3 replies to this topic

[Marios Kyriazis]

After studying tables of current life expectancy (life expectancy increase per decade, in years, based upon United States National Vital Statistics) I found embedded a virtually perfect Fibonacci sequence. A Fibonacci sequence is a series of numbers as follows: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, ...etc, where each number is the sum of the previous two. See here for more details on the Fibonacci sequence: http://www.mathacade...bonac/index.asp
To my knowledge, this has not been described before.

This is important because, based on the idea regarding Global Brain acting as a catalyst for promoting extreme human lifespans (http://hplusmagazine...e-global-brain/), it may help us predict with some accuracy any dramatic increases in life expectancy. For example, the model predicts that the current maximum lifespan of 110-120 years will be increased to 175 in the next 20-30 years.


In simple terms, the fact that life expectancy increases in a certain manner, and this manner obeys deep-routed and universal natural laws, indicates that it may be possible to:
1. Predict life expectancy in the near future. Based on the Fibonacci sequence,
a 90 year old today, can expect to live another 5 years
a 95 year old can expect to live another 8 years
a 103 year old can expect to live another 13 years, then…
a 116 year old can expect to live another 21 years
a 137 year old would expect to live another 34 years
a 171 year old would expect to live another 55 years
a 236 year old would expect to live another 89 years
a 325 year old can expect to live another 144 years,
and so on.

2. Question the presence of ageing and death in an ever-evolving intellectually sophisticated human (who is a valuable component of the Global Brain). Based on current facts, the Fibonacci sequence with regards to life expectancy ends abruptly when lifespan reaches the limit of approximately 120 years. Why is this so? Why should a naturally extending lifespan deviate from universal natural laws? Life expectancy should continue to increase as an individual manages to survive to a certain age. The presence of ageing and death could therefore be considered unnatural.

3. Support the notion that ‘you need to live long enough to live forever’ (see Kurzweil
http://en.wikipedia....to_Live_Forever, and also De Grey’s ‘Longevity Escape Velocity’ suggestions http://www.ted.com/i...void_aging.html).

Those who manage to survive to extreme age are more likely to see their life expectancy increase even further, and so on, recursively. Kurzweil believes that this scenario will be achieved through use of technology. De Grey believes that this will be achieved via biological developments. I think that this ‘live long enough to live forever’ scenario will happen naturally (with minor input both from technology and from biological research). Those individuals who fully integrate their activities within the Global Brain will experience a natural-driven ever-increasing life expectancy.

For more details see https://acrobat.com/...kdwono-lQL6thBQ

[corb]

Nature has designed us to live indefinitely

No, no it hasn't, and all the knowledge we've accumulated on the subject points to the contrary - we have genes which damage our own cells (cell senescence, cancer, other genetic defects), our bodies lose the ability to regenerate efficiently with age (loss of pluripotent stem cells and loss of stem cells in general, telomeres shortening), there are many birds and reptilians which can easily outlive us, even some mammals, and most importantly - we have a very impotent immune system - which is good, because we will be able to apply all sorts of life extending treatments in the future thanks to that.

For example, the model predicts that the current maximum lifespan of 110-120 years will be increased to 175 in the next 20-30 years.

Where are you taking your numbers from ? This is beyond wrong, the speed at witch a the projected lifespan is increased at the moment is not more than 2 or 3 years every decade - and that's the optimistic estimate, the maximum lifespan has remained the same since 1997 and no increase in the number of centenarians has been observed, it's projected but most specialists are skeptic it will actually happen and most recent statistics agree with them, centenarians have been dying at an increased pace since 2005.

A 90 year old today can expect to live exactly -10 (as in minus 10) years .

Why should a naturally extending lifespan deviate from universal natural laws?

Because 1 - it's not naturally extending, it's decreased, stagnated and extended throughout history, we've only extended it through science and 2 because you cannot apply universal laws to abstract concepts like "being alive" - as far as the universe is concerned we are complex chemical compounds, nothing more.

Lastly, I don't want to rain on your parade but we are not even close to achieving LEV.

[Marios Kyriazis]

You are thinking in the past. I am thinking in the future. Technology that will enable indefinite lifespans has not been around until now. I am trying to predict the changes during the next 20-30 years, which will be beyond what the statistics currently confirm.

Genes only obey the laws of nature and these laws wil allow indefinite lifespan because it is in the interest of both the individual and the whole.

If you think that we are just complex chemical compounds then you lack philosophical sophistication.

[Mind]

Michael Rose theorizes that our mortality rate plateaus late in life (after noting that trend in fly populations he bred to live longer). I am unsure if he is 100% convinced that humans are "designed to live indefinitely", but it isn't a completely ludicrous theory, based on natural selection pressure.