←back to thread

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

(lafollette.wisc.edu)
215 points XzetaU8 | 8 comments | 30 Aug 25 16:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
ggm ◴[31 Aug 25 07:58 UTC] No.45081331[source]▶
Remarkable hostility and strange circular logic from some people posting here. Clearly belief outstrips evidence.

If research suggests there's an observable asymptotic trend, public health dollars at the very least might be better spent on quality of life as much as quantity.

The posts saying an atom of oxygen is potentially infinitely long lived (ignoring radioactive decay?) As a "proof" that life extension has no limit is about as reductively silly as it is possible to be.

Bills of mortality bootstrapped Financial investment in annuities. You think the money people aren't tracking this trend now, when they have for the last 400 or more years?

replies(8): >>45081536 #>>45082290 #>>45082412 #>>45082509 #>>45082701 #>>45082940 #>>45083066 #>>45083913 #
nabla9 ◴[31 Aug 25 08:40 UTC] No.45081536[source]▶
Radical life extension within our lifetimes has become secular religion substitute. It’s driven more by hope and faith than by scientific fact.

While a lifespan has no limits in theory if technology is advanced enough, the belief that it can be achieved by a living person is based on hope rather than evidence.

- Possible in our lifetime.

- Affordable to the faithful.

You remove these two, and the faithful lose their interest in discussing the matter.

replies(6): >>45081649 #>>45081807 #>>45081821 #>>45083620 #>>45084871 #>>45085831 #
brabel ◴[31 Aug 25 09:03 UTC] No.45081649[source]▶
What theory says that human lifespan has no limits with technology assistance? Anything involving replacing biological systems with artificial ones is not really extending human lifespan, it’s replacing human life with something else.
replies(4): >>45081697 #>>45082123 #>>45084189 #>>45085065 #
nabla9 ◴[31 Aug 25 09:11 UTC] No.45081697[source]▶
If you had full understanding of human cell and how they contribute to homeostasis, you could reprogram the cell to rejuvenate them endlessly without turning into cancer (many cancers have unlimited lifespan). You would also need to find ways to remove all cruft that gradually accumulates even in healthy body, like heavy metals etc.
replies(2): >>45082139 #>>45083684 #
brabel ◴[31 Aug 25 10:45 UTC] No.45082139[source]▶
How do you know that you could? That’s the question! If we did understand biology perfectly it may be that we would then prove no organism can live forever and reproduction is the only way.
replies(5): >>45082740 #>>45082857 #>>45083265 #>>45083442 #>>45086574 #
XorNot ◴[31 Aug 25 12:41 UTC] No.45082740[source]▶
Because there's absolutely no reason to believe that's the case? Like I don't know what the point of this argument is: maybe it's impossible. Sure, great. Okay. But you know...let's actually find out, because it looks very possible if hard from our current vantage point.
replies(2): >>45082796 #>>45090235 #
1. ecb_penguin ◴[31 Aug 25 12:55 UTC] No.45082796[source]▶
There's also no reason to believe the opposite is the case.

> Like I don't know what the point of this argument is

The point of the argument is to stop people like you from making declarations about what is possible without any evidence

> Sure, great. Okay. But you know...let's actually find out

Can you show me where anyone said we shouldn't find out?

> because it looks very possible

There's absolutely no reason to believe that's the case

replies(2): >>45082914 #>>45082965 #
2. bigDinosaur ◴[31 Aug 25 13:14 UTC] No.45082914[source]▶
This is perhaps the single worst form of argument I've ever seen. It does not help, it does not engage with anything scientific, it doesn't promote any new ideas (an example of an idea worth exploring is 'how can a cancer cell live indefinitely but other cells cannot' or 'why do different animals live for different lengths of time and what triggers this process'?). Things not worth exploring include whatever you're engaging in.
replies(1): >>45112568 #
3. exe34 ◴[31 Aug 25 13:20 UTC] No.45082965[source]▶
Do you believe this limit on lifespan is a uniquely human condition? or do you believe that it's impossible for any animal whatsoever to have a long lifespan (let's say 400 years for the sake of argument here).
replies(2): >>45083860 #>>45112576 #
4. Qem ◴[31 Aug 25 15:21 UTC] No.45083860[source]▶
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_shark
replies(1): >>45086300 #
5. exe34 ◴[31 Aug 25 19:31 UTC] No.45086300{3}[source]▶
yes precisely. that's why I picked 400 years
6. ecb_penguin ◴[03 Sep 25 05:45 UTC] No.45112568[source]▶
> This is perhaps the single worst form of argument I've ever seen.

It's because you didn't understand it

> 'how can a cancer cell live indefinitely but other cells cannot'

Cancer cells are damaged cells mutating without regard for function. It's pretty obvious that there is a difference between "living indefinitely in a mutated form devoid of original function" is different from a cell performing a specific function

7. ecb_penguin ◴[03 Sep 25 05:46 UTC] No.45112576[source]▶
> Do you believe this limit on lifespan is a uniquely human condition

No

> or do you believe that it's impossible for any animal whatsoever to have a long lifespan

Let's pick an arbitrary timeframe and declare that as long

No, I don't think anything is impossible when you pick dates "for the sake of argument"

replies(1): >>45112936 #
8. exe34 ◴[03 Sep 25 06:49 UTC] No.45112936{3}[source]▶
if you claim to think that 4x your current max-ish lifespan isn't long, then you're not having an argument in good faith, are you?