Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think the human lifespan will be significantly extended in your lifetime?
siberiantarragon
Posts: 265 Member
A lot of billionaires are investing in life extension technology, and a lot of companies interested in life extension solutions have grown recently. These have the aim of extending both the lifespan and healthspan (number of healthy years) of the average person. They want to do things like slow or even reverse the cellular damage that accompanies aging, preventing problems such as dementia and cancer. They want these solutions to be available to all, not just billionaires (supposedly). So what do you think? Is this all just a bunch of wishful thinking, or even worse, snake oil? Or do you expect there will be some real results of this research and development in the coming decades?
Some info:
https://www.businessinsider.com/list-wealthiest-entrepreneurs-searching-for-the-secret-to-longevity-2023-1
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/08/anti-ageing-scientists-extend-lifespan-of-oldest-living-lab-rat
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/20/1060934/pursuing-immortality-consolations-mortality/
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/do-you-really-want-to-live-forever/
Some info:
https://www.businessinsider.com/list-wealthiest-entrepreneurs-searching-for-the-secret-to-longevity-2023-1
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/08/anti-ageing-scientists-extend-lifespan-of-oldest-living-lab-rat
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/20/1060934/pursuing-immortality-consolations-mortality/
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/do-you-really-want-to-live-forever/
0
Replies
-
No, I don't. It's doublespeak.
What we usually hear from these people, there are far too many of us living on the planet. Population control. That's an ideology, too. This can easily become too political to talk about, but I don't believe it.
"Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." There's really nothing new under the sun. People have been looking for the fountain of youth since the beginning of time. Ponce de León didn't find it. People will do anything to look and feel young again.
Nuh huh. I don't want to pop anyone's balloon, but they only want it for themselves. Then again, there won't be anyone around to build their homes, fix their vehicles, plumbing, farming, ranching, sew their clothes and basically wipe their hindends. They'll be up the Aqua de Vida without a paddle.
The earth elements have a way of taking care of longevity.3 -
Some life extension can happen, through science, with time, probably. Since I'd estimate my lifespan as another 15 or so years, maybe 20, I don't expect to see anything major.
In parallel with the science, humans in the developed world appear to be working fairly hard at achieving shorter lifespans via lifestyle choices. I don't expect that to change, and it may even accelerate.
To the extent that some of the lifespan-extension strategies may require doing things that aren't fun or pleasant in the moment, those will not be popular or widely adopted. It seems pretty clear that most of us don't do simple, obvious things that would give our future selves a longer life or better quality of life late in life. The immediate pleasure tends to win out, when even a substantial future benefit weighs against a fairly small, consistent sub-optimum-pleasure way of living day to day.
I'm not exclusively criticizing others: That's pretty much how I've lived most of my life, and still do to some extent, though maybe less so than when I was younger.
Obviously, I'm a cynic. And I'm speculating. But I don't really care: I'll be dead by the time anything meaningful is widely available. High odds.3 -
Hiawassee88 wrote: »No, I don't. It's doublespeak.
What we usually hear from these people, there are far too many of us living on the planet. Population control. That's an ideology, too. This can easily become too political to talk about, but I don't believe it.
I also find the discussion around population to be very odd. There are too many people, yet countries are freaking out whenever their population even slightly decreases because the population needs to grow for the economy to be stable for some reason, yet they want everyone to live for 150+ years. So which one is it? Also there's definitely a "rules for thee but not for me" going on. All these billionaires have multiple kids and private jets and yachts, etc. yet pretend to care about the environment.Some life extension can happen, through science, with time, probably. Since I'd estimate my lifespan as another 15 or so years, maybe 20, I don't expect to see anything major.
There is a company that wants to "make 90 the new 50 by 2030," but that is perhaps overly ambitious.In parallel with the science, humans in the developed world appear to be working fairly hard at achieving shorter lifespans via lifestyle choices. I don't expect that to change, and it may even accelerate.
I definitely agree with that. It seems like currently people are undoing the scientific gains in longevity, such as better cancer treatments, through poor lifestyle choices. I mean, we had an entire pandemic that killed mostly obese people and the average person GAINED weight over the course of that pandemic. If that wasn't a wake up call nothing will be, IMO.To the extent that some of the lifespan-extension strategies may require doing things that aren't fun or pleasant in the moment, those will not be popular or widely adopted. It seems pretty clear that most of us don't do simple, obvious things that would give our future selves a longer life or better quality of life late in life. The immediate pleasure tends to win out, when even a substantial future benefit weighs against a fairly small, consistent sub-optimum-pleasure way of living day to day.
Agreed. I guess people will be willing to take it if it's in the form of pills though, given the popularity of things like Wegovy and Ozempic.1 -
@siberiantarragon Think of the multi-crap we order, and take with little FDA oversight. Supplements and powders, potions and lotions. People want miracle cures.
The geologic record reveals a tremendous amount about our past history. It preserves information about the earth's climate. Humans may try to make artificial changes, but natural systems are very unpredictable. The dinosaurs died with daisies in their mouths.0 -
Personally, I’d settle for a shorter but healthier life. I wouldn’t want to live past 100 if that means 30+ years of increasing fragility, health issues, drugs, needing care, not being able to enjoy life. But I don’t think I’m a particularly healthy specimen - genetically speaking 🤣1
-
@claireychn074 I beg to differ, but I don't want to debate it. You rock. I agree with the rest, we age so differently. Our mileage will always vary.1
-
Personally I believe that the medical field has done MANY A PERSON a disservice by extending their lives through medication that only addresses symptoms of an issue rather than a program that addresses the issue itself. For example, people with blood thinners because of clotting issues. While genetics will play a role, I would bet that the majority that are on them are unhealthy, overweight people.
We are living way longer than we used to due to medical intervention. I've mentioned before that if there wasn't medical intervention, our average lifespan would be at least 10 years less than now. Don't get me wrong, I DO believe in life saving medical aid such as CPR, emergency surgery and operations to improve a healthy persons life.
I think so many times what is the quality of life a person of 80 living if they are on 20 different medications, can barely walk, and needs assistance in everything? We want people close to us to be around as long as possible, but I personally think that sometimes a lot are keeping them around for their own selfish reasons. I can't imagine myself doped up to just stay alive because it makes others content.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Hiawassee88 wrote: »@siberiantarragon Think of the multi-crap we order, and take with little FDA oversight. Supplements and powders, potions and lotions. People want miracle cures.
The geologic record reveals a tremendous amount about our past history. It preserves information about the earth's climate. Humans may try to make artificial changes, but natural systems are very unpredictable. The dinosaurs died with daisies in their mouths.
Well, I think we have more ability to stop an asteroid than the dinosaurs did (they can send a small rocket up there to alter its gravitational pull just enough to move it away from Earth) but anyway....claireychn074 wrote: »Personally, I’d settle for a shorter but healthier life. I wouldn’t want to live past 100 if that means 30+ years of increasing fragility, health issues, drugs, needing care, not being able to enjoy life. But I don’t think I’m a particularly healthy specimen - genetically speaking 🤣
These companies want to improve not only the lifespan but the healthspan -- the number of healthy years that people have. By treating the root causes of aging, such as cellular waste products not being cleaned up as efficiently, this is supposed to slow or reverse aging.Personally I believe that the medical field has done MANY A PERSON a disservice by extending their lives through medication that only addresses symptoms of an issue rather than a program that addresses the issue itself. For example, people with blood thinners because of clotting issues. While genetics will play a role, I would bet that the majority that are on them are unhealthy, overweight people.
We are living way longer than we used to due to medical intervention. I've mentioned before that if there wasn't medical intervention, our average lifespan would be at least 10 years less than now. Don't get me wrong, I DO believe in life saving medical aid such as CPR, emergency surgery and operations to improve a healthy persons life.
I think so many times what is the quality of life a person of 80 living if they are on 20 different medications, can barely walk, and needs assistance in everything? We want people close to us to be around as long as possible, but I personally think that sometimes a lot are keeping them around for their own selfish reasons. I can't imagine myself doped up to just stay alive because it makes others content.
That's not the type of medical intervention I'm talking about. The type of technology I'm talking about, to slow or reverse aging itself, currently does not exist and is in research and development.
But I do agree with you on some points. Also I think this varies by person, a lot of disabled people think it is highly offensive when people say they think it would be better to be dead than disabled, so I think it's a very individual thing.
0 -
Close but no cigar.
https://billingsgazette.com/news/national/pentagon-tried-but-failed-to-shoot-down-chinese-balloon-over-montanas-beartooth-mountains/article_2285ff1e-ae33-11ed-83a7-3bd386e61447.html
Understood and appreciated, needing many Rx's to stay alive. We are bent on survival. People want to live, live, live. They will fight for every breath to the very end. Ask me how I know. I've held their hands and embraced them with everything I've got to give.0 -
claireychn074 wrote: »Personally, I’d settle for a shorter but healthier life. I wouldn’t want to live past 100 if that means 30+ years of increasing fragility, health issues, drugs, needing care, not being able to enjoy life. But I don’t think I’m a particularly healthy specimen - genetically speaking 🤣
There are always exception cases, but observing people around me (biased sample!), I'd say as a generality that healthy-weight people who are active and generally getting good nutrition have better odds of a longer span of thriving, followed by a short, sharp decline. The inactive, overweight, nutritionally inattentive folks seem more likely to be the ones with decades of "increasing fragility, health issues, drugs, needing care, not being able to enjoy life".
That's playing out vividly in my demographic (I'm 67). Lots of friends/relatives my age already mobility-limited, on lots of meds, needing help if not yet full assisted living support, restricted in what they can do (and eat/drink) because of health declines or drug side effects. Most of these would be people who made choices over the years that led there, not people who were struck by some debilitating random factor.
On the flip side, I know quite a few my age and older who are still healthy, athletically active, solo living very competently, on minimal or no meds, and able to do pretty much any fun thing that my 30-something friends can do.
One of my favorite contrast cases is two friends of mine who needed hip replacement. Both are lovely people whom I value as friends, but their lifestyles differ quite dramatically. One friend is an artist around my age, obese, inactive, alternates between weird diet rules (occasionally) and eating SAD including quite a lot of fast food (mostly). Her surgery resulted in a major infection, complications, a long stint in a rehab facility to recover - many weeks from surgery to even getting home, where she still needed help from her kids. It's now a couple of years later, and she still needs a cane to get around, and is in pain.
The other friend is a rowing buddy almost ten years older than me (but you'd think she was closer to 10 years younger (if not more) from movement/appearance. She started strength training in her 30s, when women generally didn't do that, has been a runner to marathon distance, does Pilates regularly, still lifts routinely. Around 2 weeks after her hip replacement surgery, I went to pick her up to take her to a coffee date with other rower buddies: She came walking out of her house, no cane or walker, you wouldn't have even know anything was wrong if you didn't know her very well. Thirty days to the day after her surgery, she was back in a boat, rowing - and rowing is a leg sport. (We wouldn't let her carry boats for another few weeks, even though she was willing.) Couple of years later, she's still active and doing fine.
This is the kind of thing that makes my hedonistic self keep an eye on future Ann's needs for a happy, functional life in the future, encourages me to stay active, stay at a healthy weight, get good nutrition. Any of us can have unexpected, uncontrollable negative things that happen, but it sure seems like we can shift our odds toward long thriving vs. long decline.
Of course people would like a pill to get this result. Heh.
2 -
Delaying the onset of disease through lifestyle intervention and extending ones's healthspan is worth investigating and investing in, extending lifespan is a red herring imo. Cheers1
-
There are always exception cases, but observing people around me (biased sample!), I'd say as a generality that healthy-weight people who are active and generally getting good nutrition have better odds of a longer span of thriving, followed by a short, sharp decline. The inactive, overweight, nutritionally inattentive folks seem more likely to be the ones with decades of "increasing fragility, health issues, drugs, needing care, not being able to enjoy life".
That's playing out vividly in my demographic (I'm 67). Lots of friends/relatives my age already mobility-limited, on lots of meds, needing help if not yet full assisted living support, restricted in what they can do (and eat/drink) because of health declines or drug side effects. Most of these would be people who made choices over the years that led there, not people who were struck by some debilitating random factor.
On the flip side, I know quite a few my age and older who are still healthy, athletically active, solo living very competently, on minimal or no meds, and able to do pretty much any fun thing that my 30-something friends can do.
It depends. I definitely know a lot of people who have restricted mobility due to weight and they aren't that old. I remember once I was at an event and three people in their 40s/50s were sitting on a couch and they made some comment to me about how "when you get old, you'll need to sit down a lot too." But all three of them were obese. I didn't want to say that I think that's the reason why they get tired so easily but that's definitely what I thought. My partner used to be obese and if we went to a park or something he would want to sit down after 10 minutes. He still gets tired more easily than me but that's mostly because he's a workaholic and exercise-aholic, but he definitely has more energy than he did when he was obese.
On the other hand I'm 31 and never been overweight and I'm pretty active. I've noticed since I turned 30 that I've started getting chronic muscle issues. There's a few muscle injuries I have that never fully healed. I accidentally smashed my rib into a table while getting up two years ago and it hurt for months afterwards (I read rib injuries can take forever to heal because you're constantly moving it by breathing), and while it's 99% gone now, it still hurts sometimes if I carry something heavy. Last winter after a cough I started getting this tingly feeling in my shoulder blade, almost a feeling like someone was touching me on my upper back/shoulder area. It mostly went away but again if I carry something heavy or if I cough a lot, it comes back for a few days. And I have something wrong with one of my pelvic joints where it doesn't hurt most of the time but if I'm getting up and I move at a certain angle it hurts. That's been around for a few months. Also my feet are much more sensitive than they used to be and start hurting really badly if I go too long without getting new shoes. I used to be able to walk up to 20 miles at a time and now I get tired after 5 or 6. I'm kind of worried how it will be in the future if this is happening already. I'm also afraid to do any strenuous exercise because the last time I tried running regularly I ended up getting flu, bronchitis, and COVID one after the other, and I think something is wrong with my lungs.
Also, I'm on four different medications already (all for panic attacks and dissociation) plus various supplements. So I feel like an old person having to take pill cases wherever I go.neanderthin wrote: »Delaying the onset of disease through lifestyle intervention and extending ones's healthspan is worth investigating and investing in, extending lifespan is a red herring imo. Cheers
A red herring for what?
2 -
Life expectancy in most countries has drastically increased since 100 years ago.
Modern medicine, vaccinations, safe water supply, safe childbirth
Many more people are reaching 80, 90, 100 than previously.
however the limit of human life length is not increasing - but more people are getting to the limit.
just like 500 years ago, the upper limit is just over 100, that hasn't increased - but far more people are getting there or closer to there.1 -
A red herring for what?
A red herring in the sense that to actually quantify if a specific intervention actually extends the human lifespan there would need to be a controlled trial, and in there lies the problem. Basically any discovery that suggests extending human lifespan would need to be tested, that's a pretty long controlled trial. Lifespan is mostly genetic and every living thing plant or animal have their intrinsic limitations to a large extent and humans lifespan is around 120 years. Will that expand, maybe, but only time will tell. Healthspan on the other hand can be dealt with immediately to improve and extend ones life. imo. Cheers1 -
paperpudding wrote: »Life expectancy in most countries has drastically increased since 100 years ago.
Modern medicine, vaccinations, safe water supply, safe childbirth
Many more people are reaching 80, 90, 100 than previously.
however the limit of human life length is not increasing - but more people are getting to the limit.
just like 500 years ago, the upper limit is just over 100, that hasn't increased - but far more people are getting there or closer to there.
I'm not sure if anyone actually read the original post which is about technologies that are supposed to extend the upper limit....neanderthin wrote: »A red herring for what?
A red herring in the sense that to actually quantify if a specific intervention actually extends the human lifespan there would need to be a controlled trial, and in there lies the problem. Basically any discovery that suggests extending human lifespan would need to be tested, that's a pretty long controlled trial. Lifespan is mostly genetic and every living thing plant or animal have their intrinsic limitations to a large extent and humans lifespan is around 120 years. Will that expand, maybe, but only time will tell. Healthspan on the other hand can be dealt with immediately to improve and extend ones life. imo. Cheers
That is true but on the other hand testing it on very old people would give some idea as to whether it works, if they start living way longer than average or if aging can be reliably reversed by X number of decades (ie. "this person is 80 but has the cellular markers of a 20 year old").
0 -
That simply can't be tested properly though. Watching people over time has too many confounders and it could easily be something else that either caused a person to die prematurely or helped them live longer, observations are just observations, interesting and sometimes can lead to clinical trials but the observational data would need to be very strong, and if we're talking about a discover with a small percentage relative risk, then it's just noise, which almost all science discoveries are, which if there was any strength can lead to animal studies, then small randomized controlled human trials and even then the cohorts in those studies will have had enough differentiated health challenges that conclusions are not etched in stone either. For mortality specifically you would need a large enough cohort of identical twins kept in isolation, and basically from birth for their whole lives and controlled for absolutely everything, to then determine mortality, basically, so no, it's just never going to happen. It's not going to stop financing studies and people wishing for immortality though. imosiberiantarragon wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Life expectancy in most countries has drastically increased since 100 years ago.
Modern medicine, vaccinations, safe water supply, safe childbirth
Many more people are reaching 80, 90, 100 than previously.
however the limit of human life length is not increasing - but more people are getting to the limit.
just like 500 years ago, the upper limit is just over 100, that hasn't increased - but far more people are getting there or closer to there.
I'm not sure if anyone actually read the original post which is about technologies that are supposed to extend the upper limit....neanderthin wrote: »A red herring for what?
A red herring in the sense that to actually quantify if a specific intervention actually extends the human lifespan there would need to be a controlled trial, and in there lies the problem. Basically any discovery that suggests extending human lifespan would need to be tested, that's a pretty long controlled trial. Lifespan is mostly genetic and every living thing plant or animal have their intrinsic limitations to a large extent and humans lifespan is around 120 years. Will that expand, maybe, but only time will tell. Healthspan on the other hand can be dealt with immediately to improve and extend ones life. imo. Cheers
That is true but on the other hand testing it on very old people would give some idea as to whether it works, if they start living way longer than average or if aging can be reliably reversed by X number of decades (ie. "this person is 80 but has the cellular markers of a 20 year old").1 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Life expectancy in most countries has drastically increased since 100 years ago.
Modern medicine, vaccinations, safe water supply, safe childbirth
Many more people are reaching 80, 90, 100 than previously.
however the limit of human life length is not increasing - but more people are getting to the limit.
just like 500 years ago, the upper limit is just over 100, that hasn't increased - but far more people are getting there or closer to there.
I'm not sure if anyone actually read the original post which is about technologies that are supposed to extend the upper limit....neanderthin wrote: »A red herring for what?
A red herring in the sense that to actually quantify if a specific intervention actually extends the human lifespan there would need to be a controlled trial, and in there lies the problem. Basically any discovery that suggests extending human lifespan would need to be tested, that's a pretty long controlled trial. Lifespan is mostly genetic and every living thing plant or animal have their intrinsic limitations to a large extent and humans lifespan is around 120 years. Will that expand, maybe, but only time will tell. Healthspan on the other hand can be dealt with immediately to improve and extend ones life. imo. Cheers
That is true but on the other hand testing it on very old people would give some idea as to whether it works, if they start living way longer than average or if aging can be reliably reversed by X number of decades (ie. "this person is 80 but has the cellular markers of a 20 year old").
I admit that while I read the linked articles I didn't read them closely enough to catch this detail: In other materials I've read, some of the targets of intervention seem like things that might yield a better result if started earlier (telomere length, mitochondrial function, . . .), i.e., preserving function/quality longer vs. rebuilding what's already lost, slowing effective aging rather than reversing it.
1 -
I'm not sure if anyone actually read the original post which is about technologies that are supposed to extend the upper limit....
I'm not sure why you quoted me to say that.
If intent of my post wasnt clear enough - there are many interventions, which I broadly named, which have meant many more people are getting to human life limit - but the limit is not increasing.
Like other posters, I think any technologies to do that are misguided at best
1 -
We've given you our thoughts. Do you want to live beyond the outer limits and boundaries of age. One out of two are fighting some degree of poor health, right now. I don't know if living longer will prevent some from losing control and committing crimes against humanity. I don't know if we can hit the broadside of a barn, without months or years of more training. Asteroids.
Earth elements and natural systems are very unpredictable. I don't believe man is really in control of anything. I don't have fear for what's coming around the corner. The uberwealthy may be fearful to let the old man in. The best ones are gone, maybe we're just the weeds that have been left over.
0 -
Creating a drug that helps a person with a disease like cancer and it benefits that patient immediately is not the same as saying if people take this cancer drug, you'll extend the human lifespan. Like I said to actually test if a specific intervention extends human lifespan all confounders must be eliminated, so yeah, these studies have never and will never be done.
Telomeres for example are like the plastic ends on shoelaces, so to speak and keep the laces from fraying and they could keep our DNA intact for longer duration and if science shows that can be done then the possibility that it could effect our lifespan is valid, but of course the proof is still in the pudding.
Considering how you have experience in biomedical research maybe explain the "large randomized control size" for us and how a specific intervention, like those telomeres for example, that's within the overall data would then predict one group living longer than another because of that specific intervention, and be specific, please, thanks.2 -
Disability is different than disease or just being genetically predisposed to things like heart disease or cancer though.siberiantarragon wrote: »That's not the type of medical intervention I'm talking about. The type of technology I'm talking about, to slow or reverse aging itself, currently does not exist and is in research and development.
But I do agree with you on some points. Also I think this varies by person, a lot of disabled people think it is highly offensive when people say they think it would be better to be dead than disabled, so I think it's a very individual thing.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions