presence of more sugar but they just aren’t as finely tuned and thus generate free radicals which can cause cellular problems. There really wasn’t a point throughout evolutionary history where there was a prolonged abundance of sugar available to the degree it is today. Because of that, the mechanisms to break down a lot of carbohydrates/sugars at the same time just did not evolve to be as operationally efficient. Free radicals can cause DNA/RNA disruptions and also damage other processes. Source: father is a dedicated microbiologist
>Calorie restriction is well known slowing biological aging process
Cut calories and you cut the amount of cardio and strength training you can do. This cuts muscles mass, bone density, and takes away the IQ-increasing brain simulation factors away. I am not sold at all.
Don't eat sugar.
Don't smoke.
Don't drink.
Eat fruits and vegetables.
Exercise regularly. Walking counts, but you probably want to throw some upper-body stuff in there as well. Working in the garden counts.
That's about 80-95% of "how to stay healthy using forces under your control" as far as I can tell.
Somewhat off-topic, but I always thought the most prominent real-life reenactment of The Fox and the Grapes was all of the media and thinkpieces that people have written about how living for an extended period of time would be just _awful_. You wouldn't find many people who think that 40 years would be an acceptable lifespan, and most people would probably like to live to 100 if they got there in good health, but as soon as the idea of living potential centuries is floated, it's all "it would drive you crazy with boredom!" It seems like a good-sized contingent of people believe that extending the human lifespan wouldn't be impossible or immoral so much as it would be _undesirable_. Boy, it sure is convenient that our "natural" longevity (whatever that means) is right at the limits of what humans can reasonably enjoy, huh?
I could understand the impulse people would have to not extend their lives if that's truly what they wanted, but the almost _cultural_ belief that seeking immortality is Bad and Wrong, something only pursued by cartoon villains and insane emperors seems like a collective agreement among people to throw their hands up and go "well, fine! I don't even _want_ to live longer, who'd like that?"
All of this, of course, doesn't touch on the moral, economic, environmental, etc. problems that crop up with greatly extended longevity, for which there are a number of altogether more palatable arguments that would need to be engaged with more fully. Still, it's an odd piece of ideology that makes people feel like they don't need to deploy any of these in the conversation - why would they, when they _totally_ don't even want to live much longer than 100 anyways?
These are the same people who complain that they would be bored if out of work for too long. I personally have so many personal or passion projects that I would like to undertake, but don’t have the time for, that I’d happily fill a few lifetimes with interesting things to do.
Of course, there’s a difference between a few lifetimes and thousands of years or immortality.
isn't this happening already? From totally unscientific perspective, if you look at pictures of people from olden days (say high school seniors from 1970s/1980s vs from 21st century) as well pictures of 60+ people from 1940s/1950s,
you will notice people now look a lot younger. It isn't only the sense of grooming/clothing but also physical attributes which have changed
What I'd like to more accurately identify is the point at which we get diminishing returns to health from strenuous exercise, in measurable form. Exercise of course provides enormous health benefits, but progressive overload for instance demands ever increasing caloric intake which runs counter to health recommendations. This is probably easier to track than high intensity cardio except in terms of pure caloric need. I deadlift twice my bodyweight at up to 5 reps and consume somewhere in the range of 2000-2500 calories a day. But is reaching the 1000 pound club worth it from a health standpoint? I doubt it, but the evidence surrounding this is sorely lacking.
It would vary depending on type of exercise. Giving my opinions based on being very interested in the subject for years, without bothering with citations.
For muscle-mass, the health benefits come from having higher glycogen storage (helping to prevent diabetes), as well as maintaining function late into life. The latter is subject to diminishing returns, and maintenance is more important than the amount when you peaked. Also, having too much muscle mass would put a strain on the heart.
Daily light movement is important for circulation. 10-12k steps seems to about ideal.
15-20 minutes of moderate-intensity (120-140 bpm) or 4 total minutes of high-intensity (> 160 bpm) cardio improves heart function, blood-flow, and mitochondrial density. Any more seems to be subject to diminishing returns.
Stretching around 10 minutes per day may help prevent cancer and preserve function.
This leads me to the following recommendations:
1-3 weekly strength training sessions of around 45 minutes
I don't see discussion about the natural emotional maturation process. Even with a much better body, I don't feel about life and things the same way. We might as well take care about not misaligning somatic health with mental health too much. It would be fruitless.
That doesn't make sense on several levels including mathematically. Two sterile immortals would use less resources than a stable progression of two child average couples in a generation. There would exist therefore a middling equivalent or lesser resource using immortal reproduction k per t or n additional projection than say N per generation mortals.
Not to mention the theft framework is nonsensical - while it is a good thing to have sustainable systems and resources how can one steal from that which does not exist and may not ever even?
Under that framework I could accuse anyone of wrongfully occupying the space of an entity which may only exist at the end of time after all intelligent life is dead - which is more absurd than the invisible pink unicorn arguements.
I would never classify being alive as “stealing resources” but regardless, you’re assuming that people don’t make meaningful contributions to society while alive. What if while you were living longer you cured cancer?
Under your philosophy wouldn’t reproducing steal even more resources? If you have three children then you’re stealing them 3X faster.
Is there a need for so many new people? I don't see why the current pool of conscious agents can not live longer and reduce the frequency of ultimate personal tragedy.
Few people are trying to make the case for shortening life in the interest of having more children, so is there anything special about the current balance to suggest we should not continue to push it further away from this?
If ageing becomes something we can turn off, and we become biologically immortal, then I think the main unfortunate consequence is that the remaining causes of death become more dominant and are unnatural and unpredictable: accident; poverty; war; disease.
I don't think many commenters got what I was trying to say. I'll have another go. Assuming you haven't done all the things you want to do in (say) 70 years, why would you say you need or deserve more time?
I wish we lived little less, resulting in, less knowledge transfer, less technology, less of the destruction caused by humans on nature.
We live longer than most of the creatures of our size, and we have larger brain. That's the reason of the damage we create to the earth like swarms of locusts do to the green grass fields [1].
And still we wish more life! Sad!
On a serious note, the most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want the product to remind that they are old.
So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation.
> So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation.
Aren't a lot of products you see on infomercials exactly that?
I've seen people argue that it's a market failure or an inefficiency of capitalism that people are trying to market products for elderly and disabled people to younger people and families. From this it seems more likely the opposite. They are designed for the elderly or disabled but are falsely marketed to everyone in order to get their real target audience to buy it.
[+] [-] kristofferR|6 years ago|reply
Anti-aging science is not just about living more years, it's about being able to live healthy and fulfilling lives both physically and mentally even as you age. Way too many people are broken by age before they die, to prevent that would be fantastic.
[+] [-] johnydepp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _o-O-o_|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] coldtea|6 years ago|reply
Thats's 2/3rds of the picture. The other 1/3rd of "anti-aging" is selling snake-oil fads to suckers and for people with anxieties to obsess over.
[+] [-] RichardHeart|6 years ago|reply
Summary of pro death arguments:
Do you think less people make progress faster? What's your target level of depriving life of existence? How do you plan to keep mankind robust from extinction events on a single planet? You might just need more people. What do you think our technology would look like if we had 10x less people for the last 100 years?More people make more progress faster. Aren’t you glad your parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without you in it? If great minds like Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc., were still alive and productive today, the world would be a better place. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then.
Man up, save your family, save yourself.
P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horrible things comes true, even earlier.
[+] [-] johnydepp|6 years ago|reply
So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation.
[+] [-] dTal|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|6 years ago|reply
In the modern society, that is.
In previous eras/societies, it was a badge of honor to be among the elderly, and there were products/lifestyles associated to that that did fine.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|6 years ago|reply
I don't think most elderly don't want to be reminded that they are old. They will happily use stuff that actually works for them.
[+] [-] cr0sh|6 years ago|reply
And thus, "Where did the soda go?"...
[+] [-] Shutaru|6 years ago|reply
Yes, we fear death, but we also fear the image of ourselves spending the final years of our lives bedridden and in pain. What we don't seem to understand is that patients in such poor health don't survive very long (despite the inevitable anecdotes about relatives who survived far too long in feeble condition, more a matter of perception than fact).
In other words, unhealthy people tend to have poor longevity.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwaltrip|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BuildTheRobots|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannob|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggambetta|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] novaRom|6 years ago|reply
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
[+] [-] hannob|6 years ago|reply
It worked very well in small organisms, once you go to apes the results are much less clear: https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/17/14287708/caloric-restrict...
[+] [-] deytempo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cfj|6 years ago|reply
> In humans, the long-term health effects of moderate caloric restriction with sufficient nutrients are unknown.
[+] [-] qwsxyh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goatlover|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ohaideredevs|6 years ago|reply
Cut calories and you cut the amount of cardio and strength training you can do. This cuts muscles mass, bone density, and takes away the IQ-increasing brain simulation factors away. I am not sold at all.
[+] [-] TYPE_FASTER|6 years ago|reply
Don't eat sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Eat fruits and vegetables. Exercise regularly. Walking counts, but you probably want to throw some upper-body stuff in there as well. Working in the garden counts.
That's about 80-95% of "how to stay healthy using forces under your control" as far as I can tell.
[+] [-] paideic|6 years ago|reply
I could understand the impulse people would have to not extend their lives if that's truly what they wanted, but the almost _cultural_ belief that seeking immortality is Bad and Wrong, something only pursued by cartoon villains and insane emperors seems like a collective agreement among people to throw their hands up and go "well, fine! I don't even _want_ to live longer, who'd like that?"
All of this, of course, doesn't touch on the moral, economic, environmental, etc. problems that crop up with greatly extended longevity, for which there are a number of altogether more palatable arguments that would need to be engaged with more fully. Still, it's an odd piece of ideology that makes people feel like they don't need to deploy any of these in the conversation - why would they, when they _totally_ don't even want to live much longer than 100 anyways?
[+] [-] dkersten|6 years ago|reply
Of course, there’s a difference between a few lifetimes and thousands of years or immortality.
[+] [-] babuskov|6 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4
[+] [-] m23khan|6 years ago|reply
you will notice people now look a lot younger. It isn't only the sense of grooming/clothing but also physical attributes which have changed
[+] [-] slothtrop|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZeroFries|6 years ago|reply
For muscle-mass, the health benefits come from having higher glycogen storage (helping to prevent diabetes), as well as maintaining function late into life. The latter is subject to diminishing returns, and maintenance is more important than the amount when you peaked. Also, having too much muscle mass would put a strain on the heart.
Daily light movement is important for circulation. 10-12k steps seems to about ideal.
15-20 minutes of moderate-intensity (120-140 bpm) or 4 total minutes of high-intensity (> 160 bpm) cardio improves heart function, blood-flow, and mitochondrial density. Any more seems to be subject to diminishing returns.
Stretching around 10 minutes per day may help prevent cancer and preserve function.
This leads me to the following recommendations:
1-3 weekly strength training sessions of around 45 minutes
10-12k daily steps
2-4 weekly cardio sessions of around 15 minutes
10 minutes daily stretching
[+] [-] agumonkey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RappingBoomer|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] m4r35n357|6 years ago|reply
You can have immortality or reproduction - choose.
[+] [-] Nasrudith|6 years ago|reply
Not to mention the theft framework is nonsensical - while it is a good thing to have sustainable systems and resources how can one steal from that which does not exist and may not ever even?
Under that framework I could accuse anyone of wrongfully occupying the space of an entity which may only exist at the end of time after all intelligent life is dead - which is more absurd than the invisible pink unicorn arguements.
[+] [-] malvosenior|6 years ago|reply
Under your philosophy wouldn’t reproducing steal even more resources? If you have three children then you’re stealing them 3X faster.
[+] [-] goatlover|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corobo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnode|6 years ago|reply
Few people are trying to make the case for shortening life in the interest of having more children, so is there anything special about the current balance to suggest we should not continue to push it further away from this?
If ageing becomes something we can turn off, and we become biologically immortal, then I think the main unfortunate consequence is that the remaining causes of death become more dominant and are unnatural and unpredictable: accident; poverty; war; disease.
[+] [-] ahje|6 years ago|reply
Reproduction, thanks! Wouldn't mind spending the last 10 years in good health though.
[+] [-] garmaine|6 years ago|reply
Not for a long, long while in any case.
[+] [-] rishav_sharan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jhayward|6 years ago|reply
Have you carefully examined the logical outcome of such a line of thinking? Carousel, anyone? Is your life clock blinking?
[+] [-] yaya69|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m4r35n357|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnydepp|6 years ago|reply
We live longer than most of the creatures of our size, and we have larger brain. That's the reason of the damage we create to the earth like swarms of locusts do to the green grass fields [1].
And still we wish more life! Sad!
On a serious note, the most intriguing thing I found in the article, is that, If you design & sell items specifically to elderly, they wont buy it. Because they don't want the product to remind that they are old.
So the solution is to design a product which suits to the elderly but seems like its designed for young generation.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bx5JUGVahk
[+] [-] onorton|6 years ago|reply
Aren't a lot of products you see on infomercials exactly that?
I've seen people argue that it's a market failure or an inefficiency of capitalism that people are trying to market products for elderly and disabled people to younger people and families. From this it seems more likely the opposite. They are designed for the elderly or disabled but are falsely marketed to everyone in order to get their real target audience to buy it.