People living to be over 100 is not new. When we start hitting 150, let me know.
The fact is that medical treatments simply allow more people to reach, or near, maximum age. People just wear out after a while and there is currently no cure for that. There may be in the future, but I don’t live in a science fiction movie. There may be hundreds of things that various scientists think may allow us to live forever, but I have done a lot of things in my life that I really thought were going to work out and then didn’t.
The example in the link above is just one of those, and it happens all the time. Take this stuff and we can reverse aging! (but you die from cancer)
All you have to do is research on Aubrey de Grey, co-founder of SENS. He’s said it more than once, and is a great proponent of it. Here is one such quote: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103002222.html?hpid=sec-healthTHIS is your quote that I’m at odds with…“There are doctors(plural) today who feel that someone alive today will make it to age 1,000 because the rate of medical advance will allow them to do so.” Now all of a sudden you are talking about living to 150! I went to the SENS website and saw nothing like the above quote. Please direct us to the direct source that says this if you expect us to say, “ah, yes, you are so right”.
What factors cause the prospective age limit (with the envisaged technology) to be 1000, rather than a much higher number?All you have to do is research on Aubrey. He’s said it more than once, and is a great proponent of it.
People have fewer children now. This reduces population. It’s an exponential function.
- People live longer now. This increases population. It’s an exponential function.
People wait longer to reproduce now, when they do at all. This decreases population. It’s an exponential function.
- People can reproduce longer now, this increases population. It’s an exponential function.
You are simply making things up until it has happened. Your magic potion you talked about earlier is a perfect example. Take this stuff and you’ll live forever, except that it will kill you! It hasn’t happened yet, and may never happen, until then I prefer not to worry about what if scenarios.
- ADDITIONAL MEANS are on the horizon which have the potential to significantly increase lifespan. That would also increase population. It will still be an exponential function.
No, they don’t live longer now. They simply don’t die at young ages of infections. The maximum age is about the same. Look at the oldest person to have ever lived(that can be proven). She died in 1997, almost 20 years ago. Why hasn’t anyone lived longer since then? We have records of people living to be 100-110 going back thousands of years.People now “wear out” at later ages than in the past - on average.
That’s an average age. Actually, I read one paper on mortality a while ago that if we eliminated aging and all disease, the average age would be around 650 (accidents) but I think SENS is assuming that accident care would also improve.What factors cause the prospective age limit (with the envisaged technology) to be 1000, rather than a much higher number?
People are either dead or alive. The statement “No, they don’t live longer now. They simply don’t die at young ages of infections.” is absurd - if they are not dead, they LIVE LONGER. It’s that simple.People have fewer children now. This reduces population. It’s an exponential function.
Also, it is only increasing population now, not in the future. We are reaching the peak of that phenomenon here and it will level off. Once life expectancy stabilizes, this stops being an increase in population. If it increases then population will increase a bit in proportion to that.
People wait longer to reproduce now, when they do at all. This decreases population. It’s an exponential function.
You are simply making things up until it has happened. Your magic potion you talked about earlier is a perfect example. Take this stuff and you’ll live forever, except that it will kill you! It hasn’t happened yet, and may never happen, until then I prefer not to worry about what if scenarios.
No, they don’t live longer now. They simply don’t die at young ages of infections. The maximum age is about the same. Look at the oldest person to have ever lived(that can be proven). She died in 1997, almost 20 years ago. Why hasn’t anyone lived longer since then? We have records of people living to be 100-110 going back thousands of years.
Do you understand how exponential growth and exponential decay work?It is a misconception that the reproductive years are being vastly lengthened.
Population growth is female-dependent. And the peak of female fertility has remained in the third decade of life.
A part of the “demographic winter” now settling on the Western World is related to this, because where Western women once married in their teens and had children in their 20s, they are now in school or paying off school debt until almost 30, past the peak.
The vast increase in demand for reproductive technology shows that those age limits have not really changed. They can be circumvented; but not easily.
The result of life lengthening will remain a fixed term in the equation.
ICXC NIKA
But what is the answer to my question? What limits these prospective technologies to only extend age to 1000 (average). What death -producing processes would we still face (besides accidents, murder etc)?That’s an average age. Actually, I read one paper on mortality a while ago that if we eliminated aging and all disease, the average age would be around 650 (accidents) but I think SENS is assuming that accident care would also improve.
There are clearly two separate issues. I suggest you pick one.People are either dead or alive. The statement “No, they don’t live longer now. They simply don’t die at young ages of infections.” is absurd - if they are not dead, they LIVE LONGER. It’s that simple.
That’s an easy question. They made it all up. Since we are talking about technology that does not exist, they can say it will do whatever they want.But what is the answer to my question? What limits these prospective technologies to only extend age to 1000 (average). What death -producing processes would we still face (besides accidents, murder etc)?
Actually, I understand it very well. My training is in science and engineering, if it matters.If this is your sole response, then you’re not understanding what you are reading and/or you’re missing the point.
The argument is akin to this: Suppose that it is 1985, and I claim that the fundamental technology exists today (1985) to provide automobiles that will average 2-4 times greater equivalent MPG compared to then modern gasoline engines – and the response you gave me is “that looks like a lot of talk with no research or results.” That’s missing the point. The point is that some of the research already exists, and other is ongoing and the “talk” is pointing out how that research can be used. Today those cars exist, and are being sold to the public. There are still issues in that for the average consumer the relative cost is still too high, but they are fundamentally more efficient and are fundamentally better for the environment and MORE technology is on the way.
Suppose that is 1960 and I claim that the fundamental technology exists today to land a man on the moon and return him to Earth in 10 years, and your response is “that looks like a lot of talk with no research or results.” That’s what this situation is. When peer reviewed, peers are not saying that the approach is definitely right - but neither are they able to find a fundamental flaw with the approach.
There is a huge fallacy using an inorganic system and expecting the same results for an organic system.And again, this is only ONE such project.
Life expectancy in 1800 was about 45. Today it is about 80 (depending upon population group.) Based on current improvements, in approximately 10-20 years that should be about 90. If we better address obesity and smoking alone, that may extend it past 100.
I’m not handwaving; you’re actually handwaving biological facts and relationships away to attempt to prove your point.I think a handwaving dismissal is an inappropriate response to what is happening in this field today.
FWIW, I considered becoming an actuary out of college for an insurance company, dealing with this very issue.I work with corporations in an area of finance in which employee mortality is important. I am often asked serious questions about increasing life span or the total delay of mortality and how they will need to respond to it. Clearly corporations are at least beginning to get the concept.
OK, PLEASE, this is ONE MAN, not “doctors”(plural) and the quote from that link is,“With adequate funding, de Grey thinks scientists may, within a decade, triple the remaining life span of late-middle-age mice.” I’m outta here…you go ahead and daydream. If this generation does live to be 1000 years old, that’s even MORE reason for the Church to OK birth control for married couples. The real problem is you(actually maybe not you, but most Catholics on this forum) think of only human beings and NOT the effect on the whole ecosystem. May God bless you all.All you have to do is research on Aubrey de Grey, co-founder of SENS. He’s said it more than once, and is a great proponent of it. Here is one such quote: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103002222.html?hpid=sec-health
Here is an abstract of a paper at the SENS website that argues that people should be able to live to 1,000.
sens.org/research/recent-publications/publication/strategie-un-invecchiamento-transcurabile-ingegnerizzato
No, it’s not.If this generation does live to be 1000 years old, that’s even MORE reason for the Church to OK birth control for married couples.
Again, just do a little research. Other doctors/researchers with SENS believe the same goals are achievable. From other areas, Richard Seymour (the famed designer) also believes this likely. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne believes that the possibility is sufficiently likely that we need to explore the ethics of the issue and develop strategies for the coming changes. Michael Rose, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of California believes that we are working toward human immortality. Robert Freitas at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, a non-profit, nanotech group in Palo Alto, California, asays “It will take time and, if you put it in terms of the big developments of modern technology, say the telephone, we are still about 10 years off from Alexander Graham Bell shouting to his assistant through that first device. Still, in the near future, say the next two to four decades, the disease of ageing will be cured.” Other ethicists such as Dr. Mark Walker also believe that we need to continue to work on the issue. Dr. Michael Zey is another proponent of super longevity. He is a Professor at Montclair State University, NJ.OK, PLEASE, this is ONE MAN, not “doctors”(plural) and the quote from that link is,“With adequate funding, de Grey thinks scientists may, within a decade, triple the remaining life span of late-middle-age mice.” I’m outta here…you go ahead and daydream. If this generation does live to be 1000 years old, that’s even MORE reason for the Church to OK birth control for married couples. The real problem is you(actually maybe not you, but most Catholics on this forum) think of only human beings and NOT the effect on the whole ecosystem. May God bless you all.
Accidents, murder etc. ARE the key death producing processes at that point.But what is the answer to my question? What limits these prospective technologies to only extend age to 1000 (average). What death -producing processes would we still face (besides accidents, murder etc)?
No, they are not two separate issues. Perhaps you are mis-using language and have a mistaken approach.There are clearly two separate issues. I suggest you pick one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_people_by_year_of_birth
I was one before I moved on to higher level jobs.Actually, I understand it very well. My training is in science and engineering, if it matters.
There is a huge fallacy using an inorganic system and expecting the same results for an organic system.
I’m not handwaving; you’re actually handwaving biological facts and relationships away to attempt to prove your point.
While the average age has increased, the maximum life expectancy for a human being hasn’t change one bit. The average-age increase is due to such factors as a major reduction in childhood deaths, and the ability to treat common diseases that people would die from in the past. We also have the ability to force bodies to keep functioning with machines and other devices beyond the time they would normally live. But there are no instances of forcing the body to live beyond the maximum expected life expectancy. In order to the that, tampering must be done with genetics (limiting natural chromosomal damage, changing the relationship between the immune system and the body ability to repair itself, etc.).
FWIW, I considered becoming an actuary out of college for an insurance company, dealing with this very issue.
I agree with the premise, but a lot of people are leaving the inner-city for suburbs and other resource-rich places.In Kansas we have a name for areas which experience serious demographic declines. We call them ghost towns.
It’s interesting that people generally flock to areas of better opportunity, which are mostly those areas most densely populated—big cities. The areas of highest population density are those that do best. Ghost towns just disappear. Now it seems that the entire globe has an earnest desire for ghost town status.
I don’t expect to live long enough to see the worst effects of demographic winter. But many reading these forums will still be around. It will be a sad and aging world.