←back to thread

New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

(lafollette.wisc.edu)
215 points XzetaU8 | 6 comments | 30 Aug 25 16:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
adastra22 ◴[30 Aug 25 17:42 UTC] No.45076538[source]▶
There is no physical/chemical/biological reason you can’t live indefinitely with the health and vitality of a 25-35 year old. Aging isn’t a law of nature.
replies(14): >>45076585 #>>45076593 #>>45076608 #>>45076634 #>>45076639 #>>45076658 #>>45076692 #>>45076745 #>>45076755 #>>45076774 #>>45076898 #>>45076977 #>>45082241 #>>45088125 #
tokai ◴[30 Aug 25 17:48 UTC] No.45076593[source]▶
It out of my wheelhouse but isn't telomeres a physical/chemical/biological reason we can't live forever?
replies(2): >>45076695 #>>45076827 #
andrewflnr ◴[30 Aug 25 17:57 UTC] No.45076695[source]▶
I believe the argument would go "there's no fundamental reason we can't fix telomeres".
replies(2): >>45076728 #>>45076759 #
1. chpatrick ◴[30 Aug 25 18:00 UTC] No.45076728[source]▶
Isn't the reason cancer? Eventually the DNA copying errors add up.
replies(3): >>45076804 #>>45078331 #>>45078772 #
2. sodality2 ◴[30 Aug 25 18:09 UTC] No.45076804[source]▶
Cancer is not fundamentally unsolvable (AFAIK?). This is a tough question to answer though. Can we prove cancer to be solvable without solving it?
3. andrewflnr ◴[30 Aug 25 21:56 UTC] No.45078331[source]▶
There are a handful of animals, mammals even, that essentially don't get cancer (some/all large whales and naked mole rats IIRC). So that might be solvable other ways.
replies(2): >>45080598 #>>45080871 #
4. adastra22 ◴[30 Aug 25 23:03 UTC] No.45078772[source]▶
You also fix the copying errors.
5. ◴[31 Aug 25 05:29 UTC] No.45080598[source]▶
6. AngryData ◴[31 Aug 25 06:33 UTC] No.45080871[source]▶
Nitpick, it is far less likely, but they can still get cancer.