Slashdot Mirror


OpEd Piece on Extended Life Expectancy

daksis writes "CNN has posted an OpEd piece from the New York Times that raises some interesting issues. With the current advances in biology, we as a society are facing the real possibility that "immortality" could some day be the norm. What sort of social impact can we expect when/if life expectancies are measured in centuries?"

6 of 832 comments (clear)

  1. Funny you should mention this by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Queens University in Belfast did a studying linking your major in college with your life expectancy. Scientists and Engineers live the longest next to pre-med. Sweet.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  2. Re:yeah... not? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative
    if you could pop a pill that would make you never die from something biological, the *average* age you would live to be is about 600, after you calculate in train wrecks, falling down stairs, car crashes, and well, anywhere you can kill yourself mechanically or chemically. Given that's the average, that means some lucky 10 percent would be seeing more like 6000 years, and some unlucky folks getting their 60, or worse, 6!
    That's not how averages work. Just because you know the mean doesn't mean you know the distribution around the mean. A population with a mean foo of 100 could have half the population with foo=101 and foo=99, or half the population could have 0 foo, and the other half 200 foo. The best you can do is assume a normally distributed population and use the empirical rule, but this still requires that you know the standard deviation. The empirical rule states that 68% of the population is probably (it's empirical) within 1 standard deviation of the mean; 95% within 2; and 99.7% within 3 standard deviations. If you cannot guarantee a normal distribution you can use chebychev's rule which is guaranteed to apply for any distribution, but doesn't tell you quite as much. Chebychev's rule most simply stated is: for any distribution the number of scores between the mean and N standard deviations is at least 1-1/k^2
    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Re:population by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Informative
    Even if you can solve the problem of physical decay, how long do the neurons in the brain last? New neurons cannot be created, only new connections can be made...

    That's actually been shown to be false, although it used to be believed. Neurons are born throughout life, particularly in certain parts of the brain- there are stem cells in the human brain.

    Indeed, indications are that depression is caused by insufficient neurons being produced; antidepressants seems to increase survival of the new nerve cells, as well as raising serotonin levels.

    What are you going to do with all those years? Can you seriously imagine what it would be like to work for 200 years, as opposed to 65? That's more tha 3 times the current retirement age!

    Well, if you can save up enough money you can live off the interest indefinitely. About a million bucks is in the ballpark.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  4. The article is bunk by retro128 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first red flag went up when you have this guy saying that inside of a century you'll have people able to live 5,000 years. This article already has the faint odor of that cult that supposedly cloned a human.

    Second red flag: Assuming that if you can extend the life of roundworms by six times you can do the same for humans. Bzzzzt.

    Third red flag: Sure, our organs may give out. But scientists are now breeding special kinds of pigs that may be able to grow replacement hearts and lungs What, are we cars now? When an organ starts acting flaky we go down to the corner store, buy a new one, open the hood and drop it in? So in order to live however ungodly amount of years they say, we have to piece ourselves together when something goes out? And that's just organs, what about stuff like bones? Something tells me that if you lived 600 years by these guys' terms, it'd be such a hellish existance you would WANT to die.

    Here's another Quote of the Day: Consider dogs. DNA tests show that all modern dogs evolved from wolves and were initially bred by cavemen who knew nothing about the genome. Yet the dogs were rapidly transformed into everything from toy poodles to Great Danes. If we begin to reshape our own genetic code, we could presumably achieve even greater variation among our human descendants.

    I'm sorry. Homo Sapiens didn't appear until around 130,000 years ago. The first dog species appeared 40 million years ago. Modern dogs as we know them are evolved from a species that appeared 7 million years ago. I'm afraid diversification of dogs happened long before man appeared. Certain traits of dogs were exaggerated by selective breeding, but mankind certainly wasn't responsible for creating everything from rat dogs to St. Bernards in the short space they have walked the earth. Evolution takes time. Lots of time. Try again.

    --
    -R
  5. Re:population by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Interesting bits on the neurons and depression... if you happen to know of any texts geared toward the layperson on this, post them if you would.

    Well, if you can save up enough money you can live off the interest indefinitely. About a million bucks is in the ballpark.

    Depends... that relies on several things. First, that you can beat inflation with your returns, and by a healthy margin. In most of the industrialized world this hasn't been a big issue for the past 50 years, but it's far from a certainty. If inflation goes above 3-4% it becomes much harder to maintain the percentages (yeah, some of your investments will also rise in returns, but not all of them, and odds are not enough of them to make up the gap). Second, that the economy is stable enough to provide high returns for the majority of the time period. You can afford to lose money some years, or spend more than your gains, but it has to turn around fairly shortly (5-10 years). Otherwise the damage you do to your principle will get too large to overcome easily.

    In general it's advised to live off 5% or less of the principle. The stock market has a long term (over ~90 years) return of 11%, so use that as a basis. That doesn't include inflation though, or localized downturns, so cut that in half to counteract them. A $1M principle will give you a yearly income of about $50k -- which is a pretty darn good living wage, even for a couple (at least currently). How much you actually need to live off of, however, depends on factors like how much debt you have (including mortgage and other long term debts), how many kids you have, and how you want your lifestyle to be (at $50k/yr for two people you're not going to be dining out a ton or driving new cars very much). It would, however, let you live without working and doing pretty much whatever hobby you wanted... within reason.

  6. Aubrey de Grey interview by jweeld · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's an interesting and much less fluffy interview with the guy quoted at the top of the piece.

    QED