Most of the increase in life expectancy is due to it being measured as an expectation value. Better hygiene, surgery and medication help to avoid many deaths at young age. Are there any data on the trajectory of, say, the 99% quantile of the age-at-death distribution? The bio-hackers are trying to manipulate the slope of decline at their 58y state, hoping that linear extrapolation will carry them beyond the 120y barrier. But that might be a hard one (btw, this is also one idea in Chris Walley's very interesting post-millennial SF cycle "The Lamb Among the Stars". https://chrisandalisonblog.wordpress.com/chris-walley-author/fiction/puritans-in-space/).
I did also have the thought that... is "longevity escape velocity" being measured as a thing for people spending $100,000 per year on medical supplements and treatments? Unclear to me at the moment. (I was curious enough to get his book, but unread, so far.)
As usual, a very good, thought-provoking post, David. And I'm no scientist or expert in anything except not knowing too much, but it seems to me like we (humans/Americans/modern socials?) tend to think we have a concrete handle on what is "normal." I think it's a bit of a moving target. Take climate talk. Minnesota used to be covered with glaciers (hence the 10,000 lakes). Now somewhere along the line the earth's atmosphere heated up enough to melt those glaciers. So, who's to say what "normal" temps are? There weren't any climatologists hyperventilating about global warming back then, so... And I had a good laugh about a fire expert on CNN last night from Eugene, OR claiming people are encroaching on fire's "natural habitat" -- also an interesting take on what's normal. So, for life-span discussion, I think it's relatable. Technology and environmental factors (seat belts! furnaces! food processing plants!) have made life easier and longer and maybe it's more of a question of a natural life window that evolves with modernity/environment/biology than what making oneself a machine. Don't know if any of this makes sense, but you solicited comments, so here you go. Thanks again!
For sure. At the extreme end, you have people like Yuval Harari saying "nothing unnatural has ever happened". Unnatural, to him, means something that violates the laws of nature, ergo no such thing could happen, ergo no unnatural thing has ever happened. A nice quip, perhaps, but pretty useless for deciding what to do next.
I was curious enough to order, but have not yet read, his book, so I'll have to reserve judgment on the "silly guru" possibility. In the interview, asked to give two quick pieces of advice, they were:
1. Get enough sleep.
2. Sugar is poison.
That's not terrible anyway (I write as I sip a Coca-Cola).
But I don't think there is any contradiction between "everyone's body starts to turn off around age 30", and also, "some people have serious problems much younger in life". He would surely be in favor of (and of the belief) that we should cure both.
Sugar. . . It's funny, a few days ago I was reading a small history book about New Orleans that said "it is well known, of course, that plain sugar has healing properties."
Most of the increase in life expectancy is due to it being measured as an expectation value. Better hygiene, surgery and medication help to avoid many deaths at young age. Are there any data on the trajectory of, say, the 99% quantile of the age-at-death distribution? The bio-hackers are trying to manipulate the slope of decline at their 58y state, hoping that linear extrapolation will carry them beyond the 120y barrier. But that might be a hard one (btw, this is also one idea in Chris Walley's very interesting post-millennial SF cycle "The Lamb Among the Stars". https://chrisandalisonblog.wordpress.com/chris-walley-author/fiction/puritans-in-space/).
I did also have the thought that... is "longevity escape velocity" being measured as a thing for people spending $100,000 per year on medical supplements and treatments? Unclear to me at the moment. (I was curious enough to get his book, but unread, so far.)
As usual, a very good, thought-provoking post, David. And I'm no scientist or expert in anything except not knowing too much, but it seems to me like we (humans/Americans/modern socials?) tend to think we have a concrete handle on what is "normal." I think it's a bit of a moving target. Take climate talk. Minnesota used to be covered with glaciers (hence the 10,000 lakes). Now somewhere along the line the earth's atmosphere heated up enough to melt those glaciers. So, who's to say what "normal" temps are? There weren't any climatologists hyperventilating about global warming back then, so... And I had a good laugh about a fire expert on CNN last night from Eugene, OR claiming people are encroaching on fire's "natural habitat" -- also an interesting take on what's normal. So, for life-span discussion, I think it's relatable. Technology and environmental factors (seat belts! furnaces! food processing plants!) have made life easier and longer and maybe it's more of a question of a natural life window that evolves with modernity/environment/biology than what making oneself a machine. Don't know if any of this makes sense, but you solicited comments, so here you go. Thanks again!
For sure. At the extreme end, you have people like Yuval Harari saying "nothing unnatural has ever happened". Unnatural, to him, means something that violates the laws of nature, ergo no such thing could happen, ergo no unnatural thing has ever happened. A nice quip, perhaps, but pretty useless for deciding what to do next.
Alright. Well, thanks for humoring me.
Diamandis sounds like yet another "guru" who wants us to receive everything he says, without any questions or reservations.
Did Diamandis say anything about the very sizable percentage of people in "the old days" who died before they ever got to puberty?
I was curious enough to order, but have not yet read, his book, so I'll have to reserve judgment on the "silly guru" possibility. In the interview, asked to give two quick pieces of advice, they were:
1. Get enough sleep.
2. Sugar is poison.
That's not terrible anyway (I write as I sip a Coca-Cola).
But I don't think there is any contradiction between "everyone's body starts to turn off around age 30", and also, "some people have serious problems much younger in life". He would surely be in favor of (and of the belief) that we should cure both.
Sugar. . . It's funny, a few days ago I was reading a small history book about New Orleans that said "it is well known, of course, that plain sugar has healing properties."