8 replies to this topic

[Cloomis]

My latest blog post reviews the longevity trends in the maximum life span

 

Takeaways:

Average lifespan is increasing by a quarter of a year annually.

Maximum lifespan is not moving at all.

Practical goal for life with current treatments is about 100 years.

 

Suggestions on how to meet that and an outlook for the future in my post. Take a look!

 

https://www.unaging.com/the-limits-of-human-lifespan/

[Mind]

Thanks for posting this. A very nice read and summary of current data. I really enjoyed the graphical elements that clearly show the aging metrics.

 

It is interesting to note that life expectancy has started to decline in the US (and other advanced nations?) in the last few years. I hope it is not a long term trend, however, diet and lifestyle factors are horrible and getting worse in the US.

 

One point you might want to investigate further is the "red meat" recommendation. In contrast to popular opinion, red meat might not be "bad". It seems processed meat has more a of link to age-related diseases. According to an extensive review of the literature, University of Washington researchers found very little quality evidence that red meat alone was linked to age related disease, except for a weak association with colorectal cancer. I would suggest that it is not the meat that is causative (for colorectal cancer), but the other diet factors in some meat eaters (few vegetables, non-organic meat, too many empty calories, etc...)

[Rocket]

Life expectancy its dropping in the US because we have millions and millions of people from the third world pouring into the country. Do you really think you can dilute the population with the third world and there's no effect?

[albedo]

There might be theoretical limits to human max life span which by no means implies stopping our quest, basically meaning to genuinely try and understanding what aging is and how to measure it. Maybe related see also here:

https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=927219

Edited by albedo, 06 November 2023 - 09:12 AM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

After the death of the oldest documented person Jeanne Clement, some researchers set the limit of the human life to 122 years, since she is the longest living person confirmed until now. However, some researchers claimed, that the person presenting herself for Jeanne Clement is an imposter, and even that she is actually her 99 years old daughter. If that is true, then the next are several other people who have reached 119. And the limit based on the confirmed until now observations becomes 119 years.

 

From that point on there begin theories, unconfirmed practcally calculations, good whishes, personal opinions and scientific hopes.

 

My personal opinion is that the human lifespan in the future can be limitless. But until that gets scientifically proven - until the first human immortal appears - I have to agree with the known until now scientific facts and put a limit of 119 or 122 years.

 

[adamh]

@seivtcho, I have read about the case of jeanne clement, and there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence of fraud. The reason was financial. Apparently the family was poor and the mothers pension was about the only income. When the mother died, it was a disaster, they would have been put out on the street. So, and here the theory goes, she swapped places with her mom and declared her own death putting the moms body forward as her own. The penalty was severe if she had been caught so she never let on and kept getting the pension. Then she conned a french family into buying her apartment giving payments based on her being already old and therefore the payments would be larger since she was not expected to be around long. She kept the apt until death and the ones paying lost a lot of money but were not allowed to stop payments before she died.

 

119 may be the longest anyone has lived though there easily could have been some in the past that lived longer and it was not documented. But 119 is a good figure to work with to see if we can go beyond it. I think in the future that figure will be broken legitimately by people who not only had good genetics but ate well, got exercise and did everything right. Some on this board may well surpass it. I plan to live to at least 120 and so far, so good

 

What about artificial bodies and brain or consciousness transplants? If humans could transfer their consciousness to another person, perhaps a condemned criminal, they could live a second lifetime. Perhaps brain transfers will be achieved, though then there is the problem of the brain aging and failing so an artificial brain might do the trick. By the 22nd century it might be a routine procedure. Then the population problem explodes. Maybe that is why all these diseases are worked on for gain of function? Maybe the covid shot was meant to thin the herd?

[Danail Bulgaria]

You are touching many topics in your answer. Some theoretical, other ethical.

 

Maybe the first thing would be to answer for yourself what is it to be immortal. There are many views and types of immortality and you have to choose which (one) of them fits you. I have heared so far many and some of them are possible even today. Unfortunately, they are not my type of immortality. I am a supporter of the biological immortality, but this goes some off-topic.

 

In the case of brain or consciousness transplants you have to answer yourself the question is the result of the consciousness transfer you, or a copy of you. And when your body and your brain dies, what is remaining out there - you or the copy of your brain or consciousness. Is the copy you, or it is something, which is believing quite convincingly that it is you. Or is your twin you or another person. What happens then in case you die, and your twin remains alive. Are you still alive.

 

There are also diferent aspects in ethics. Ethical issues will rise about should the brain of a condemmed criminal be erased and replaced with yours.

By the way I remember there was a movie, named 'Get Out'.

In the movie a group of people were changing completely the identity of one person into another. And they were doing it to tranasfer the person of a dying rich to the body of a kidnapped black person. They were not using any futuristic devices, such as brain copy-pasting machines. Simply a seria of hypnoses.

First there come the ethical and legal issues of kidnapping someone, exposing him/her to seria of unwanted hypnoses, and completely changing his personality in order to copy someone else's personality.

And second the personality copies were absolutely convinced thet they are actually the dead, who is living in another body. But... is it really so, we may ask.

 

The population exploding is a completely diferent topic. And the problem is solved when no more children are born once the people become immortal.

 

P.S.

I also think, that in the future 'that figure will be broken' and the maximal length of the human life will be extended more than what is proven today or even may reach to a biological immortality. Simply can't say 'it is so' until it happens so. What I can is to which everyone in this forum, who wants a biological immortality to become biologically immortal.

 

 

[adamh]

That is an interesting subject. I think that if your consciousness was transferred to another body or a supercomputer, that you would become that person or computer. I think your present body would die and you would be in the other but no one knows since we can't do that yet. I think some people would volunteer to give up their body and life if they were planning suicide anyway. They might want to help family. Prisoners might be used in place of death penalty

 

To be immortal would simply be to never die. We can already do that with some cells of the body, helak, a culture of cancer cells has proven to be immortal. But I don't think thats what we want. We want to be healthy and able to function including mentally. If the body was great but the brain was not working right, what good is that?

 

The population will explode if we are able to greatly extend healthy lifespan. It will be expensive I'm sure and that may be what keeps the technology in check. If it costs a million a year to be young again, only millionaires will be able to afford it and even they better have lots of millions. We know how greedy the health care industry is so it won't be cheap. If its a one time treatment that costs 10 million or more, that will eliminate over 99% from getting it. Then a few rich oligarchs will live forever and the peasants will hope for a few more years.

[Danail Bulgaria]

You are rising even more questions. It seems, that in each step the questions become more and more. Something like a growing tree of questions.

 

And it is again what does it means for you to be immortal. Which type of immortalty would you prefer.

 

For me for example, the transferred consciousness is a copy of you, and if it is in a computer, it is even worse - a model of your brain. It is not my type of immortalty.

 

The HeLa cells are supposed to have immortalized Henrietta Lacks, who has dised at the age of 31 from a cervical cancer. Why? Because a part of her is still alive. Fine, but that is not my type of immortality either. Plus I see the cancer cells as twisted cells, with a twisted DNA. After many copies, with the accumulation of the genetic mistakes after the numerous cell divisions, the DNA even more deviates from what it has been the DNA of Henrietta Lacks. So, it is an another philosophical question if these cells are her cells at all. It is not she who is immortal, but her mutated and twisted cancer is immortal instead.

 

The population will explode if we are able to greatly extend healthy lifespan sound logical, but is disproved by the practice. The countries with the longest lifespans such as Japan not only have not exploded in population, but the opposite - they are a duying nation. The population explodes in the most retarded regions in Africa and India with low to lowest lifespan. The practice already have shown that it is the opposite, and still don't know why at all people still believe in this argument.