Bioethicist At National Institutes of Health: "Why I Hope To Die At 75"

HughPickens.com writes Ezekiel J. Emanuel, director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the US National Institutes of Health, writes at The Atlantic that there is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. "It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic." Emanuel says that he is isn't asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening his life but is talking about the kind and amount of health care he will consent to after 75. "Once I have lived to 75, my approach to my health care will completely change. I won't actively end my life. But I won't try to prolong it, either." Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. "I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."

Comments

The WHO

[gbjbaanb]

"hope I die before I get old".... until I get old, that is, and then I expect to scrap life along as much as humanly possible.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

We'll see how he feels when he's 75.

Re:The WHO

[Aighearach]

Yeah, if he's stuck in a state of decline, he can still contribute. His argument is absurd. If simply not being able to contribute as much as you used to means you'd be better off dead, hey, I guess that means anybody 5% less capable than me is better off dead already. Totally moral and ethical fail from this so-called "bioethicist."

Re:The WHO

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly. He'll change his mind.

Re:The WHO

[amiga3D]

I can't say how I will feel at 75 but already at 55 I'm thinking that I'm not all that desperate to live forever. What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment? When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want? When you aren't living but just existing and waiting to die? I can see his point easily enough. I'm pretty sure that if I get cancer after 70 I'm just going to start the bucket list. I don't want to be 90 laying in bed waiting for someone to come change my diaper.

Re:The WHO

[peragrin]

I have always said I don't want to live longer. I want to age slower.
Your body changes as it ages. I want I slow down those changes

So you have 20-30 year old body until you get to 40. A 30-40 year old body until age 55. A 40-50 yer old body until age 65. A 50-70 year old body until early 70's and then drop off rapidly until you die.
You won't live any longer but you can live better and enjoy being young longer. We age oddly compared to our lifespan. Though it is recent based on medicines. The downside is that women will have an extra 15 years of cramps and potential child bearing years

Re:The WHO

[ganjadude]

how is what he is stating a moral and ethical fail? Im sorry but I just dont follow.

Re:The WHO

[TWX]

Carousel begins!

Renew!

Renew!

Re:The WHO

[Jhon]

"What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment?"

This is not some "universal" state -- there will be less things to enjoy, but most likely there will still be enjoyment.

"When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want?"

Then you change your expectation of yourself. You DON'T go and do what you want WHEN you want. You rely more on others and your world will grow "smaller". So long as long as the pain can be managed...

"When you aren't living but just existing and waiting to die?"

That's something else. If you are stuck on a machine completely unable to interact with the world around you, then yes. But that needs to be two-way -- there must be someone on the OTHER end of that (family or friends) who want to interact with you.

"I can see his point easily enough."

I can UNDERSTAND his point. I don't AGREE with it. I'm not saying "forced life" under any condition, of course.

"I'm pretty sure that if I get cancer after 70 I'm just going to start the bucket list."

My mother-in-law has cancer. She's 80. Aside from age related dementia (and the limitations that come along with that) she's doing great and enjoying her home, garden, family and life in general.

"I don't want to be 90 laying in bed waiting for someone to come change my diaper."

Ever read "Tuesday's with Morrie"? I like his outlook on life when HE came to having someone else wipe his arse.

Re:The WHO

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Not everyone is Stephen Hawking, though. I'm quite sure that had the US government secretly found a way to keep Einstein alive and chippy forever by regular bathing in blood of (preferably Soviet) virgins, they would have done that. Well, they would have at least thought about it anyway.

Re:The WHO

[CrimsonAvenger]

My parents are both 75+.

And still doing fine.

Yeah, they've slowed down a bit, and have some aches and pains they didn't have 20 years ago. But they still walk the dog a mile or so each day. And Dad still mows five acres (give or take, the treeline could have moved some over the last decade) of his yard weekly.

I think this bioethicist bozo is forgetting that "75" is life expectancy at birth. If you make it to 75 today, odds are good you've got another decade or two in you*. And if you're born today, by the time you're 75, you should have four or five decades left*.

* barring unpredictable things like terminal cancer, of course.

Note that my wife's parents were both born in the early 1920's, and both lasted into this decade. Arguably, they'd have both been better off to have died a year earlier than they did (in both cases, their last year was pretty bad), but that still meant 85+ good years starting from before the Great Depression....

Re:The WHO

[Maxo-Texas]

Except they were 37 and he's 57.

Most people are dead by 82 anyway (about 87%).

And almost everyone is dead by 90 (98.4%).

The last few years can be miserable and suicide is more common among the elderly.

While some desperately cling to life the loss of function, increasing pain, and loss of dignity takes the joy out of life for many.

There are two cases..

My grandmother, who was religious, who was basically unable to move and had to be wheeled out to the sun area of the nursing home every day, who suffered fear and pain for her last 8 years wanted to live until the end.

My mother, who was religious, basically decided to go at 72 after 2 years of being in and out of the hospital.

The loneliness can be pretty crushing too. It's one reason people don't retire.

Re:The WHO

[Maxo-Texas]

dang it... they were 27.. .and he's 57.

I hate slashdot editing restrictions.

Re:The WHO

[BlackHawk-666]

Have you ever met someone who renewed?

Re:The WHO

[gewalker]

Chippy: 1. Belligerent 2. Female prostitute or promiscuous female 3. A carpenter 4. Resentful or oversensitive about being perceived as inferior:

What exactly are you saying about Einstein?

Re:The WHO

[dywolf]

a lot of medical professionals carry this opinion, or a similar one, precisely because they see, every day, what the reality is of old age.
and they dont change their minds; rather they are one of the largest grous with settled views on it who already know what they want and how they want to go.

Re:The WHO

[ShanghaiBill]

My thoughts exactly. He'll change his mind.

Quite likely, especially since his basic premise is wrong. Many people get dementia as they age, but many others don't. It is not inevitable. I know bright, active people in their 90s. We are making a lot of progress at understanding the causes of Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases of old age. His future may not be as bleak as he imagines. On the other hand, he may already be losing his grip on reality, since he believes that American are "obsessed" with exercising, and doing mental puzzles. A quick glance at obesity rates, and reality TV popularity, should disabuse him of that belief.

Re:The WHO

[jimwelch]

Actually the book was 21. The movie change it to 30 to match the actors. In the book it was a sleep shop, not Carousel. Details, Details

Re:The WHO

[slazzy]

Not only that, but by not working hard to stay healthy now, there's a greater chance he'll be "ineffectual" much sooner, perhaps even well before 75.

Re:The WHO

[Nemyst]

My biggest problem is that 75 is such an arbitrary number. If he lived a few hundred years ago, his answer would've probably been closer to 50. Is anyone seriously thinking that 50 is too old these days? For someone in their twenties or thirties or even fifties, saying that is a bit inane, because there's a pretty high likelihood that medicine will have advanced in the meantime. Most of his justifications come from studies that say that now, something happens. But what of then? Perhaps we'll have solved it. Heck, I frankly don't see anything inherent in aging that means we wouldn't be able to completely reverse the effects of aging in the future. Societal issues would be much larger than medicinal ones there.

Re:The WHO

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"4.b Lively, brisk. Cf. chipper a."

Re:The WHO

[Wycliffe]

And if you're born today, by the time you're 75, you should have four or five decades left*.

Based on current trends and short of a major breakthru there is no way someone born today will live to be 120-130.
We've gotten pretty good at extending the quality of life and even getting more people past the 100 goalpost but
we've made little or no progress on actually extending life to any significant extent. 100 seems to be the age that
no matter what you do and how healthy you appear to be that you start having multiple system failures.

Re:The WHO

[TWX]

No, but I met George Clayton Johnson once. He sure looked like he could use a renewal. He had started babbling about how we're now living in a science fiction age with computers and cell phones and the Internet.

Come to think of it, he looked like he could have been cosplaying Gandalf or Dumbledore too.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

a lot of medical professionals carry this opinion, or a similar one, precisely because they see, every day, what the reality is of old age. and they dont change their minds;

So, there are a bunch of 75+ year old ex-medical professionals that are ready to die? I somehow find that hard to believe. Those same medical professionals also see, on a regular basis, 80 and 90+ year olds that live quite enjoyable lives. The 'reality of old age' differs for everyone, medical professionals should know that better than anyone.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

Yeah, I wondered if that was just his excuse to not exercise.

Re:The WHO

[Oligonicella]

And you don't think their personal views are influenced by a disproportionate number of unhealthy older people? Most healthy older people don't visit the doctor with anything like the frequency of the infirm.

Re:The WHO

[MrDoh!]

Wife's family would read this and laugh before heading out to the club. Large Cuban family, the 'baby' of her aunts and uncle is 81 and there's no holding any of them back. I think the coffee they knock back in ludicrous strengths is what Ponce De Leon was searching for all that time.

Re:The WHO

[Opportunist]

Hey, dementia is a great disease.

At first, only you notice it.
Then everyone else notices it, too.
Then, only everyone around you notices it and you don't.
And then life's great again.

Re:The WHO

[nucrash]

I was thinking about Larry Ellison being 70 and still wanting to work and in fact, actually wanting to take a position where he can continue to be creative instead of one handling the day to day business.

At the same time, my Grandfather passed away last year at age ninety-one. He was weeks away from being ninety-two. When asked about how old he wanted to live, he responded, "My dad lived to be ninety-two, and I think that's a good age, so I want to be ninety-two."

Towards the end, he was being despondent and spent most of his days sleeping. There were times where he would be lucid and say some fantastic things, but for the most part, I could tell he was ready to go. He had lived a good life. Many of us in the family felt that he was due as he lived his last year in a nursing home and didn't really want to even do that.

I do think that quality of life should be included in decisions to prolong life. Terry Schaivo was a case where there was nearly zero potential to improve her life. Other times, I sense that some of these hospital administrations are doing what they can to bilk insurance companies in order to extend a person's life regardless of the eventuality of their passing. Not to sound completely inhumane, but if a person is going to continue their existence by suffering, are we being humane by prolonging their existence.

There are some cases, like with Stephen Hawking, where an individual wants so much to contribute to the world that they want to exist. Because of this, there should not be any hard limit put in as far as a person's life to which we should consider ending health care.

Re:The WHO

[nbauman]

I heard that in a medical ethics class.

People are 25, and they say that if they couldn't run 10 miles every day, they wouldn't want to live.

They finally get to 50 and they feel differently.

Re:The WHO

[Cro Magnon]

My mom's 80, and still going strong. She did have a bad fall earlier this year, but recovered well, and walks as well as before she fell. My aunt's not doing well, but she's 95, and was still doing reasonably well at 90.

Re:The WHO

[andydouble07]

He's clearly not talking about relatively healthy people like your parents. I'm sure you'd be spouting a different story in a year if they suddenly came down with Alzheimer's.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

I wonder what the 'ethics' are in telling society at what age we are worthless and should die.

Re:The WHO

[alvinrod]

I think the problem comes from medical professionals only or almost always dealing with the people who are having terrible health problems. If the only time you see older people is when they're in pain or suffering from horrible illness, you wouldn't want to be old either. I suspect that as many of them actually age they find that they still enjoy life and that when they retire they're able to spend time with their families and grandkids and that being old isn't a constant state of suffering or misery. However, medical professionals are only exposed to the worst of old age, so it's hardly surprising that they have such a negative outlook.

It's easy to sit back from my position and say that, but I would imagine that my opinions would change if the vast majority of my day were spent being confronted with what happens to people who don't take care of their bodies or experiencing other illnesses that aren't currently preventable. If nothing else, one would think that this would motivate medical professionals to take good care of their health, so they can avoid finding themselves in that position.

Re:The WHO

[nbauman]

My biggest problem is that 75 is such an arbitrary number.

That's the most obvious flaw in his argument. Some people are pretty healthy at 75. Others start deteriorating in their 60s.

I know people who led a fairly active life up to their 90s and died recently, relatively quickly and without much suffering. They had a pretty good life for the last 20 years, and they told me a lot of good stories. One woman wound up in a wheelchair, with an attendant, but she wasn't asking anybody to put her out of her misery.

In fact, most elderly people don't want to die. Emanuel's father didn't. This essay ignores reality.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

There is something to that mindset, I don't doubt. I have a friend who's wife is a physical therapist, she sees kids that have suffered all types of injuries, and lives in fear of exposing her kids to any kind of danger. No trampolines, limited sports choices, etc. Not completely unreasonable, but definitely skewed by the cases she treats. I once had a dentist tell me I shouldn't be playing flag football because he'd seen a case where a guy lost some teeth.

Re:The WHO

[stoploss]

I just wondered if he felt like trolling, but in a professional context.

Re:The WHO

[nbauman]

Einstein had an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The first time, they treated him by wrapping cellophane around his aorta. The second time, he said he didn't want to go through that again.

If you think of how the aorta goes down the torso next to the spine, and how they had to push everything else out of the way to get to it, you can imagine what major surgery it was. Even today, they destroy a lot of nerves in the process. People can be left impotent, incontinent, unable to walk, etc. And you've got a huge wound across your abdomen. That's when you start wondering whether it's worth it to continue.

Re:The WHO

[avgjoe62]

My Dad suffered from Lewy Body Dementia at the end of his life. Early on with the disease he had days he was OK, other days he would see and talk to people that weren't there.

On one of the days when he was doing OK I told him that he was suffering from dementia and that he was talking to people that weren't really there. He was surprised and asked me to repeat that. When I confirmed that on his bad days he was talking to people that weren't really there his response was, "Well, at least I'll never have no one to talk to."

Re:The WHO

[neoritter]

Stephen Hawking is a bad example, he was diagnosed with his disease at 21 and doctors said he had two years to live. He went into a depression and felt continuing is studies was pointless. It took him meeting a woman for him to have "something to live for."

Re:The WHO

[CrimsonAvenger]

Based on current trends and short of a major breakthru there is no way someone born today will live to be 120-130.

Intriguing theory you have there. How does it account for Gertrude Weaver (born 1898, died - well, she'll die one of these years, but hasn't yet)?

Note that she's not unique in living in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. If someone can manage to reach 116+ when more than half her life went by with medical care no better than what was available when I was a kid....

Re:The WHO

[nbauman]

Yeah, if he's stuck in a state of decline, he can still contribute.

During his career as an ethicist, Ezekiel Emanuel did more harm than good, in my opinion.

He and his brother Rahm may have done more to sabotage single payer health care than any other American in modern history.

Totally moral and ethical fail from this so-called "bioethicist."

I have dealt professionally with a lot of medical ethicists. It took me a while to figure out that they're not telling people how to be ethical, they're telling people how to get away with being unethical.

For example, a drug company will run an unethical drug study. They'll hire ethicists for their ethics panel, who will review the study and give it their rubber-stamp of approval. Then when the drug company gets caught, they can say, "But our ethics panel approved it!"

The other thing I noticed was that the doctors who take the biggest payoffs from the drug companies wind up on their institution's ethics panel.

Re:The WHO

[bspus]

Correct I think what he really meant to say is that it is almost impossible in the foreseeable future to extend life expectancy beyond 100 for the average person, even after excluding premature deaths. There will always be numerous outliers of course, what with several billions of us around

Re:The WHO

[skatull]

My view on bucket list. It should be things to do to keep you alive, not things to do before you die.

Re:The WHO

[MrL0G1C]

we've made little or no progress on actually extending life to any significant extent

Other than the immense progress in biology and genetics you mean? Stem cell research, cloning, knowledge of telomeres, gene therapy, I'd say we're dangerously close the stopping the aging process.

Re:The WHO

[ArcadeMan]

His crystal will be red by then, it's not like he's going to have any choice about it.

Re:The WHO

[hondo77]

Based on current trends and short of a major breakthru there is no way someone born today will live to be 120-130.

Intriguing theory you have there. How does it account for Gertrude Weaver (born 1898, died - well, she'll die one of these years, but hasn't yet)?

Given that she isn't 120 yet, his theory accounts for it quite nicely (so far).

Re:The WHO

[mythosaz]

Fish, and plankton. And sea greens, and protein from the sea. It's all here, ready. Fresh as harvest day. Fish and sea greens, plankton and protein from the sea. And then it stopped coming. And they came instead. So I store them here. I'm ready. And you're ready. It's my job. To freeze you. Protein, plankton...

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

My thoughts exactly. He'll change his mind.

Quite likely, especially since his basic premise is wrong. Many people get dementia as they age, but many others don't. It is not inevitable. I know bright, active people in their 90s.

You see stories about people at 100 years old. It's news because it isn't that common. I know people who are active into their 90's. I know a lot more in their late 70's who are living on maintenance drugs and opiates, riddled with pain pretty well fuzzed out. A little older, and they are starting the dementia trip, with nursing homes at the ready to take their estates.

I think the problem is that people see the outliers, and assume that's how they will age. I don't want people determining the quality of my life by looking at the lucky ones wh oage gracefully. If I do - fine. But I watched enough family members die over a many year period. Not goiing to happen to me unless I catch a stroke that keeps me from exiting with some dignity.

Re:The WHO

[LennyDotCom]

"It took him meeting a woman for him to have "something to live for."

I find that very interesting
Ozzy Osborne, Jonny Cash, and others I can't remember at the moment
It seems finding the right woman has a great affect on some creative peoples lives

Re:The WHO

[Sarten-X]

Is that so bad, though?

Let's say, hypothetically, that if you spend an hour exercising each and every day for 40 years, you can extend your life by an extra decade. Assuming a constant 8 hours of sleep daily, that's a four-fold return on investment!

Of course, due to the effects of aging, it very well could easily take me twice as long to do anything, and I could easily get only half as much enjoyment out of it. Sure, I keep pushing that number higher, but by a self-assessment of how good my life is, I'm only breaking even. Considering the risks associated with aging, is it even worth the investment?

My grandmother has said many times that the only thing wrong with her is that she hasn't died yet. She's well into her 90's, with no serious physical deterioration, but life has gotten boring. Her life-long friends have all died, and many of her new friends have died, too. Her children have grown up and moved on, and so have her grandchildren. She's traveled the world multiple times, and gone on every adventure that she wanted to. She was expecting to die twenty years ago, having lived a complete and happy life.

Now what's left? Seeing yet another round of new miracles being taken for granted by a generation that assumes such technology is a basic necessity for life? Watching $THIS_GUY slaughter $THOSE_GUYS in the name of $SUBJECTIVELY_JUST_CAUSE? Spending another year alone in her home?

More personally, I have a medical condition that will deteriorate rapidly when I hit about 50, and faster if I partake in strenuous exercise. The only treatment option includes the term "replacement vertebrae". Is it somehow morally wrong for me to plan my life such that I spend every waking moment now using my limited health in ways that I enjoy the most? I doubt I'll survive as long as my grandmother, and my condition effectively assures me of problems by that age, anyway. Hitting 75 and signing off sounds like a good plan to me.

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

"What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment?"

This is not some "universal" state -- there will be less things to enjoy, but most likely there will still be enjoyment.

"When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want?"

Then you change your expectation of yourself. You DON'T go and do what you want WHEN you want. You rely more on others and your world will grow "smaller". So long as long as the pain can be managed...

I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act. There are living fates much worse than death.

Being around you might be one of them.

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

My parents are both 75+.

And still doing fine.

Mine are dead. Doing okay for charcoal, I suppose.

As humans, I think that we tend to not see far past our noses. Your's being healthy hale and hearty parents doesn't really mean much, because as I note, for every human living a wonderful happy and healthy existence well beyond normal, there are those who don't.

And if this gentleman doesn't see much utility to living past 75, well, that's his business. If you want to fight kicking and screaming too the last breath, well, that's yours.

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

Based on current trends and short of a major breakthru there is no way someone born today will live to be 120-130.

Intriguing theory you have there. How does it account for Gertrude Weaver (born 1898, died - well, she'll die one of these years, but hasn't yet)?

> Perhaps your own theory is intriguing?

Why do you mention her?

Because she's the exception.

Note that she's not unique in living in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. If someone can manage to reach 116+ when more than half her life went by with medical care no better than what was available when I was a kid....

Something tells me that for some reason you figure that you are going to live as long as she has because she has lived that long.

Life doesn't work that way Sparky. Look at how long your parent's families lived, and take it from there.

In my family, the men used to live pretty healthy until about 85 years old.

Now, with modern advances in medicine, maintenance drugs to control cholesterol, blood pressure, and attention to weight, the men in my family tend to live until about 85 years old. I expect nothing less from my generation in my family.

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

a lot of medical professionals carry this opinion, or a similar one, precisely because they see, every day, what the reality is of old age. and they dont change their minds;

So, there are a bunch of 75+ year old ex-medical professionals that are ready to die? I somehow find that hard to believe. Those same medical professionals also see, on a regular basis, 80 and 90+ year olds that live quite enjoyable lives. The 'reality of old age' differs for everyone, medical professionals should know that better than anyone.

They are medical professionals. You figure only hale and hearty people go to see them? "Hey, I'm feeling great today, so let's go to the emergency ward to have the doctors look at us"

Your idea of doctors apparent predominant exposue to the healthy is simply silly. Doctors see overwhelmingly sick people last time I checked. Theat's because that's what they do - treat sick people.

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

Not everyone is Stephen Hawking, though. I'm quite sure that had the US government secretly found a way to keep Einstein alive and chippy forever by regular bathing in blood of (preferably Soviet) virgins, they would have done that. Well, they would have at least thought about it anyway.

Whoah! I'm willing to at least try bathing with> Russian virgins! Live longer, live shorter, what the heck?

Re:The WHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck is this WRONG and it's not funny at all.

I worked in a dementia ward and I would not wish that on my worst enemy. It is a truly, staggeringly horrible way to go out. You don't know about the confusion, the pain, the mental trauma this disease causes, do you/ You dont just slip into a blissful state of forgetfulness, you are in a world of torment as your mind fucks you over.

Dementia is a very distressing, traumatic disease and the reason I support assisted suicide. There are things worse than death and dementia is one of them - the piss poor jokes about dementia serve to cover up the horror that patients truly experience. And it is horror, why do you think dementia patients are drugged to the gills?

Re:The WHO

[turp182]

You are absolutely correct about life expectancy. At birth, per the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables, men have a life expectancy of 76.1 and women 80.94.

From there it never appears to go down (it is flat a couple of times, age 9-10 for both genders; add actual age and expectancy then diff over time). At no point is your full life expectancy, per standardized tables, at or below 75. At 75 the men and women life expectancy's are 85.89 and 87.77 respectively. Women are expected to live longer until age 116, at which point men and women have an equal life expectancy...

Here's the table: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/...

I haven't used an actuarial life table in a couple of decades, fun stuff.

And to be clear, the expectancy is from that age, so adding them is correct. Here's the full note:
Note: The period life expectancy at a given age for 2010 represents the average number of years of life remaining if a group of persons at that age were to experience the mortality rates for 2010 over the course of their remaining life.

Re:The WHO

[Beck_Neard]

75 may be an arbitrary number, but if you consider the 70-80 range, it's not arbitrary at all. It's set by the limitations of human biology and, yes, environmental circumstances.

Now if medicine advanced to the point where most people could live a healthy life up to 100, then you'd have a point. But there's no indication we are near that point. In fact, the average life expectancy in the developed world has actually been decreasing over the past 10-20 years. Diseases that start to flare up around the 65-75 age range like cancer are extremely difficult to fight and progress has been incredibly slow. No rational person in 2014 should set a high probability of being able to live well and feel great at 100.

Re:The WHO

[non0score]

I'm sorry, but you could act a little more creative. If you have the technology to live forever, why can't you, or someone else still alive, find some way to restore your cognitive and bodily abilities to that of its prime?

Re:The WHO

[AchilleTalon]

Good one! Thanks for sharing.

Re:The WHO

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Based on current trends and short of a major breakthru there is no way someone born today will live to be 120-130 [...] but we've made little or no progress on actually extending life to any significant extent

It does seem most humans live 70 to 90 years. While the known record is 122, we don't really know what the maximum is. I recall reading numbers as low as 125 to over 300, so, by the end of this century, 110+ might be common and 120+ not so rare as now.

FWIW, I have a coworker whose girlfriend's great grand parents all lived past 105 and 3 of them past 110, all in good health and still productively contributing to the family business until their final few months.

Re:The WHO

[non0score]

Major breakthrough? I don't think you have to even go there. Given our current rate of progress in biotech/genetics research (not even counting the acceleration that happens as time goes on), we can probably get significant life extensions for healthy people already in their 40s and 50s. Heck, given that they're getting life extensions, I won't be surprised if by the time their life extensions are "up" that they would have even more.

Re:The WHO

[AchilleTalon]

Are you coming back from dementia to tell us with precision and so many certitudes about it? I mean, you haven't been in the head of these people to judge. Don't confuse the distress of relatives with what you believe the patient is living.

Re:The WHO

[adisakp]

This guy is 72 and he kinda seems amazing. He's active, very much mentally there, and seems to have a real joy in life. And he creates one-of-a-kind miniature engines that are works of art.

Re:The WHO

[AchilleTalon]

I don't believe Hawking is a bad example. The rational behind the reasoning of this guy is that Hawking should have die and let it go. And Hawking is proving the rational is wrong. It may be an extreme case, but it illustrates how the reasoning is wrong. Small contributions are still contributions and even if you no longer contribute, you still have people for whom you may be significant and nobody should decide at what age people should die or we should stop helping then to keep living. You have contributed life long and you are entitled to believe in your old days you have some right being taking care of. During your active life, you supported other old people and you should expect the same for you in your old days. Breaking this hidden social contract has consequences. Nobody will live his life the same way if he knows he will be treaten like a dog in his old days.

Re:The WHO

[whoever57]

Now, with modern advances in medicine, maintenance drugs to control cholesterol, blood pressure, and attention to weight, the men in my family tend to live until about 85 years old. I expect nothing less from my generation in my family.

The fact that 3 out 4 of my grandparents lived into their late nineties (one died in a flu epidemic), one of my great grandparents lived well into her late nineties and my father is still going at 99 fills me with terror. There is no way that I want to live that long.

Re:The WHO

[Garridan]

Or, in the case of Hawking, several "right women". 'Cause when you're a rock star and you know it, you don't just stop at one.

Re:The WHO

[AchilleTalon]

Well, Hawking was an example to illustrate the flaw in the reasoning of this guy. No need to be a superstar to have a right to live. You contribute life long to this society, you support the elders by your work and making the company you are working for profitable and improving the society. When day come it will be your turn to grow old, you are perfectly legitimate to believe the society will do the same for you, at least. Otherwise, the social contract is broken. The society is of no use for you, you are only an instrument for it and a disposable one. It changes many things about how you will live your life if you know in advance you are just used and disposed.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

I never said they had predominant exposure to the healthy, you just filled that in all by yourself. But, healthy seniors do have regular doctor visits. Many have minor health issues to manage, but are overall in good shape. Not all doctors work in the emergency ward, but I wouldn't point to that as a flaw in your response. If you don't believe doctors see a lot of generally healthy elderly people, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

What you seem to be saying is that everyone is different, and that no general rule should apply. I would agree. There are many people who, at some point in their late lives, will no longer find enjoyment or value for various reasons. But there are plenty that will, even with discomfort and disability. If this guys wants to plan his life end, fine. If he doesn't want to exercise and doesn't care about extending extra effort for maintaining his health, then fine as well, but don't indicate that doing makes no sense in general.

Re:The WHO

[cayenne8]

I"ll happily take any extra years these people are throwing away.

I wanna live forever...somehow....

Re:The WHO

[jslaff]

I, on the other hand, intend to live forever. So far, so good.

Re:The WHO

[dywolf]

JFC. Did I say the words "ready to die" ?? you insist on misquoting to make your points, intentionally noncomprehending...that or you're just stupid. the number of 80 and 90 year olds who are enjoying a healthy life rather than slowly crumbling under the weight of age is so seriously one sided you only further prove your ignorance.

the medical community, made of medical professionals have the highest rate of living will and end of life planning of any statistical group. its because they see this crap every day. they see the vast overwhelming numbers of people who DONT make these decisions beforehand, who DONT make any sort of plans, who dont think about what is coming. End of life care and planning is seriously lacking in most of hte world, and hte US especially. we dont like to think about it. we put it off.

Medical professionals dont avoid that thinking, that planning (as much), because they see what its effects are.
hell, they're fucking doctors, so they know exactly what they have to look forward to. Constant unfathomable pain from cancer. The slow undignified loss of the ability to control your own body. The loss of mind that patients suffer from and aren't even aware of themselves, but can see from the looks on the faces of their loved ones that something is wrong.

Yes, a blessed few avoid all that and simply go in their sleep.
That kind of end doesn't require any planning.
Almost everyone, if given the choice, would prefer to go that way.
But simply because there's a chance you may go that way, doesn't mean you shouldn't think about what you want to do in case of the alternative.

This is what realistic thinking on this looks like:

Do you want chemo and three months of life, or six weeks of life without the nausea and vomiting that the chemo causes?

Do you want high-risk open-heart surgery, with a fifteen-per-cent risk of dying during the operation, or would you rather continue as you are, with a fifty-per-cent chance you will be dead in two years?

Do you want a prostatectomy, which has a five-per-cent chance of impotence and incontinence, or radiation, with a three-per-cent chance of leaving a hole in your rectum, or would you rather “watch and wait,” with the chance that your cancer will never grow at all?

( http://theincidentaleconomist.... )

some people think (for various reasons, usually religious) that they have to hold on to the very end. no matter how bad it gets, no matter how much it costs (and remember friend: in this country your family has to pick up that tab, since we refuse to create a national system), no matter the suffering you or your family goes through. now if thats what you want, and youve thought it through and your family is on board (and it helps if you're rich), then power to you.

But at some point youre going to face those kind of decisions.
I just hope you show a higher intellectual ability by then than you are here.

Just remember: if we can show our pets the compassion to not force them to endure a living nightmare of misery, then surely we can show the same compassion to each other, to respect each others wishes. The only thing that's certain in life is death, and it's one of the most personal decisions you can make for yourself.

Re:The WHO

[dywolf]

He also had a nationalized health care system.
If he had lived in the US, I doubt very much we'd even know who he is.

Re:The WHO

[turp182]

The decision regarding death's timing should be up to the individual (if possible, accidents and such interfere), with the decision based on his/her considerations of pain/quality of life and family and/or other obligations. Alzheimer's and Dementia are different stories, thus the need for living wills addressing mental situations (if you were no longer yourself, would you rather spend your funds on your care or helping your family financially?).

Soylent Green had it right, there should be euthanasia centers, 'tis a sad aspect of a civilized society, but it is civilized, allowing for self determination (with the same music and film as the movie, one of my favorite scenes in any movie). Keep in mind that the starving masses didn't choose to die, they continued to suffer. Fantastic movie.

As for society and being worthless (per the general society), that's a question of being/trying to be employed, but it has nothing to do with whether one should die. But worth with family is another situation, and is more important anyway (I don't care what society thinks about or values about me).

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

The fact that 3 out 4 of my grandparents lived into their late nineties (one died in a flu epidemic), one of my great grandparents lived well into her late nineties and my father is still going at 99 fills me with terror. There is no way that I want to live that long.

If I'm in real good shape, that's one thing. I suspect that I might end up needing a lot of Vicoden, because at 60, my old Ice Hockey days have caught up with me.

ACL, MCL, Broken ankle, torn ankle ligaments, osteoarthritis, trigger finger, lower back general injury, and tendonitis in the elbows.

But I'd do it all again. After all:

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW-- What a Ride!"

Attributed to Bill McKenna

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

JFC. Did I say the words "ready to die" ?? you insist on misquoting to make your points, intentionally noncomprehending...that or you're just stupid.

I stopped reading at this. They guy said he hopes to die at 75. I made the crazy assumption that he expected he would be ready to die, or otherwise he would be hoping to die before he was ready. Now THAT would be stupid, IMHO.

Re:The WHO

[Mr D from 63]

I agree. People should be able to choose their own end of life path, and those that are 'stuck' in total dependency can't even control that aspect. A heartbreaking situation.

Re:The WHO

[Austerity Empowers]

I understand your point, but sometimes technology doesn't move in inches, it makes huge changes or none at all. A breakthrough in stem cell research might suddenly give us the ability to live practically forever. Probably not, but we can visualize a scenario. I would hate to make bad, short sighted decisions today that I will regret later. 75 or even 100 may be the end of the line when I get there, but it may not. It seems that no matter what I'll have reasonably fewer problems and be generally healthier on my way to whatever the terminal age will be when my time comes.

Now if I get a terminal disease, or something that otherwise alters my life to the point where I'm not happy with it, that makes me a burden on my family or on society, or that will just involve draining all my money that I could give to my wife or children, then I want to be able to make the decision to end it responsibly, painlessly, and cheaply. I don't see the point in prolonging an unenjoyable life.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

Geneticists will tell you that around 90, your cells start to have lots of problems. The current consensus is that your body will tend to be worn out around 90. When they did tests on some really old woman who died at a fairly ripe old age above 110, iirc, they found that she only had two stem cells (yes, 2) producing white blood cells. There is a limit on how many times these things can keep reproducing, and your body just eventually wears out. If you haven't had significant hardship that stresses your body, and good genes, then you'll be a few standard deviations above, poor mix, then you'll be below. All that's clear is that we're approaching the realistic limit of natural living.

Re:The WHO

[Culture20]

And for those who really are obsessed with mental puzzles and exercise, it's not about extending life, but instead extending the quality phase of life. This has a side effect of extending life in some people.

Re:The WHO

[penguinoid]

"hope I die before I get old"

I hope to cure aging before I get old. Other creatures don't age so why should I?

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

ACL, MCL, Broken ankle, torn ankle ligaments, osteoarthritis, trigger finger, lower back general injury, and tendonitis in the elbows.

cool. I one day hope to have such an impressive list of injuries, although I initially read as "lower back genital injury".

Yikes! fortunately not.

Came close though. One time I was circling behind the net in the defensive zone, and went for the puck. The guy right behind me just stuck his stick around my midsection to slow me down. Standard move.

As luck would have it, his stick went under my pants and lifted my cup. I collapsed because I didn't know what else to do. He wisely panicked and droppd his stick immediately. The refs even stopped the game since they saw the whole thing. Fortunately nothing was damaged except the guy was a little squeamish about using that stick the rest of the game. But when I stood back up the darned thing was hanging out of my hockey pants, giving new meaning to "getting wood".

Re:The WHO

[Wycliffe]

I understand your point, but sometimes technology doesn't move in inches, it makes huge changes or none at all. A breakthrough in stem cell research might suddenly give us the ability to live practically forever.

That's why I said "short of a major breakthrough". We've definitely amassed a large amount of knowledge on telemeres, stem cells, etc...
and I myself am hoping for one of these major breakthroughs and I hope to be young enough to be able to take advantage of it but
as it stands right now I don't even know of even any experimental treatments looking to halt or reverse the aging process which is
what we really need to do to get significantly past the 100 mark. My guess is that when/if it happens that it will probably first be
for premature aging or it's possible that it will be discovered by accident when we realize that some treatment for demetia or cancer
has allowed someone to reach 150. If it's the latter and we have to wait for someone currently alive to reach 150 before we
accidently discover it then unfortunately it will probably be too late for me and most of the people on this site.

Re:The WHO

[turp182]

And further, I have asked myself, Would I want to be one of my grandparents.

My grandmother is upper 80's, she can no longer form short or medium term memory. Meds help with anger which was an issue early on. She needs a walker and can be coherent (while asking the same questions over).

Her husband is my grandfather, Wib, he turned 90 about a week ago (my son is named after him, their actual name is Wilbur but they will always been known as Wib). He's got his mind and gets around fine, albeit with considerable pain in the entire body. I don't like that he still drives, but it is a necessity where he lives. And he still works, although most of his customers have died off. It is his routine. And he loves his wife and would certainly perish quickly if she passed.

My grandmother wrote a letter to her grandchildren in the 1980s, and she said "these bones are ready for the grave." I found it when I was about 10. We talked about it, but I don't remember the conversation, just the phrase. Burned in my mind. She was in her late 60's at the time.

Kurt Vonnegut said, on the Daily Show, that he would have already committed suicide if not for how it would affect his grandchildren. He passed a couple of years later.

So it goes.

Re:The WHO

[ultranova]

When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want?

Isn't this true for most people most of the time?

Re:The WHO

[Fjandr]

I doubt the GP is drawing those conclusions from the distress of relatives, but rather from direct interaction with dementia patients.

You've never lived with someone who has advanced dementia, have you? I suppose you could be on the autism spectrum and be unable to understand body language that is obvious to everyone else. When you learn how mental trauma translates into actions, you can come to pretty obvious conclusions about the mental state of someone by those same actions, even if they are unable to articulate what's going on in their head.

When someone regularly descends into fits of sobbing when certain things happen, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that, hey, there's something disturbing this person. You don't need to be in their head to figure out things with other obvious signs.

Re:The WHO

[Fjandr]

This is a personal decision, not one he's trying to push on others. Just as those who so choose have the option of living as long as their body holds out, so too should people have the option of not prolonging their life as long as possible.

I have inoperable cancer, and its effects on me are such that at some point I will no longer be able to manage the symptoms to the point that life will not be worth living. I don't want to spend months or years in a narcotic fog to dull the pain enough so I can just keep breathing. Short of spontaneous remission, I will at some point choose to end my own life rather than suffer needlessly. My family is aware of this decision, and I will inform them at the point it is necessary so there are no surprises. I would do the same were my mind degrading to the point it would be clear my existence contributed nothing more than consuming oxygen and taking up space. I've talked to many others who feel exactly the same way. I'm not trying to kill other people based on some arbitrary criteria, but I sure as hell won't accept being kept alive because "all life is sacred." It's not.

Re:The WHO

[rtb61]

Life Rule, Have as much fun as possible whilst causing the least amount of harm possible. Likely those who are most fearful of death abuse the hell out of that rule causing a great deal of harm by having fun at everyone else's expense. If you really believe you are alive and there is a real dimension, an energy to life, like all other forms of energy it logically must be in balance. That fear re-balancing seems to be what drives those with the worst life balance to desperately fend of death for as long as possible. For others, whose lives are more positively balanced of course, no more than a hopefully peaceful end and a long rest.

Re:The WHO

[ultranova]

Do you want high-risk open-heart surgery, with a fifteen-per-cent risk of dying during the operation, or would you rather continue as you are, with a fifty-per-cent chance you will be dead in two years?

Open-heart surgery, please. You can actually feel your heartbeat, and thinking there's a problem means every irregularity, real or imagined, is going to give you a start. This gets especially fun when you're trying to sleep because that, after all, involves heartbeat slowing down.

Re:The WHO

[neoritter]

You're just reframing nucrash's argument. Hawking was a bad example under his argument.

There are some cases, like with Stephen Hawking, where an individual wants so much to contribute to the world that they want to exist.

Hawkings was ready to give up his studies against the urging of his doctors and friends. There wasn't an inner yearning to continue to contribute and exist. No I'd say the reason he wanted to continue to exist, and pardon the bluntness, was because he found someone to bone. I'll give the example one thing, you could say he wanted to contribute to the population.

Re:The WHO

[Jhon]

"I have one thing to say. Fuck you. "

An excellent point. I must be wrong.

"Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act."

I don't think I "demanded" anything. I did strongly suggest that it's wise to learn to live with our limitations rather than say "I don't want to live not being able to do what I want when I want". I've too many happy 80+ year olds in my life who despite their pain and/or infirmity are enjoying their life and family. And if you can't see that then maybe my "annoying superiority act" isn't an act -- at least where you are concerned.

"There are living fates much worse than death. "

And of course I said exactly the opposite of that, didn't I? Or are you reading your own fears and insecurities in to what I ACTUALLY said?

Re:The WHO

[dhasenan]

You don't want to continue aging forever. You would likely be happy to be in a permanently youthful, healthy, pain-free body for many decades to come. You just don't have that option right now.

Re:The WHO

[Altrag]

No more arbitrary than 18 being legal age.. or 21 being the drinking age.. or whatever. There's plenty of kids who know who they want to get naked with and what political affiliation they're comfortable with and how much booze is too much by the time they're 16.. And there's plenty of people who really don't understand the responsibilities that come with such "adult" actions well into their 30s, 40s and beyond. One size definitely does not fit all when it comes to any developmental cycle.

So 75 was chosen not because its better than 70 or 74 or 76 for every single person in existence, but because you need to set a hard number for the sake of having a line to draw if you're planning to call it a cutoff. I'm not sure if that guy picked 75 based on some statistical reasoning or just pulled it out of his ass but that's not really the relevant point -- the relevant point is simply having a number so you can say "this is the line."

And yes, these numbers need to change over time as society changes. 500 years ago waiting until you were 18 to get to boning would have been considered insane and birth control even more so.. your chances of successful childbirth diminish as you age and given the high (relative to now at least) infant mortality rate, getting on with bearing kids ASAP was considered pretty important which is why when you see shows like Game of Thrones, none of the characters bat an eye when they marry Sansa off as soon as she gets her first period -- that would have been pretty much the rule of day back prior to modern pediatrics.

Similarly, if in the next 18 years some of this stem cell and genetic research ends up paying off and is able to keep us not just alive, but healthy and active until we're say 90, he'll probably update his number to match. His argument isn't that living a longer _healthy_ life is bad, he's trying to argue that drawing out an deteriorating life is more of a burden than a gift, to both yourself and to society. Basically if L(ife)=H(ealthy)+D(eteriorated), he wants to maximize the H/D ratio and since increasing H is hard, he's looking at decreasing D (which also has the benefit of fewer deteriorated years in total) while arguing that modern geriatric care has been too focused on getting a larger absolute value for L by increasing D rather than H.

Re:The WHO

[Altrag]

And sadly, that will be a terrible day for the planet. We're already stressing the damned thing well past any measure of sustainability.. stop the aging process and we'll replace "dying of old age" with "dying of thirst/starvation."

Or worse, some sort of cleansing program to maintain a sustainable population level. Nothing sinister about that concept.. And of course because "me starving" is a bit stronger motivator than "some guy I've never met in a country I've never been to being executed," a cleansing program (or alternatively a forced sterilization program) is almost certain to be implemented.

Not getting straight A's in advanced Reimannian topology and also able to run the quarter mile in less than 8 seconds by the time you're 14? We've got a nice camp over here for you.

Re:The WHO

[strikethree]

We'll see how he feels when he's 75.

I dunno. Once I hit 40, I felt I had lived a very interesting life and I feel like if I die now, there would be no tragedy in it. I, of course, do not WANT to die, but I have accepted that the inevitable will occur and it is not to be dreaded. What will come will come.

Re:The WHO

[Wootery]

There are some cases, like with Stephen Hawking, where an individual wants so much to contribute to the world that they want to exist. Because of this, there should not be any hard limit put in as far as a person's life to which we should consider ending health care.

There is also the matter - and it is not trifling - that he wants to live. His intellectual output is not the reason he should be cared for.

I suspect that's what you're trying to get at with "they want to exist", but I don't think you expressed it well.

Re:The WHO

[gnasher719]

You see stories about people at 100 years old. It's news because it isn't that common. I know people who are active into their 90's. I know a lot more in their late 70's who are living on maintenance drugs and opiates, riddled with pain pretty well fuzzed out. A little older, and they are starting the dementia trip, with nursing homes at the ready to take their estates.

I happen to know a woman who works in a nursing home, with many of the residents being younger than her.

Re:The WHO

[dcw3]

As another 55'er, I'll say that I agree with much of your commentary. My family genes don't favor my odds of making it much further than 70. Both grandfathers died of heart disease, high cholesterol runs in my family, Grandmother died from Alzheimer's and my oldest aunt is living with it. Type II diabetes is common in my family as well.

All that said, statins have significantly improved the cholesterol situation. I recently ran a half-marathon, and am watching my diet. And while I question the value, I actively do mental exercises (Lumosity, chess, etc.). So, I suspect my odds are better than my predecessors.

Do I want to live to 100? Sure, but only if I'm not in pain, and don't want the family to take a second mortgage to keep me in a nursing home with feeding tubes.

Re:The WHO

[dcw3]

If you're just doing things to keep you alive, you're not living. The whole point of a bucket list is to live life to the fullest.

Re:The WHO

[dcw3]

I'm just piling on here... Dramatic improvements in the management of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and treatment of heart disease have already extended life for many of us.

Re:The WHO

[dcw3]

Wow, bad mods today. Whoever marked this Flamebait needs to grow up.

Re:The WHO

[Wycliffe]

You don't expect 3d printing organs to advance at all in 75 years!? Given how much they have advanced in the last decade you think we've hit a wall? That's pretty pessimistic! I take it you're not a fan of the work by the SENS and Aubrey De Grey crowd either? I'm of the belief there are people alive today who will be alive well past the next century.

Ok, so you can 3D print me an organ. So what? Ignoring the fact that at 90+ you probably aren't going to survive a transplant, are you
going to replace all my organs? What about my brain? I'm sorry, but organ transplants are not the solution to the aging problem.
They can definitely help people get to the finish line of 100 but they aren't going to get you to 200. If I was Bill Gates and didn't want
to die, I think the most promising areas of research are probably stem cell, alzheimer's, telemeres, cancer, and progeria.
I agree that Aubrey De Grey is in one of the right areas to possibly help but 3D printing organs is not one of those areas.

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

"I have one thing to say. Fuck you. "

An excellent point. I must be wrong.

Yes, you are

And don't fool yourself, you r wrongness has nothing to do with what I wrote, it's what prompted the response.

I don't think I "demanded" anything. I did strongly suggest that it's wise to learn to live with our limitations rather than say "I don't want to live not being able to do what I want when I want".

Quite the subtle distinction there, one might think

I stand corrected. It is not an act, you are truly arrogant and superior, and to the core. It is wonderful that these people are so happy. If you could see past your nose, you might reflect that just because they are happy, it does not follow that all of the ancient are in that frame of mind, and "strong suggestions" that these people be happy is just like telling a depressed person to snap out of it because other people aren't depressed. Some demented people are quite happy, and some cry the entire time they are awake. Some need to be drugged because they turn violent. And your happy relatives will not change that situation one bit.

Does my experience, being different than yours mean that your experience is invalid? My point, if you would care to draw aside your occluding veil, is that you should consider yourself blessed that all your relatives are happy in their declining years. You are lucky. Ever had a wanderer? a violent dementia? A crier? a biter? a run around naked person or shit flinger?

You might in your knowing better, "strongly suggest" to those folks to straighten up their act and be happy like your relatives are.

"There are living fates much worse than death. "

And of course I said exactly the opposite of that, didn't I? Or are you reading your own fears and insecurities in to what I ACTUALLY said?

You said nothing regarding that at all. But remember, I can add my own comments to the discussion, although in your arrogance you seem to want to control and limit the discussion to only what you decree as legitimate

As to my fears, I am strongly opposed to the concept of my languishing in a nursing home, bereft of my mind, drugged and draining my accumulated wealth. a pointless existence - possibly painful, likely very unhappy existence - that in my mind is much worse than death.

But hey - your relatives are all happy, so yours is the only situation that counts.

Re:The WHO

[Bengie]

My grandpa was adding onto his house at the age of 82. Nearly everything by himself. Other than the cancer that he got and killed him in 6 months, he was very healthy. Because of the way he got cancer, they family got a payout, so there was an autopsy. The doctor said my grandpa was pretty much fit as a 20 year old. My 75 year old uncle still does his daily 10 mile jog. More like a run than a jog, he's fast.

Re:The WHO

[tehcyder]

A lot of obese people are obsessed with diets, food, exercising, and the rest. They buy books and apps, watch "inspirational" TV shows, sign up to expensive dance or gym classes, and so on.

They just don't (in general) have the ability to simply stick to a sensible lifestyle.

Re:The WHO

[lsatenstein]

We'll see how he feels when he's 75.

I am 73+, and decided on a physical and mental exercise program. Almost daily, I do a 5 mile (7km) walk with the dog. On rainy days its 2 miles or about 4km. For exercising my mind, I write blogs, I do C language programming, and I keep up to date with hardware, software and Linux technology.

Currently I am exploring the use of LibreOffice writer as a way to document Linux stuff. My favorite distribution uses Docbook, which I find horrid for collaboration and for editing. Docbook to me, is text preparation at the assembler language level. Do write content for 20% of the time and spend 80% of your time on formatting your text to Docbook tags (my rant). I keep a pretty good social life, and have an enjoyable time with slashdot.org. I am also auditing three courses from Stanford about automata theory, encryption, and fundamental algorithms.

The Who guy must be depressed. Does he come home and just watch the soaps on TV? I have no time for that.

Re:The WHO

[graphius]

Anecdotal evidence... My Dad is in his early 80's and he rides a motorcycle all summer and skis all winter. He is more fit and more active than many half his age. In fact many younger people literally can't keep up with him on long hikes.

I understand he is an exception, and he is starting to slow down, but with something like people, you cannot put a hard number down a la Logans Run. For some people, like the grandparent above, 55 is too old, for others like my dad, 75 is too young (he was still active in politics, and maintaining his acreage, and volunteering with search and rescue at 75)

Re:The WHO

[Jhon]

"As to my fears, I am strongly opposed to the concept of my languishing in a nursing home, bereft of my mind, drugged and draining my accumulated wealth. a pointless existence - possibly painful, likely very unhappy existence - that in my mind is much worse than death."

What's stopping you? off yourself now and save a lot of trouble. My entire point was missed by your inability to see past YOUR nose, never mind your accusations of me not being able to see past *MY* nose. The point being that placing some arbitrary limit of 75 as being a good time to die is flipping lame and your response is "fuck you". Wonderful. For some reason this is a trigger issue for you. I've read your posts in this thread and they are many. You should back up, take a deep breath, count to 10 and exhale. It's not about you.

And WTF do you care if your accumulated wealth is draining if you are in the condition you state? Seriously? If you wanted it to go to your family, you would have made sure they would have had it at an earlier time. If not, then great -- let it take care of you instead of draining your family or living off the state. I for one am not interested in dime from my parents/in-laws estates. Let them use it to take care of themselves in a manner they see fit for as long as their comfortable. It's THEIRS, not MINE. They earned it.

Re:The WHO

[david_thornley]

The statement is that, if you're born in 2014 and live to 2089 you should have four or five decades left. I really don't know what medical science is going to be like in 2089. My guess is that four or five decades would be incorrect: either it would be two or three, or considerably more than four or five, depending on how things go.

Re:The WHO

[spectrumlogic]

THIS...a bit strange to me. Begin with the inevitability of death and work backwards. Everyone dies of something...does it really matter if it is preventable? Suffering seems to be the only yardstick here...and it may be if you are completely self involved...but there are a lot of aspects to living/dying. Our treatment of elders would lead a rational person to want to avoid the “throw away” fate, which to me seems to reduce the likelihood dying will have meaning to those who should matter to us because of the estrangement. Hopefully it will be about dignity and purpose...but lessons are passed down just the same...maybe not involving your personal comfort or willing contribution. Preventable implies that we have some measure of control...but that is questionable. Are we pretending it is better to rust out than burn out? Isn't the better question whether you lived at all? ...which has different meaning for different people. I question if we can make such value judgements without calling morality...and we all know where that leads...but I do wonder if we stopped trying to insulate our lives from the reality of dying (say we made it a bit more of a team sport) that we might receive the lessons readily...and thus behave differently through familiarity with the inevitable. Denial is rarely the best choice.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

What's the point of living when their is no real enjoyment?

I reject the assumption that there can be no real enjoyment of life after the age of 75, now and at every point in the future. Nobody wants to live an empty life, but there is no reason that this situation can't be improved.

When it hurts to get out of bed and you can't go and do what you want when you want? When you aren't living but just existing and waiting to die?

There is no universal law of physics that says all these thing will happen at age 75 for all eternity.

I can see his point easily enough. I'm pretty sure that if I get cancer after 70 I'm just going to start the bucket list.

Maybe cancer treatment will not improve in 15 years. Or maybe it will. Maybe we will be able to correct damaged DNA using gene therapy.

I don't want to be 90 laying in bed waiting for someone to come change my diaper.

I think there is a very good chance we will have robots that can change diapers in 35 years. I don't consider having my diaper changed by a robot to be any more degrading than to have a self driving car take me places I want to go.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act.

I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people drop their annoying superiority acts.

There are living fates much worse than death. Being around you might be one of them.

You don't seem like such a prize either.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

Now if medicine advanced to the point where most people could live a healthy life up to 100, then you'd have a point. But there's no indication we are near that point.

We don't need to be near that point now. We just need to be on track to be near that point by the time I get old.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

If you really believe you are alive and there is a real dimension, an energy to life, like all other forms of energy it logically must be in balance.

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, regarding this statement. "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong,"

What would the world look like if "all life forms of energy were not in balance"?

What if someone else proposes that "All lifeforms of energy are out of balance as evidenced by all the wars and suffering in the world". How is one to decide who is right? Or is everybody just equally right if they believe something hard enough, or wish it to be true enough?

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

And sadly, that will be a terrible day for the planet. We're already stressing the damned thing well past any measure of sustainability.. stop the aging process and we'll replace "dying of old age" with "dying of thirst/starvation."

As long as people have the same number of children, people living longer doesn't change the birth rate : death rate ratio, it will only cause a temporary bump in the instantaneous number of living people.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that advances in longevity will not be accompanied with advances in natural resource conservation/efficiency. We already have cars that are approaching the 100mph mark, and there is nearly unlimited solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal energy out there.

I've seen projections that the planet could support an order of magnitude more people if we did it more efficiently.

Not getting straight A's in advanced Reimannian topology and also able to run the quarter mile in less than 8 seconds by the time you're 14? We've got a nice camp over here for you.

All trends point to societies getting more compassionate with greater wealth, knowledge, technology, etc. So I really don't see the death camps playing a large role in the future.

Re:The WHO

[rtb61]

Why does it feel more like you are trying to convince yourself rather than me. I am not defining it's nature or limits, just it's feel and an observation about behaviour about those most desperate to live on another day and how badly they have lived. Guilt does not equal reason.

Re:The WHO

[Ol Olsoc]

I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people act as you think they should, and drop the annoying superiority act.

I have one thing to say. Fuck you. Don't demand other people drop their annoying superiority acts.

Nah, I heard that you giggle when you kiss. But thanks for the invite.

You don't seem like such a prize either.

Nope, I'm not a prize at all. OI Olsoc don't always say what people want to hear. I'm a real life Cassandra

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

Geneticists will tell you that around 90, your cells start to have lots of problems. The current consensus is that your body will tend to be worn out around 90.

Find me the geneticist that says it's impossible to solve these problems. Nobody intends to tackle aging, without attempting to solve these problems. This is like saying, we will never get to the moon because cars can only go like 100,000 miles and can't fly.

There is a limit on how many times these things can keep reproducing, and your body just eventually wears out.

Well we are all the result of the same reproducing life form that first existed 3+ billion years ago. So if it were true that cells could not reproduce indefinitely, we know they can at least divide for billions of years, as evidenced by life on earth.

Clearly most of the cells in the human body (i.e. not the ones that are used to make new human beings) have limitations that currently limit the number of divisions they can undertake. This may be an evolutionary strategy against cancer, but that doesn't mean these limitations are insurmountable.

When they did tests on some really old woman who died at a fairly ripe old age above 110, iirc, they found that she only had two stem cells (yes, 2) producing white blood cells.

And it's impossible to give someone more cells?

All the problems with longevity are physical problems with physical solutions. Maybe we won't figure out the solutions to these problems any time soon, but they exist.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

Once we are able to use gene therapy to correct mutations, and other problems of this sort, I don't think we will have to wait until people get to be 150 before we know it's working.

Any treatment that solves the underlying problems of aging, will surely solve some of the unwanted symptoms of aging as well. If someone feels (and/or looks) like an 20 year old at 70, we'll know it's working. Even if this person drops dead at 100, there will be people lining up around the block to get this treatment.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

I can sense that your light energy is skewed, and that may be why you are not seeing the problem clearly. Maybe if you re-align your spirit crystals, you'd see I am right.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

That's why I stated natural living. I'd argue that once you start pouring in fresh stem cells or do other significant things to counteract aging, you're no longer living a natural life, as it's quite clear there's some serious intervention going on. The point of my comment was that the person I responded to seemed to thing >100 was realistic, but from what I heard, 90 is more accurate as a statistical average for the upper limit, at least that's the opinion of science today.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

I just broke my foot 2 weeks ago, and I was presented 2 options by my orthopedic surgeon (picked by my HMO).
1. Put it in a cast for 6-8 weeks and hope it heals on it's own (75% chance of working, given that I am "young"), and maybe save some money. If it doesn't work do #2.
2. Get surgery which involved putting a pin in my 5th metatarsal, and an injection of stem cells to stimulate healing, 100% chance of success and a 4 week recovery time.

There might have been a time when stem cells were the cutting edge. Now it's just something you get if you are willing to pay extra to get better faster.

Maybe the kind of stem cell treatments that would extend your life would be considered a serious intervention and cutting edge today. But in the future it might just be routine. Like how all the routine medical interventions we do today were once considered severe and cutting edge, and before that were not even possible.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

That's an aside, and it isn't related to the topic we're dealing with. I understand your point, but making it commonplace or routine doesn't make it natural.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

Well then almost nobody in the first world is living a natural life anyway, so it doesn't matter what the limits are since they don't apply to anyone with modern healthcare.

Re:The WHO

[rtb61]

Troll who comments double digits in one story seems to have a real preoccupation with ethics, guilt tends to do that.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

But it's irrelevant to the point. Like I have no idea why you're arguing? Like yea, the sky is blue but so what? English must be a second language for you, because I don't think you've understood what I've said.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is a limit on how many times these things [cells] can keep reproducing

I am arguing that this statement is false.

Even with people dying of old age, some of the cells in the human body can divide indefinitely. You can say "mammals can't fly". The fact that most can't fly still doesn't make that a correct statement.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

Nothing either of us has said has anything to do with ethics or guilt. You spouted some woowoo nonsense, and I felt motivated to call you out on it. You clearly have no intention nor ability to defend what you claimed.

Re:The WHO

[Wycliffe]

I agree completely. Either life expectancy stays about the same or we find a cure for aging and people start to live indefinitely.
If it's the latter then we have additional issues to deal with like being able to afford the cure, overpopulation, war, etc... which
might keep the average life expectancy down for reasons other than aging.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

So what geneticists have said is a lie. Your cells don't wear out and die, your skin doesn't age, your organs don't fail, no one gets cancer... Like are you that obtuse? I think you're the one who's failing victim to your logic, since you're the one exhibiting the fallacy. When the topic of conversation is how long do people live, how can you make a statement that some cells last indefinitely, in the context of human life, where no one has lasted indefinitely? This isn't a case of 'mammals can't fly' it's a case of 'pigs can't fly', and you're saying 'but bats do', yes, they can, so what?

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

So what geneticists have said is a lie.

Not unless you are a geneticist and were intentionally misinforming people. Geneticists are well aware of the fact that some human cells can divide indefinitely without problems. In fact it is essential for being able to produce children that don't immediately die because their cells are actually 4 billion years old and have divided trillions of times already.

Your cells don't wear out and die, your skin doesn't age, your organs don't fail, no one gets cancer...

*Some/Most* human cells start to age after a certain number of divisions. not all of them. Furthermore, cancer is an example when your cells *don't* die after a certain number of divisions. They actually become immortal, which is problematic for the person with cancer, but this phenomenon gives us insight into possible cures to aging. It is widely believed that programmed cell death may have been an adaptation mutlicellular organisms evolved to fight cancer.

Like are you that obtuse? I think you're the one who's failing victim to your logic, since you're the one exhibiting the fallacy.

What fallacy? Can you tell me specifically?

When the topic of conversation is how long do people live, how can you make a statement that some cells last indefinitely, in the context of human life, where no one has lasted indefinitely? This isn't a case of 'mammals can't fly' it's a case of 'pigs can't fly', and you're saying 'but bats do', yes, they can, so what?

You specifically said there is a limit to how many times *cells* can keep reproducing. And this is false. Some cells have this limit and some do not. Notice that I did not argue that some humans last indefinitely.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

The problem I have is, you're continually shifting the goalposts. You bring up irrelevant analogies, arguably, your explanation of 4 billion year old cells is highly misleading in itself, because you're poorly conflating a literal take on a cell, versus its cohabitation in an entirely new entity. This is essentially grandpa's axe, or in philosophical circles, the paradox of the ship of Theseus. While this applies to a single human, because our body structure does renew itself, I think it's going to an absurd level of detail, a technicality if you will. We don't go around changing our names after a predetermined amount of time because the majority of our cells are new, ergo we are still the same person.

You haven't refuted anything I've said, except that you've made the distinction that not all cells wear out, fair enough, but in the context of what was being discussed, it's irrelevant, because obviously, the cells that contribute to aging and are necessary in sustaining a single entities life, clearly do wear out. The point I'm making is, we're hitting the natural limit of how long we can live. You have failed to make any point which states otherwise.

The fallacy I referred to is a false analogy. All your analogies really have no bearing to what I've said. But you've also used false dichotomies, and fallacies of division. You've brought up all these issues, such as stem cell injections, but failed to recognise that I never made any points with respect to what you've taken umbrage upon. In other words, you're arguing with nothing, because everything you've said is irrelevant, or pointless, or off topic; whatever.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

You haven't refuted anything I've said, except that you've made the distinction that not all cells wear out, fair enough, but in the context of what was being discussed, it's irrelevant

You said mammals don't fly (i.e. cells can't keep reproducing), and I said bats fly (i.e. some cells can keep reproducing). If it's not relevant that some cells can keep reproducing, why was it relevant to state that the false claim that cells cannot keep reproducing? I did not bring this topic up. You did. I was simply pointing out that it was false.

because everything you've said is irrelevant, or pointless, or off topic; whatever.

I suppose it might seem that way to a narrow minded person.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

In the context of aging, those cells can't keep reproducing. Now you're just trying to put words in my post which just aren't there. I think it's time you enrolled in an english language course.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

In the context of aging, those cells can't keep reproducing.

It doesn't matter what the context is. Some cells can keep reproducing and some can't. In fact, in the case of cancer, (where cells keep reproducing), it actually accelerates aging.

I think it's time you enrolled in an english language course.

...says the person who seems oblivious to the implications of his own statements.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

First of all, quote me where I said that all cells can't reproduce indefinitely!

Second was Copernicus' theory wrong because the planets orbited the sun in an elliptical orbit? Or is the context important in that he got a really big part of it right (planets orbited the sun), even though some smaller details were wrong? Are you really going to argue that unless something is 100% correct, then it's false? Are you retarded? Your argument is completely a fallacy of composition, even though is built on a completely made up presumption.

This is the most facile exchange I've ever seen. You are making a point which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. So some cells reproduce indefinitely; what has this got to do with the fact that at ~90 years of age, the cells that can't reproduce indefinitely, will degrade a persons ability to live? This is the important context, which you seem to be happy to just completely brush aside.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

First of all, quote me where I said that all cells can't reproduce indefinitely!

You: "Mammals just can't fly"

Me: "That's not true, bats can fly"

You: "Quote me where I said all mammals can fly!"

Second was Copernicus' theory wrong because the planets orbited the sun in an elliptical orbit?

The parts of his theory that were wrong, were wrong. Some parts were right, and some were wrong.

Are you really going to argue that unless something is 100% correct, then it's false? Are you retarded?

The statement "Mammals just can't fly" is not 99.99% right because most mammals can't fly. It's 100% wrong. Any theory based on the premise that mammals categorically can not fly is going to be based on a false premise.

I think it's pretty clear who the retard is (i.e. it's you).

This is the most facile exchange I've ever seen. You are making a point which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. So some cells reproduce indefinitely; what has this got to do with the fact that at ~90 years of age, the cells that can't reproduce indefinitely, will degrade a persons ability to live?

Well considering that you have no changed your statement to avoid the same mistake that I originally pointed out, you must think it is relevant. Also, the problem is not simply that cells can no longer reproduce (as I have shown). There is a whole host of problems, from mutations, buildup of junk material inside and outside of cells, or even cells not dying off when they are supposed to (cell senescence) or reproducing way too much (cancer), in addition to things like telomere degradation. Your characterization of the cause of aging is an oversimplification at best and just wrong at worst.

This is the important context, which you seem to be happy to just completely brush aside.

It's not important. It's the simplified version of the story you might tell to a child to try to make them stop asking questions.

Re:The WHO

[sd4f]

You: "Mammals just can't fly" Me: "That's not true, bats can fly" You: "Quote me where I said all mammals can fly!"

That's supposed to be a quote! No wonder you need english lessons. If what you say is true, then you should be able to directly quote me. I like it how you've now had to add the just in there. Doesn't appear before, I wonder what changed your mind.

Clearly, you've just made ridiculous assumptions, but hold firm to them, and your feckless responses prove that. Like I'm not disagreeing with your facts, I'm just continually saying, like I've said in second response to you, that what you're saying is irrelevant (I said it was an aside at first, to be polite). You've just taken umbrage to what I was saying, and can't fathom that maybe I'm arguing something completely different.

The statement "Mammals just can't fly" is not 99.99% right because most mammals can't fly. It's 100% wrong. Any theory based on the premise that mammals categorically can not fly is going to be based on a false premise.

This is comical. I'm feeling sorry for you since you're sounding like Sheldon Cooper, except one who's not that bright. In any case, spare me the sophistry; by adding the just in the mix, I think you've recognised your error, you're just trying to save face, and it's clear that adding just proves that you recognise that I was speaking in a generalisation, while you decided to argue against that generalisation by taking it literally, hence why you couldn't (and didn't) quote me. It's clear that you have to distort the message and falsely claim that I stated it in absolutes, to maintain an argument.

Any further discussion is a complete waste of time, though I have much to waste, so I'm just going to declare poe's law, as I can't genuinely discern whether your extreme stupidity is intentional comedy or sincere retardation.

Re:The WHO

[TsuruchiBrian]

Even your ad hominem attacks are shit.

I agree, 100%

[NitzJaaron]

The thought of living to an age where I can no longer contribute anything of value to society, while simultaneously becoming a drain to those I love - both emotionally and financially - is not appealing to me at all.

Re:I agree, 100%

[Feyshtey]

Who determines when that time comes? Maybe it's 65. Maybe it's 55. Hell, for some it's in their 30's when they start getting fat and lazy.

Basically what this dickhead is saying is that if you're not valuable to someone for some tangible product, you should just die. He's probably also of the opinion that if you get Muscular Dystrophy in your 30's you should just check out. If you're born with Downs Syndrome, and will always have to be cared for you should just be aborted at birth (murdered). It's not like a severe mental handicap provides the ability to make a "rational" decision to take yourself out of everyone worries about you.

This philosophy relies on the premise that if you aren't providing money, or food, or talent in some field of productivity, that you are also unable to provide (and receive) love, joy and positive experiences. The philosophy is callous and inhuman, ironically coming from a man who will tell you all about how we should behave exactly in a specific way if it can "save just one life".

Emanuel is a dyed in the wool liberal progressive the likes of which Bernard Shaw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3lBdyFvPps) would be quite proud of.

Re:I agree, 100%

[Feyshtey]

This is the evil that Emanuel is describing from Bernard Shaw, a Fabian Socialist who defended the actions of the Nazi's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBRjU9P5eo

Re:I agree, 100%

[Jhon]

If you don't want to be a financial drain to those you love then you must try to make sure you have assets available for yourself should you require them at that age. Or, when the time comes you move to a state where whatever aid is available to you (SS, SSI, whatever) brings more bang for your buck.

Or ENJOY the fact that your family is taking care of YOU now. The whole circle of life thing.

My mother retired to AZ. She had zero money saved, got a mobile home for $500 in 'decent' condition and had $1700/mo coming in (pension + social security). That's QUITE a comfortable income in Arizona. She lived there until she was 82 (about 10 years) when she came back to be closer to family and entered an assisted living home. Her memory isn't great, can't controller her bladder that well, needs help taking her meds regularly and requires a walker, but she's still truckin'. Still smokes a half-pack a day and walks to the near by gas station store to pick up her cigs if we dont bring them to her.

Re:I agree, 100%

[fche]

Ezekiel is one of the architects of obamacare. Expect nothing inconsistent from him with the idea of getting the old (expensive) people to just go and die already; that's the only way that obamacare can survive (and even that's a long shot).

Re:I agree, 100%

[K. S. Kyosuke]

He's most certainly a liberal in the sense that he says that you should have the freedom to choose. That's a bad thing? Also, you call it "callous and inhuman", and indeed, deceiving oneself instead of admitting the truth is most certainly a very human trait, but that still won't fix some people's declining health. And yet, in the Great Famine of 1315, many elder people voluntarily starved themselves to death so that they wouldn't be a burden for the younger generation. Altruism also happens to be a human trait, luckily for us!

Re:I agree, 100%

[dywolf]

No. that is not what he said.
What he said was specifically about him and HIS plans and viewpoint.

He did not call for these same things to applied to any one else.
He did not call for people to be terminated at birth.

You are attributing a lot of FALSE statements to him.
You are not insightful.
You are a troll.

Re:I agree, 100%

[NitzJaaron]

It's a personal choice, and in no way would I advocate it for everyone. But I, personally, don't want to go from being a productive member of society to a drain on the emotional and financial resources of the ones I love.

I didn't come from a wealthy family, and I had to watch two of my grandparents spend the last decade or so of their lives dying of various conditions. My grandfather had dementia, and got a pretty raging infection from diabetes he didn't know he had until he was in his 70's. My grandmother worked until she couldn't work any longer, and died from cancer six years later.

My family did their best to take care of them both, put them in as nice a place as they could afford, and we went to see them at least once a week. It was tough on everyone, for a plethora of reasons. It was hard for my grandparents, who wanted to continue participating in family events, and wanted to feel useful. And yet they couldn't, and it truly hurt them.
So, I don't want that for myself, or my family. It doesn't matter how rich you are - when the mind and the body are beyond the point at which you can maintain some level of happiness, I don't see the point in living.

As I tell the folks at the poker table, "You play your hand, I'll play mine." If you want to live to be feeble and have no bowel or bladder control, and be a drain to your family in some way, by all means you go for it. Me? I'd rather end it.

Re:I agree, 100%

[Yakasha]

This is the evil that Emanuel is describing from Bernard Shaw, a Fabian Socialist who defended the actions of the Nazi's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Did you not read, or not understand Shaw's writings on Eugenics? Do you even understand the context of that clip? Since neither clip you posted mentions it (and in fact the first seems to distort it), and neither do you, one can best assume that either you don't understand the context, or are purposefully omitting the context because you know it hurts your comparison "argument".

Shit, did you even bother to read Emanuel's article? He very specifically states

Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

and

I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75.

[emphasis his]. He even specifically states that he will not try to end his life. Not suicide, not euthanasia, not doctor assisted suicide. Nothing. He will simply not attempt to prolong it any longer.

He's probably also of the opinion that if you get Muscular Dystrophy in your 30's you should just check out.

This is the gem of your failure. Emanuel specifically OPPOSES exactly that. See the quote above.

Even with your distorted view of Shaw, Emanuel's piece is nothing like Shaw's writings on eugenics. It is merely a statement of how he is choosing to face his own end of life, and an explanation of the logic he used to reach that decision. I consider your analysis & comparison a complete failure.

Re:I agree, 100%

[schlachter]

shit. many people reach that age at 18 yrs old.

Re:I agree, 100%

[trout007]

My thoughts exactly. They would like nothing more than to brainwash people that once they get old they are useless and resources shouldn't be spent on you. Better off for everyone if you just kill yourself, or at least don't get any medical care. Wait until your children start pressuring you into going quietly.

Re:I agree, 100%

[clarkkent09]

He may not have specifically called for euthanasia but its not hard to read between the lines.

"[old age] robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world." In the article he even has a chart showing and what age people contribute the most to society (apparently all contribution ends at 60!?).

During the debate about Obamacare he was proposing rationing of healthcare based on age and disability and that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others".

To me, "progressive" "liberals" like this guy, who think that the purpose of individuals is to serve the society rather than the other way around, are a living example of why collectivism is evil. It is not a long way from thinking like him to Gulag.

Re:I agree, 100%

[clarkkent09]

I thought liberals are about heavy regulation, not about the freedom to choose.

Re:I agree, 100%

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Liberal, a.: Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy."

So yes, it is about freedom to choose (which seems to be pleonasm to me - is freedom about anything else than choosing?). In general, I got the impression that political liberals are in favor of regulation mostly when lack of regulation turns the situation in that particular area into a libertarian hell (by not limiting freedom of others to limit your freedom). I'm quite sure that this doesn't apply to a person's decision about the continuation of his own life.

Re:I agree, 100%

[clarkkent09]

Ah I see, you are talking about collective "liberty", i.e everybody has to do what 51% of people decide, and I am talking about individual liberty.

Re:I agree, 100%

[nbauman]

He's most certainly a liberal in the sense that he says that you should have the freedom to choose. That's a bad thing?

When the Democratic party leadership decided against single payer, Ezekiel Emanuel was one of the lead hit men making the case against it (including a lot of falsehoods and misinformation), along with his brother Rahm, who provided the political muscle.

Thanks to the Emanuels, you have to buy Obamacare from your insurance company.

Here's what that means: If you have a chronic disease, like inflammatory bowel disease, you will have to pay $8,500 a year in total health care costs. In Canada, the comparable costs through taxes would be about $4,000 a year. And also, people tell me that they can't keep their doctors. One student with IBD was seeing a gastroenterologist at a major academic medical center. The plans under Obamacare would have forced her to see a neighborhood gastroenterologist who's willing to take Medicaid. That's a pretty important difference when you're taking biological modifier drugs like rituximab that kill people when they're given by a doctor who's not familiar with them.

Re:I agree, 100%

[hondo77]

I thought liberals are about heavy regulation, not about the freedom to choose.

You really need to shut off Fox News and detox.

Re:I agree, 100%

[hondo77]

He may not have specifically called for euthanasia but its not hard to read between the lines.

By "read between the lines" what you really mean is, "I'm now going to make shit up that serves my agenda."

Re:I agree, 100%

[TwoEyedJack]

Your value is defined by the net present value of the future taxes the actuarial models predict you will pay. Nice.

Re:I agree, 100%

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Actually, I was talking about individual freedoms.

Re:I agree, 100%

[dywolf]

hey look, the troll is back.

Re:I agree, 100%

[dywolf]

you're talking about anarchy.
it doesn't work too well.
it's been fairly well discredited by history.

it's why society has coalesced into civilizations, such as the one you're living in now, which coincidentally has quite a lot of individual liberty.
in fact, the primary negatives revolve around imposing your will on others.

ah, but you're one of those who never took a basic civics class and never learned the basics of civilization, or why and how we've gone beyond simple might makes right anarchy and feudalism.

Re:I agree, 100%

[Prien715]

You have no idea about Shaw do you? If you put together a bunch of Stephen Colbert quotes, it's clear that Colbert loves totalitarianism as well.

Shaw was advocated for such revolutionary ideas as equal rights for women and was against eugenics. "Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account" I guess you are one of those idiots?

His Life

[Anonymous Coward]

His choice. I for one intend to drink every bit of snake oil that I think will keep me alive a little longer, until such time that I decide I don’t want to live any more. George Carlin pretty much summed up my views on all this stuff with his "And don't be pulling any plugs on me either" bit.

Worried about tax dollars pointlessly keeping my mostly useless ass alive (yay for socialized medicine)... hell no. I’ve paid taxes most of my life, many of which have been wasted on stupid nonsense, they can waste a few on me.

I get it if people are in pain, or feel like they can no longer contribute anything, and sitting there watching TV all day just isn’t doing it for them. If you are tired of life, fine, I’m all for giving people the option. On the opposite end you’ve got my Grandfather who is well into his 80’s and just finished remodeling his bathroom, and my friend’s Grandmother who while physically is showing her age, can still hold her end of a conversation, enjoys spending time with people, plays cards, etc.

Only 5 years of retirement

[irrational_design]

If I'm lucky I'll be able to retire by 70. 50 years of work and then 5 years of retirement? That sucks.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[ceoyoyo]

Enjoy your life, don't wait for your retirement. I don't see an especially good chance of ever being able to retire. Plus there are a lot of things I want to do while I can comfortably walk for eight hours a day, see, hear and smell well, and take a hit or two.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[bws111]

Why does retirement have to equal boredom or not having people depend on you? There are loads of service organizations, charities, and other non-profits who are quite happy to have retirees volunteer. My parents have been retired about 10 years (now in their upper 70s) and get a lot of enjoyment out of volunteering.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[wisnoskij]

Most people get a lot less.
This guy is being pretty optimistic that not only will he even last to 75, but that he will be mostly functional at that point.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[wisnoskij]

No one said it has to, just in the world of averages 95% of the time retiring means starting to die. Many people, do not even make it past the first year. I believe a lot of the statistics point to 18 months life expectancy, in a lot of cases.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[Oligonicella]

If you think you have to wait for retirement for enjoyment in life you're doing it wrong. I spent fifteen years of my career using it to create, support and run a stunt show. Don't wait.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[bws111]

True, but is it actually 'retirement' that is causing people to die? First, many people retire because they are having health problems, so I don't think you can count them in the 'dead because retired' category. Second, retirement can be a big life change, and big life changes are stressful, and too much stress is not good for health.

Almost all 'retirement planning' focuses entirely on financial matters. There is very little done to prepare people for what their daily life will be. Couple that with the 'all old people are worthless drooling idiots who are a drain on society' ageism (such as that demonstrated by the author of this article), and you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Maybe if we spent a little more effort encouraging newly retired people to remain productive members of society, instead of the 'at 5PM on Sept 30th you became useless' mentality we have now that 18 month life expectancy would change for the better.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[schlachter]

shit. i hope to retire by 50. i don't hope to die by 51!

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Enjoy your life, don't wait for your retirement. I don't see an especially good chance of ever being able to retire.

Fortunately, I've been enjoying life all along.

As for being able to retire, I'm not sure that we will have a choice to not "retire". We've been seeing more and more "old" people being forced to "retire" over the last few decades. As time goes on, a smaller and smaller percentage of these will be able to find alternative work, not even minimum wage work, no matter how few hours per week.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[ceoyoyo]

Don't worry, that will change in a hurry when the boomers start going into nursing homes. There are lots of bedpans that are going to need emptying.

Re:Only 5 years of retirement

[LongearedBat]

My father died last year, just as he was retiring. On his deathbed he told me that over the years people had said to him "Why do you spend all your money on 4WD's and gadgets? You should invest it.". But, had he done so then he would have missed out on the long camping trips with my mother, travelling overseas, doing the things he wanted. So now he could "give Death the finger", as he put it. His only regret was to have missed out on spending time with his grand children teaching them botany, entomology, etc.

Before that he'd tell me to work hard so I could enjoy my life when I retire.

The lesson he realised then was what I often say: Enjoy what you have while you have it, because nothing lasts forever.
And even if you think things are bad now, they could be worse, and might be worse in the future. Even times of suffering can be looked back upon with the positive light that comes from the distance of time and greater life wisdom (often gained from those very times of suffering).

Quality, not quantity

[Crypto Cavedweller]

"I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them." Ian Fleming, author of James Bond

Re:Quality, not quantity

[Chas]

Pretty much this.

The points he addresses have nothing to do with age and everything to do with "quality of life".

So, if we could, somehow, manage to prolong life *AND* maintain quality of life, great!

Otherwise, yes, growing decrepit, feeble-witted, etc and wishing for an end is something people have realized for a long, long time now.

Like the myth of Tithonus

Re:Quality, not quantity

[JaredOfEuropa]

The stuff he scoffs at, exercise, mental puzzles, weird cocktails, have little to do with prolonging life and everything with improving the quality of life, or at least trying to. I wouldn't mind living to 90 in relatively good health, and if there's something I can do when I'm 70 to improve my chances, I'll be doing it.

I propose the Extreme test.

[gurps_npc]

Every year, past 70, take up a new extreme sport. One day you will simply forget to pull the parachute cord. Go out with a bang, doing something that will make the news "80 year old surfs Tsunami"

Re:I propose the Extreme test.

[Spy Handler]

Or for those who want to keep working and be productive:

If you are a liberal, do volunteer work saving lives in Ebola-infested areas or some other place with a humanitarian crisis in Africa or Middle East.

If you are a Republican, volunteer for an army tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. Yes being old could be a problem. However those powered exoskeletons could make you strong.

Re:I propose the Extreme test.

[ganjadude]

why assume that one or the other would not be willing or wanting to do the other you listed?

Re:I propose the Extreme test.

[k6mfw]

maybe not extreme sport but years ago when Villa Felice restaurant existed in Los Gatos, and they had live band to play ballroom dance music, there was a 90-something who would be out there for every dance with his wife (about same age). And was there every Saturday. He couldn't move fast and it seemed he was in some pain, his wife was even slower but he danced like, "The only way I'm leaving the dance floor is feet first!" One day, he didn't show up so he didn't quite leave the dance floor feet first but everyone regarded that's how he departed.

Re:I propose the Extreme test.

[KingOfBLASH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Read it. It's Awesome.

Re:I propose the Extreme test.

[Anubis IV]

My grandmother served as a volunteer at her local Salt Lake City hospital for about 30 years, starting around the age of 65. She also traveled the world, going on mystery vacations that took her everywhere from China to Peru to the France, and was doing that all the way into her 90s as well. She was able to live independently in her home the entire time, still was hosting get-togethers with her friends right up until the end, and still made it down into town a few days a week to get her hair done or do other errands. And since her house was paid for long ago, she could easily live off of my grandfather's Army pension, allowing her to be generous with her time and the money she got from her other retirement holdings.

She broke her leg when she was 101, and despite the doctors not thinking she'd manage to survive the surgery to repair it, she did so with flying colors and was doing well in recovery afterwards. It wasn't until a few weeks later that someone broke the news to her: she would never be able to walk unaided again, nor would she be able to live independently any longer. She passed away within two days. I firmly believe it was a case of losing the will to live.

All of which is to say, people can and do live active, fulfilling lives well past 75, and I see no reason to cut off life early if the life is still being lived well. Volunteering is a great suggestion. You get to be involved in improving other people's lives and can see them benefit from your efforts. But without something to motivate people or keep them moving, people tend to die quickly. I've seen it happen time and time again, as have most of us, I'd assume. And I'd hope that it's the case for me as well: when I stop being able to contribute, I don't want any extraordinary measures used to lengthen my life. I outright let my retirement advisor know that I didn't plan to be alive for long after I retired, since I plan to work late in life in one capacity or another, and when I can't work, I plan to keel over shortly thereafter.

Re:I propose the Extreme test.

[Anubis IV]

I'm well aware that blood clots are a common complication. Nonetheless, they usually manifest earlier than two months after the surgery (I misspoke when I said "a few weeks"), which is when she died, and there was no mention at the time of her death that a blood clot was the cause. As far as I'm aware, it was ruled to be simple heart failure. Besides which, I can think of plenty of other examples regarding people I once knew:

- There was the little old lady who used to do the gardening at a church I attended. Her daughter decided that even though nothing had changed, it was time for her mom to stop gardening, and so prevented her from leaving the house to do so. The little old lady died in her sleep within the month.

- There was the couple I knew who were adopted grandparents to my brother and I. The husband was a diabetic and eventually passed away in his 70s after numerous complications. His wife had been his primary caregiver for years. She died in her sleep shortly thereafter, despite having been in excellent health.

- There was a mother and son I knew who lived together. He was severely mentally handicapped, so she acted as his primary caregiver, despite being in her 80s (he was in his 50s). A car ran a red light and T-boned them as they were crossing an intersection one day. The son was killed instantly, while the mother was physically unharmed. She passed away in her sleep within the month.

Is this proof of anything? Absolutely not. But I've seen too many people stop doing whatever it is that gets them up in the morning, lose the spark in their eyes, and then take a nose-dive for me to consider it purely coincidental.

It really all depends

[dixonpete]

If you have good genes and have taken care of yourself 75 can be a no-brainer. Personally I'd prefer a wait and see approach and see how things pan out. My mother is a vibrant 80 yr old who's currently having a lot of fun trekking around the planet. Sometimes you get lucky.

Re:It really all depends

[Ol Olsoc]

If you have good genes and have taken care of yourself 75 can be a no-brainer.

Life called, and said it might have a surprise or two for you. My mother in law lived right, non drinker, non smoker, exercised regularly, ans spent the last ten years of her life in a nursing home, completely demented. She sort of was a "no brainer" at 75.

Re:It really all depends

[strikethree]

If you have good genes and have taken care of yourself 75 can be a no-brainer.

My body has been through the meat grinder. Starting out in poverty and having fucked up parents is not the start of a path towards a long and healthy life. Honestly, I am surprised that I am still alive. I am not entirely certain I will make it to 70. Yowsa.

Solution: Exoskeleton

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

I will be the most badass octogenarian ever! Take THAT! Punks. Now get off my lawn. http://singularityhub.com/2009...

Re:Solution: Exoskeleton

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's fine until the brats from next door hack into your exoskeleton and make you do the Gangnam routine for 48 hours straight.

But you can't know how long you will live.

[Last_Available_Usern]

To say you shouldn't work as hard at living longer because you don't want to live to 80+ is a bit off. For all you know, your body may require all that preventative effort just to reach 75. Not only that, when you start closing in on 75 you might find yourself feeling differently about the topic. Furthermore, the quality of life through advanced science and medicine may differ significantly from what it is now.

Right...

[ceoyoyo]

Because exercising, eating well and being mentally engaged don't help keep you healthy to an older age.

Re:Right...

[magarity]

Along this same line though is that since this guy is convinced 75 is his limit I bet his health starts falling off at 70 in order to make that come true. He has a good chance of convincing himself and becoming a self fullfilling prophesy.

Re:Right...

[ceoyoyo]

There's actually some decent research on that point. A surprising number of people die very close to the age they expect to, more than can be explained by genetics. The placebo effect is a powerful thing.

I'm convinced I'm immortal, so things might be interesting in forty or fifty years.

Re:Right...

[ceoyoyo]

From the summary:

"Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."

Omitting the fad stuff, exercise and eating well improve the length of time you will remain healthy. The quote makes it sound like taking care of yourself will just let you hang on by your fingernails for a little bit longer. The opposite is actually true. Exercise, diet and mental engagement in particular improve health and mental function in old age, not necessarily overall longevity.

If you want to be a healthy octogenarian, take care of yourself now. If you want to be frail and going in for your third bypass operation, don't.

Re:Right...

[bluefoxlucid]

The funny thing is mental exercise doesn't strengthen the brain. The brain is not a muscle; it doesn't become stronger with use.

People think I'm a genius. It took me forever to realize, of course, they're right. Of course I'm a genius. It all makes sense. I didn't put my brain on some kind of mind-treadmill to get this way; it just is.

Being a genius is all about technique. The brains of great memorizers like Dominic O'Brien or Ben Pridmore are exactly like the brains of the average human. The brains of genius thinkers are similarly a near-match for your average flaming dumbass. It's all technique.

Each time you interact with a piece of information, it becomes more fixed in your mind: the more you use English or Japanese, the better you get with assembling or interpreting sentences in those languages, even though you won't get better at other languages that way. When you study a new language, you steadily pick up habits conducive to learning new languages, internally and externally. When you study math, the mathematical formula become entrenched in your mind; new formula work on the same concepts, and thus are readily understood.

Mnemonics are a good place to start: with immediate access to piles of information comes immediate association with new information and new problems. Just as with math or a language, you strengthen your mind's grasp on mnemonic techniques each time you use them. Just as with developing habits to learn languages, you can develop mnemonic techniques like Method of Loci and Major System, or habitual study methods like SQ3R. Like any new habit--driving, a new sport, Go or the inferior Chess, novel writing--it will be exhausting at first, consuming analytic resources and activating the energy-hungry prefrontal cortex; with use, the habit is encoded in the energy-light basal ganglia, and becomes natural and easy.

By encoding these behaviors into your study habits, you train yourself to take in, make meaningful, categorize, organize, store, recall, and put to use new information rapidly and efficiently. The immense and exhausting effort of learning new things still happens, but it happens for a much shorter time, and at much reduced load. Because you remember more of what you're learning, it becomes more meaningful: whatever you just learned in the previous section is memorized more completely, and can be recalled to explain and give meaning to what you're learning in the current section, thus making both more memorable and strengthening their encoding in your brain.

The ability to quickly learn new things makes you smart, unlike normal, dumb people who can't learn shit. The ability to quickly recall what you know as related to what you want to accomplish is the ability to quickly solve problems, which also makes you smart. Apply your knowledge effectively and you stand out from all others. You can even compare IQ tests with every abstract and logical problem you've ever seen, applying familiar reasoning to familiar problems, and familiar analysis to unfamiliar problems, scoring higher on these tests than you otherwise would--and then you can pass a MENSA exam, and have a framed placard stating you're a certified genius.

Memory capacity, and all implied by it, don't decrease with age. Consider that as a final point: bluntly playing the same mind games (e.g. sudoku) won't keep you smart; but your brain won't decay unless taken by serious disease.

Re:Right...

[bluefoxlucid]

Mental engagement in particular

Somewhat. It has to do with memory, though; the brain is not a muscle, and working it does not keep it healthy. Each time you remember something, however, it does become more linked and thus more accessible; this is exactly as true at age 8 as at age 80, barring dementia or other mental disease related to the structure of the brain failing.

Re:Right...

[bluefoxlucid]

Holt Fasner alert.

Re:Right...

[Oligonicella]

Yes it does. It just doesn't keep you at thirty.

Re:Right...

[quantaman]

From the summary:

"Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."

Omitting the fad stuff, exercise and eating well improve the length of time you will remain healthy. The quote makes it sound like taking care of yourself will just let you hang on by your fingernails for a little bit longer. The opposite is actually true. Exercise, diet and mental engagement in particular improve health and mental function in old age, not necessarily overall longevity.

If you want to be a healthy octogenarian, take care of yourself now. If you want to be frail and going in for your third bypass operation, don't.

Exactly. If you want to discourage anything it's the heavy health care and heroic end of life measures used to slightly prolong low quality life. But he seems to be specifically talking about low cost measures designed to prolong high quality life. If you want a point to stop choose the point when quality of life drops off drastically. And if you want a simple cut-off (like his 75 number) choose something like being unable to live independently, or being unable to engage in topical conversation (notwithstanding disabled people).

I think a lot of people do pretty well until the last year or two when things go downhill rapidly, no point moving that last year forward but you may want to shorten its duration.

Re:Right...

[HornWumpus]

Nobody who reads your posts thinks you are a genius!

Re:Right...

[bluefoxlucid]

That's because I'm dumping factual discourse not massaged to be highly politicized and readily digestible. I'm not Winston Churchill, and don't care to soften or manipulate the text.

Re:Right...

[LQ]

I love the quote from Kingsley Amis: “No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home at Weston-super-Mare”

Re:Right...

[spiralx]

You are very wrong. Additionally, being told you are smart leads to under-performance in children.

Re:Right...

[bluefoxlucid]

In the late 1800s, William James, often referred to as the father of American psychology, tested whether he could improve his memory by exercising it. He memorized some of Victor Hugo's works, and then practiced memorizing Milton for 38 days. After this practice, he memorized more form hugo, and found that he actually memorized a bit slower than he had previously; he reported similar results for several other people who tried the same task.

Similarly, twelve-year-old girls practiced memorizing poetry, scientific formulas, and geographical distances for 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week, for 6 weeks. The practice did not result in any improvement for their ability to memorize.

A more recent study found that after practicing several hours a week for 20 months, a college student was able to increase his short-term memory span for digits from 7 to 80. However, he showed no increased ability in other kinds of memory tasks, including short-term memory for letters or words: He improved his memory for digits because he had learned to apply a mnemonic technique to the digits, not because of any actual increase in the capacity of his short-term memory.

Note: Above was one giant paragraph; I corrected it. Continues in new paragraph as below.

There is no substantial evidence that practice alone makes a significant difference in improving memory. It is true that practicing memorizing can help improve memory, but what you *do* during practice is more important than the *amount* of practice. One classic study (discussed in chapter 6) found that 3 hours of practicing memorizing did not improve long-term memory, but that 3 hours of practice using certain techniques did improve long-term memory.

--Kenneth L. Higbee, Ph.D., "Your Memory: How It Works and How To Improve It".

The brain is not a muscle. That is an urban myth, along with the myth that you use only 10% of your brain (or 1%, or 4%, or 20%, or whatever bullshit number you've heard throughout your life).

Every memory forms neurological links in the brain. It's associative. Stronger associations are easier to grasp at than weaker associations: your brain will attach pancakes to a recipe for pancakes if you cook pancakes a lot, as well as to tastes and smells and visual appearance; but it may attach pickled garlic to an idea, and to the idea of garlic and pickling, attached to vinegar, rather than directly to tastes and smells and opinions and familiar visual imagery and a recipe (process, materials) for pickling garlic.

More recent and more familiar memories tend to associate more with your current, every-day life. When your life changes--which is all the time--those associations drop away. Ties back to them are maintained by the strong memory of your extended long-term recall. As the years pass, those things become mixed around, and eventually the links are hard to locate. That's why you forget things: they're memorable because they're meaningful, and because the thing that makes them meaningful is familiar--meaningful itself.

Your brain doesn't actually get stronger by doing mental bench-presses. You just solidify the information you're working with, or develop implicit mnemonics techniques (people learn to chunk double-digit numbers or make them meaningful, etc.), or tie a bunch of stuff together when working in the same domain. It's like a hard drive that accesses things faster and more reliably when there's more things on it, and when those things are similar--or like a node database.

Re:Right...

[spiralx]

That's research from 130 years ago, and solely about rote memorisation. I'm talking about things such as this, and more general research into neuronal development.

Re:Right...

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually the book was from 1988, and uses a huge set of research.

Also, rote memorization was the research topic as such because it seeks to push your brain's memory functions directly, rather than train techniques. That's why research showing improvement has gone on to discover subjects which improved had developed memory systems, not made their brains stronger by flexing them repeatedly.

Finally, let's excerpt from your paper:

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: 10-session group training for memory (verbal episodic memory; n=711), or reasoning (ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern; n=705), or speed of processing (visual search and identification; n=712); or a no-contact control group (n=704). For the 3 treatment groups, 4-session booster training was offered to a 60% random sample 11 months later.

So far, so good.

Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering word lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories. Participants received instruction in a strategy or mnemonic rule, exercises, individual and group feedback on performance, and a practice test. For example, participants were instructed how to organize word lists into meaningful categories and to form visual images and mental associations to recall words and texts. The exercises involved laboratory like memory tasks (eg, recalling a list of nouns, recalling a paragraph), as well as memory tasks related to cognitive activities of everyday life (eg, recalling a shopping list, recalling the details of a prescription label).

The memory training participants were taught new techniques. This is skill, not brute force. If you did push-ups exactly the same way, you'd get bigger muscles; but this is teaching people to do those push-ups by moving their hands to a correct position which requires less effort and more efficiently lifts the body.

Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Such problems involve identifying the pattern in a letter or number series or understanding the pattern in an everyday activity such as prescription drug dosing or travel schedules. Participants were taught strategies to identify a pattern and were given an opportunity to practice the strategies in both individual and group exercises. The exercises involved abstract reasoning tasks (eg, letter series) as well as reasoning problems related to activities of daily living.

Reasoning training was based on teaching techniques to analyze and approach problems. Again, technique. This is like learning about Kepner-Tregoe problem analysis.

Speed-of-processing training focused on visual search skills and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided-attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speed tasks on a computer. Task difficulty was manipulated by decreasing the duration of the stimuli, adding either visual or auditory distraction, increasing the number of tasks to be performed concurrently, or presenting targets over a wider spatial expanse. Difficulty was increased each time a participant achieved criterion performance on a particular task.

K. Anders Ericsson explains something called the "OK Plateau". Most people learn initially by cognitive effort, and then internalize that into autonomous task: it moves from activating the prefrontal cortex to activating the basal ganglia. At a point, people subconsciously decide they're doing good enough, and cease improving.

Ericsson outlines three strategies experts use. Deliberate focus brings the task into cognitive recognition; goal-oriented behavior demands improvement; and immediate feedback points out current performance so the experts can analyze and adjust

Rembered vibrantly would be painful

[holophrastic]

Certainly I won't argue with the very-old being a drain on society reasoning. To some extent it can certainly be true -- e.g. workforce, taxes, economy. Whether or not that is countered in terms of wisdom, historical knowledge, and otherwise unobtainable perspective is a subjective matter.

I do, however, take umbrage with the idea that remembering someone as "vibrant and engaged" is a good thing. Everyone that I know who's died "vibrant and engaged" has been the result of some crime or major illness, and has left friends and family distrought to the point of needing some amount of psychological therapy to get over the loss, sudden or otherwise.

The idea of a very gradual decline, such that finally losing one's grandfather comes when one's opinion of that grandfather is at least somewhat "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" is a comfort. It makes the loss easier, understandable, and acceptable.

Moreover, I'm 35 now. I'm not feeble, but I'm not fit. I'm not inefectual, but I'm lazy. I'm not pathetic, but, well, to some I am. I'm a pretty relaxed, happy guy, with no problems and no ambition and a lot of personal hobbies. If I cared to be seen as "vibrant and engaged", I wouldn't be content as I am today. That would be horrible. I don't live for the memory of others; I live for my own joy of the day.

Re:Rembered vibrantly would be painful

[vux984]

The idea of a very gradual decline, such that finally losing one's grandfather comes when one's opinion of that grandfather is at least somewhat "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" is a comfort. It makes the loss easier, understandable, and acceptable.

Think about what you just said from the perspective of the person who has to live out those years.

Do you think they all don't know they are "feeble, ineffectual, and pathetic"? Do you think they enjoy that feeling? How many years should they have to live where they can't eat solid food, need someone else to change their diapers and bathe them, bereft of any dignity, suffering alternating panic and embarrassment when realize they've forgotten their daughter's name, or realize they can't remember where the coffee shop they visit every morning is located, living alone, or perhaps with strangers who take care of them but don't really care about them. Terrified that they'll wake up and not know their own childs face, while their friends die around them.

How long should they live like that and just how bad should it get for them just so you can feel less distressed when they die?

Sure in a perfect world, you get old, you slow down, you have tea with your friends, and play cards, your son comes to visit you share a simple meal, you say your feeling tired tell them you love them, go to bed, and pass away in your sleep.

Most of us don't get that death. Some us go a bit before our time and its a tragic loss.

But many of us live beyond our time, taken down for example, by age onset diabetes, bedridden, with our feet amputated, blind, deaf and alone, and its a "tragic life". And our death comes as a relief to our loved ones.

If I can't have the perfect death, I would choose the tragic quick one as preferable over living for years in a prolonged hell as my final chapter.

Ageing can be seen as a treatable disease.

[Zeio]

I don't think there are many dreams of futures without some form of life extension.

Some wax poetic and philosophic about how life extension is like the One Ring stretching out Bilbo and Gollum, but with a properly enlightened society with strong family ties multiple generations co-habiting could provide an awesome view of the past, living history, to help teach the next generation.

I see ageing as a currently inescapable fact of life. I also know there are 400 year old clams. I think we should attempt to treat ageing as a disease, who that each life is valuable and worth saving and cherish the time the elders spend with the young to bring a different (but sometimes wrong and thought provoking) perspective.

There was an episode of TNG (Half a Life) where people who got to a certain age killed themselves. I was strongly in favor of letting the scientist live, but the show used the family and social norms and mores to make this a hard show to call black and white on.

So let's think to do the opposite of Logan's Run. Lets dream big and not run to the grave like its a cradle.

Re:Ageing can be seen as a treatable disease.

[Zeio]

Identify what resources are limited and change the culture and work culture to use less of them.

Its hard to argue against longer lives when nearly everyone from age 21-62 drives a car to work to get printed fiat monopoly money to feed themselves in the age where nearly all the work is transitioning to knowledge can be done from home/telecommute/virtual teams.

Dream big, its OK. Maybe if life was possibly longer people would take more time making big decisions and the rat race would slow down. I think there would be less inter-generational low/middle class reset where every generation is in a rat race to build from zero.

I think Star Trek type futures are possible for Earth, and we dont need to install lifeclocks to get there. We should also just consider valuing life and not simply pleasurable existence.

Re:Ageing can be seen as a treatable disease.

[tlambert]

Global warming was caused by a simple thing: too damned many people consuming energy on this rock, and it gets worse every year.

I thought the cause was our unwillingness to reengineer the orbit of Earth to be a teensy bit further out. IT's not like we aren't going to have to do that anyway, as soon as the solar expansion phase starts in a bit...

Re:Ageing can be seen as a treatable disease.

[swb]

I like the multigenerational family setup, although it could have some annoyances (will I really have to listen to my dad's ideas on how I am supposed to mow the fucking lawn forever?).

The biggest problem is that employers don't want to give you time to manage the lives of your children, let alone elderly parents.

Re:Ageing can be seen as a treatable disease.

[strikethree]

I don't think there are many dreams of futures without some form of life extension.

Absolutely NOT. People need to die. If I found the secret to eternal life, I would destroy it immediately and never tell anyone.

Nothing would ever change. We would end up with a single person on top of everyone else stamping down on their faces forever. I would rather die than allow such people to live.

Let's Godwin this now: Could you imagine if Pol Pot or Stalin were still alive and in charge?

So much for retirement...

[__aaclcg7560]

Despite smoking 30 years and not smoking for 30 years, my father died six weeks after his 75th birthday. He lived a fairly active life until the last few months of his life when he started taking morphine for his throat cancer. He retired on his 60th birthday since most of his brothers died before their 65th birthday. He did pretty well with his pension and social security benefits.

Speak for yourself, Mr. Emanuel

[c0d3g33k]

You lost me when you assigned an arbitrary number as your cutoff rather than defining the cutoff on reasonably definable measures of physical and mental health. I exercise, eat healthy, avoid smoking and drugs etc. because these activities provide *measurable* benefits to my health based on measurements made by my doctor. Not to mention that I feel better.

Does the fact that I do things that measurably improve my health and prolong my life as long as possible mean I am "obsessed"? Does "I don't smoke, overeat, take drugs or engage in dangerous life-threatening activities (extreme sports, for example)" mean I am obsessed? I find it completely rational, and my insurance company sure loves it because I'm a low risk according to their actuarial tables. Because science.

If I take your advice, I should just sit around and passively wait to die after reaching a certain age rather than doing things that measurably increase my ability to be "vibrant and engaged". Sorry, but no thanks. Save me a place when I get to the Pearly Gates - I might be a little late to the party. And when I get there, we're going to blow the roof off of that sucker.

Re:Speak for yourself, Mr. Emanuel

[c0d3g33k]

I have a wife who is a board member for the local hospice, so I get to accompany her to a lot of functions. Many of the board members are approaching or have passed the age of 70 and still seem to be going strong. Note I said "board members" - those who are managing the entire affair (quite effectively from what I can gather), not those in need of care. Your friend may have experienced some selection bias because of his work. That doesn't mean his observations apply to everyone. In fact I'm sure they don't.

Re:Speak for yourself, Mr. Emanuel

[JeffAtl]

Your friend is suffering from selection bias. A hospice is hardly a representative sample.

Re:Speak for yourself, Mr. Emanuel

[Cro Magnon]

I have a friend who has worked in Hospice for the last seven years.

According to him, 100% of people get dementia as they age past 70.

We're really good at keeping our bodies alive, but have very little science on what keeps our brains functioning.

I think enough people in our generation have a story about a grandparent who lived for years in a terrifying state of confused, blurry existence.

Choosing for yourself "I never want that to happen to me, personally", seems like an allowable thing.

If you've experienced that and still want to spend a decade drooling in a wheelchair pointed at a TV, good for you, because that will be the default choice for a long time.

My grandparents lived into their 70s. Their minds remained sharp even when not much else was right. My mom's 80, and still sharp, mentally AND physically. My aunt's 95, and until a recent stroke, remained mentally sharp.

Re:Speak for yourself, Mr. Emanuel

[gnupun]

You lost me when you assigned an arbitrary number as your cutoff rather than defining the cutoff on reasonably definable measures of physical and mental health.

It's not arbitrary if you think about it. It's the age when people are least productive since they have been retired for 5-7 years and their health care costs are starting to rise, by a huge margin, statistically speaking. Mr. Bio-ethicist does not want to waste public healthcare funds to care for these people -- he wishes they were dead instead, or worse, no longer covered by state healthcare plans.

Re:Speak for yourself, Mr. Emanuel

[arobatino]

You lost me when you assigned an arbitrary number as your cutoff rather than defining the cutoff on reasonably definable measures of physical and mental health.

Yes. Not only that, from the article:

As for the two policy implications, one relates to using life expectancy as a measure of the quality of health care. Japan has the third-highest life expectancy, at 84.4 years (behind Monaco and Macau), while the United States is a disappointing No. 42, at 79.5 years. But we should not care about catching up with—or measure ourselves against—Japan. Once a country has a life expectancy past 75 for both men and women, this measure should be ignored. (The one exception is increasing the life expectancy of some subgroups, such as black males, who have a life expectancy of just 72.1 years. That is dreadful, and should be a major focus of attention.)

Not only did he pick an arbitrary number, but he believes it should be used as public policy.

Re:Speak for yourself, Mr. Emanuel

[Rich0]

You lost me when you assigned an arbitrary number as your cutoff rather than defining the cutoff on reasonably definable measures of physical and mental health.

++

Also, what law of physics dictates that we can only extend life and not vigor? For all we know there will be breakthroughs that make us as lucide at the age of 300 as we are at the age of 30. It may not happen for us, but the complexity of the human body and mind are finite, so I think is just a matter of time.

Re:I knew it! Death Panels ahoy!

[amiga3D]

Logan's Run.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

ask not for whom the bell doesn't chime

[epine]

Yeah, if he's stuck in a state of decline, he can still contribute.

I guess you don't have any grandparents who live alone, but can no longer reliably identify their own children. My wife's grandmother recently "celebrated" her ninetieth birthday (I don't use scare quotes lightly). All her "loved ones" showed up. She spent the entire day looking like a four-year-old lost in a giant shopping mall. She didn't know who she was, who anyone else was, where she was (with all the people around, she couldn't identify the house she had lived in since 1950). Out of compassion, the family soon arranged a quiet room, so that she could "contribute" to the celebration by sitting alone in a nearby room.

You are so deep into denial about the reality of aging, I had to pull out triple scare quotes. If you still don't get it, I'm done. I'll just have to say "I've got nothing" and leave to you to your own date with destiny. Enjoy it, if you can.

Re: ask not for whom the bell doesn't chime

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct, but only because when my grandparents got to that point we didn't leave them cast out to be alone except during special occasions.

Re:ask not for whom the bell doesn't chime

[Mr. Slippery]

I guess you don't have any grandparents who live alone, but can no longer reliably identify their own children....You are so deep into denial about the reality of aging

The "reality of aging" does include old people completely destroyed by aging. And we need to get serious about dealing with that, letting people check out when their life ain't no more fun.

But that reality also includes 90-something karate masters who are still practicing.

The "functional limitations" of which the author speaks can, to some degree, be mitigated by lifestyle. So can the supposed "lack of creativity" -- the problem isn't aging, it's stale ideas. Learn something new. Change fields.

My maternal grandfather was still quite aware, oriented, and active in his church at 90. And the heart disease that ultimately did him in could quite likely have been partially prevented or reversed with better lifestyle habits. My paternal grandfather was a bit short of his 79th birthday when complications from coronary bypass surgery (again, largely preventable) did him in. He never really recovered, emotionally, from the loss of his wife (could have used better social support, more community connections), but he was in no way crippled or suffering from dementia in his final years.

So given the example of my grandparents, with good dietary and exercise habits, good social connections, and a little medical help I can hope to get into my 80s with my brains mostly intact. (If we don't completely fsck up the planet, and if we make a few medical breakthroughs, with a little luck I hope to see the dawn of the 22nd century -- I'll only have to reach 131 to do that.)

Of course, I could also get run over by a bus this afternoon, or diagnosed with some particularly nasty cancer next month. One never knows.

Re: ask not for whom the bell doesn't chime

[Ol Olsoc]

including my grandpa who is 87. Still sharp. Still drives and golfs 5 times a week and qorks out everyday.

Did you mean he Twerks out every day?

Re: ask not for whom the bell doesn't chime

[Anonymous Coward]

Most lives are "no fun" way earlier. Let's see, 25 years old, no job perspectives, deep in debt, no money to get elsewhere or do anything. A lot of young people could do with a clean way out.

Re:ask not for whom the bell doesn't chime

[dcw3]

I feel for you, having had to deal with precisely the same. But semantically, what does it mean to be "in a state of decline". At nearly 56, I'm in a state of decline, but nowhere near being unable to contribute. Some cases are clear, others not so much. As we all edge nearer to death, it's not always clear where the turning point is.

Bah

[Charliemopps]

I hate fatalism. My goal is to live forever. I'll go out kicking and screaming every bionic body part I can get.

Watch this: https://www.ted.com/talks/aubr...

You can all die if you want, leave me out of it.

Re:Bah

[Charliemopps]

You didn't watch the video... clearly. He refutes all of your rather mundane arguments with ease. Everything you said, without a doubt is fatalism. You say you're accepting reality. You're not. You're accepting things as they are now, and refusing to believe things could change.

Death is not inevitable. It's just an, as of yet, unsolved problem. If I were to tell you a meteor was heading towards earth, and was scheduled to hit us, killing everyone alive in 100yrs, would you say "Well, we've never stopped a meteor before, we'd better just accept it!"?? Of course not... but that's what we're saying. In 100yrs everyone alive today WILL be killed... not by a meteor, but by aging. For a hell of a lot less money than it would take to stop a celestial object, we could stop aging. So lets stop burring our heads in the sand and take care o fit. The problem of aging will be solved, and not too far off in the future. Likely it will be too late for us, but not for our children or our grandchildren. So lets do it.

Screw this viewpoint

[Ambassador Kosh]

We have isolated proteins that regenerate heart tissue, we know some of the proteins we need to make to clean up the plaque that causes alzheimers and we ever have cures for many other diseases. The biggest problem we have is one of production since some of these proteins are just very hard to make. I have made some advances in the field that will save a few tens of thousands of people ever year right now and I am starting more advanced education to help save millions.

I don't like the idea of living with a failing body but that choice is only temporary. There is really no reason we can't keep you in near perfect shape until an accident gets you. We are also getting better at neural interfacing. I full expect to rid myself of all biological components except my brain and put it in a robot body until we develop the technology to upgrade the brain also.

There are too many interesting problems in the world to want to die.

I understand, but FTS

[RedLeg]

I have no desire to be a veggie, to feel my mental faculties drain away from me as I age. I can imagine nothing worse.

On the other hand, 75 is an arbitrary number. I'm 53, and will match wits with any of you. Both sides of my family have had folks live past 100, the most noteworthy being the oldest living graduate of the US Military academy. I will tell you that in his last days, he enjoyed playing poker one night of the week, drinking bourbon and branch, and hosting a weekly bridge game, all for gentlemen's stakes. I would not EVER have put money on the table and played against him, as he was sharp as a tack until the day that he died.

He, and the other members of his generation, lived to their 90s and beyond without the benefits of our modern understanding of health.

I fully expect, and am planning to enjoy my 100s.

75? Pfthhh!

-Red

Re:I understand, but FTS

[Crypto Cavedweller]

And really, congratulations to them and to you for that genetic legacy. On the other hand, I don't know of a male relative on my father's side that made it to 70. Dad dropped within 5 years of early retirement. And watching the agonizing, emasculating way that death took him told me (a) don't wait until too late to retire, and (b) don't fight for that last extra year if it's going to be the most painful, unproductive year of your life. I've had a great life, but I'm only going to keep clinging to it while it's a life worth living. Could be 65, could be 85, but there will be a point when the advantages of keeping this body moving through the days do not outweigh the disadvantages.

Re:I understand, but FTS

[jdschulteis]

On the other hand, 75 is an arbitrary number. I'm 53, and will match wits with any of you.

OK, but I am not falling for that iocaine trick.

Not Everyone is Successful

[Stormy Dragon]

We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic

Not everyone is a director level excutive at a major organization. For a huge chunk of the population, feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic is basically their entire life. If that life isn't worth living, then probably most lives aren't worth living.

Re:Not Everyone is Successful

[Stormy Dragon]

What makes you think I don't consider myself one of the "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" already?

Deprogram the Self Image of Aging

[nightcats]

Seems like this guy has some work to do on the self-image of the old man. But I've already registered my ideas about all that online.

American Issue

[JimSadler]

The only problem with being 70 is attracting pretty 16 year old girls to my bed. If I lived in Thailand it would not be an issue but in the US those 16 years olds just reject little old men. They are just not right.

The good doctor was born in 1957

[sdguero]

Lets see what he does in 2032.

Re:The good doctor was born in 1957

[bill_mcgonigle]

Lets see what he does in 2032.

Right. Everybody I know cares about saving the planet from global warming until I ask them if they've started taking cold showers. Nobody needs a hot shower - they're actually quite unnatural and bad for your skin too. Yet, I've not once gotten an affirmative answer (stick a RADAR gun on how fast they can change the subject!)

We need to stop ascribing any virtue whatsoever to hypocrites who only want other people to sacrifice (and actually call them out on their ill behavior - it's harmful in aggregate).

A friend of mine in his 80's

[alanw]

http://oldrunningfox.blogspot....

enough said.

Re:A friend of mine in his 80's

[CrimsonAvenger]

Just so.

I'm hoping to be him in 30 years....

So misguided

[codeAlDente]

He seems to be arguing that diet and exercise do not improve quality of life before 75. I have news for this arrogant egghead who is obviously spoiled by his own good health: many of us NEED to focus on these things to maintain a decent quality of life before 75. It's not some silly obsession to cheat death. We must do this precisely because the modern sick-care system sustains the cushy status of bioethics "experts" who do very little to rein in the food and pharmaceutical companies who are responsible for the proliferation of widespread, chronic diseases such as diabetes, especially among the poor. This system fails those of use who are cannot adapt to some part of the modern industrial food and chemical complex. We're on our own, there are a lot of us, and obsessing about these things has been the only way we've been able to get our health on track. So instead of belittling the health-conscious, how about calling out public schools and TV advertisers that flood kids' minds and bodies with processed junk snacks? How is this different than passing out crack?? Why would anyone believe that poor diet and lack of exercise will have no effect until age 75, aside from an egocentric lack of personal experience? What kind of fantasy world is this guy living in?

Ask him about his opinion when he is 74

[jellomizer]

We look with pity at the elderly.
It is because when we are a kid and are traumatized by the fact that we will die.
We get older, we get gray hair, then we will die.
As a kid when we get that idea it puts us into shock and really scares us. While we learn to deal with it, the initial fear is still there.

Wanting to die young seems more comforting as you won't see it coming.
 

Re:Ask him about his opinion when he is 74

[sunking2]

While you're at it, ask the person who at 40 is an atheist what his beliefs are. I'm not saying they all convert back when looking over the abyss, but a fairly decent number do.

Re:Sammy Hagar

[amiga3D]

I never could. I thanked God when they did away with that 55MPH crap. So many tickets only a tour in Europe kept me from losing my license.

Re:people are very different at the same age

[__aaclcg7560]

I know a man who is 44, weighs I'm sure over 350 lbs, and spends all his time on his couch eating junk food and watching TV. He struggles to walk across a boxbox store without tiring.

I'm 45 and weigh 350 pounds. I eat a low-carb diet, haven't watched TV in 20 years and don't even own a couch. I know younger, skinner people who can't keep up with me when I'm on a power walk. Age and weight is irrelevant, it's all about motivation to live.

The worst part

[whereiswaldo]

The worst part about super long lifetimes will be the old thinking that comes along with it. When old people die, it makes way for new people and new thinking. Imagine some of the cronies in public office living to 150 years old.

Re:The worst part

[danlip]

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck
Social issues do too. Support for gay marriage breaks very much along generational lines, as did segregation and just about every social issue ever.

By 75 does he mean 750?

[melchoir55]

I feel kind of frustrated when I see humans say things like "75 is a pretty good age to go". Really? Why not 60? Or 50? Or 40? We shouldn't be aiming to die when at some arbitrary count of how many times the earth has spun around the sun. We should be aiming to make life worth living for people at any age, and we should be aiming to eliminate this pointless "aging" business entirely.

My great grandmother is 104. She plays board games with her friends, takes walks with them, and is a sharp-witted lady (pretty sure she has tried to cheat while playing cards with me). She her life have ended 30 years ago? No way! Our society has the resources for people of every age to live a fulfilling life. Yeah, most people deteriorate before 104... but so what? Some people deteriorate before they turn 20.

Get over being afraid of old people. They are people, they're just different from you.

Why put a date on it? That's just dumb

[neminem]

If I'm 90 and still with it mentally and physically, as I certainly would *like* to be, please don't kill me.

On the other hand, if I get into a terrible car crash tomorrow on the way to work, despite being quite young, if I'm in severe pain, unlikely to ever not be in severe pain, and basically crippled to the point where I can't do anything, please do kill me.

I don't see where age (*directly*) has anything to do with it. Obviously the chances of your life sucking too badly for one reason or another go up with age, but that's only on average.

I *hope* to live to 100+, taking full advantage of my retirement for as long as possible, and dying without ever suffering from dementia or anything else enjoyment-of-life-ending.

Brain in a jar!

[Scottingham]

Personally, I'd like to survive long enough to be able to extract my brain and place it into a self-contained support system. It'd of course have to have a substantial sensory input/output system to allow me to interact with my 'surroundings' ie a networked virtualized world. I think this is the only realistic way to 'download' your consciousness to a machine. The brain is simply too complex to abstract to a computer...why not just preserve and support the brain itself? It'd solve all the strange philosophical problems of consciousness transfer and whatnot.

There's nothing requiring breaking the laws of physics for this to work. Obviously it is technologically quite a ways away from today. Given that we're accelerating our technology at an exponential rate, I don't think it is totally out of the realm of possibility that it could be available within the next 50-70 years. It'd certainly cut down on energy/space requirements for me (and possibly billions others), and also allow me to 'live forever'...kinda.

Re:I knew it! Death Panels ahoy!

[LesPeters]

ST:TNG - Half a Life. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt07... [imdb.com]

Personally,

[cwest]

I hope to die at 69.

What would

[Grisstle]

Patrick Stewart say to this? He'll be 75 next July.

Re:What would

[bluefoxlucid]

He would say Lwoxana please stop crying.

Shhhhh!

[tlambert]

why assume that one or the other would not be willing or wanting to do the other you listed?

Shhhhh! Quit challenging his political stereotypes! People over 75 get cranky when you do that...

Jimmy Said it well

[Gim Tom]

I watched both of my parents succumb due to Alzheimer's and if you have seen that disease up close and personal like I have you really don't want to go there. I really didn't expect to live as long as I have. That may be something common among those of us that grew up in the "duck and cover" generation and then took that year in South East Asia back during that unpleasantness. There is a song by Jimmy Buffett that sort of says it all to me -- the title is Pacing The Cage.

Re:Jimmy Said it well

[bws111]

Bruce Cockburn (Jimmy covered it).

Re:A public service announcement from George Orwel

[Feyshtey]

Thank you grammar police.

From Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dyed-in-the-wool):

The expression "dyed in the wool" refers to a state of steadfastness, especially with respect to one's political, religious or social beliefs. The expression comes from the fact that fabric can be dyed in a number of ways. The woven fabric may be dyed after it is complete, or the threads may be dyed before they are woven. When a color is "dyed in the wool," the wool itself is dyed before being spun into threads, so the colour is least likely to fade or change. (Dyes: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases. Icon Group International. 2008, p. 344.)"

Ezekiel (like his brother, the mayor of Chicago) is from a family with a history of liberal political activism. In a very direct way he was raised with liberal, and arguably progressive leanings. His formative years (the dying of his wool) developed the philosophies he now holds as a mature adult. He is the product of the dyed wool being utilized to create a product, as opposed to raw wool being used to create a thing that is later dyed.

The application of that phrase is precisely correct.

He won't last that long.

[Overzeetop]

I've already selected the sword I will use to separate his head from his body.

There can be only one

Death Panel

[jimwelch]

another "Death Panel" justification.

My authority on this is Youngman

[Latent Heat]

Why will Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel die before his wife does . . . because he wants to!

Just what they want!

[sunking2]

Coming from a government official this is the ultimate in government social engineering to get rid of those who are no longer contributing as much as they are taking. This is a pretty nicely veiled attempt though, will give them that.

In other news, 640k of memory is plenty and rocker

[Hercules Peanut]

It would be interesting to talk to this individual as they hit heir 74th birthday and see if they felt the same way if we didn't already know they would be desperately clinging to life like get rest of us. Perceptions have a way of changing as we get older. Of course science and technology might have a teeny impact as well.

Death. The new retirement.

[geekmux]

This debt-riddled generation is still trying to figure out how they can die at 75 when they can't afford to even retire until they're 80.

70 is good for me

[sentiblue]

I think living 60 good years is worth a lifetime... then maybe another 10 in retirement to enjoy the "not working" time...

As people age beyond 65... they start having health/personality issues and I dont think I will be any different...

For me, living on is just a burden for my descendants and for this society... At the age of 70... a peaceful ending is probably the most optimal time...

This is only my personal opinion of course... :)

Re:70 is good for me

[BarbaraHudson]

People tend to die when they retire.

Their universe also tends to shrink, providing less stimulation.

Me, I want to be doing interesting stuff forever, because even forever is too short when there's something new to discover every day, just by taking a walk and observing the world at your feet. There's so much beauty out there free for the taking, and we won't take half an hour a day to re-discover it.

Re:70 is good for me

[ortiooo]

Very true. But! what if you're only 30 or so and already tired of action, prefer a small world of the things you really know well - is it time to die? Or can it be just a kind of phychological illness that can be cured? I've seen the cases, and it was definitely just depression. Can this kind of depression be cured in the old age - that the question

A man goes to the Senior Center

[Latent Heat]

(also on topic with respect to aging)

Woman says to him, "You look new here, where were you before?"

Man says, "I just was released from a long prison term . . . for killing my wife."

"Oh, so you're single, then!"

Logan's Run

[Andurian]

So the problem with the city in Logan's Run is that they got the termination age wrong?

No superhuman efforts to save his live after 75

[unimacs]

I agree with some of what he said and disagree with other parts. For example I think eating healthy and getting enough exercise will improve your quality of life into your 70s and beyond but I also see the point he is trying to make.

If you read the article you will see that he doesn't plan to die at age 75 and does recognize that he may well in fact have several years left of both enjoying his life and not being a burden to others. What he is saying that that after 75 if he is diagnosed with cancer for example, he won't try to beat it. That likely his best years are behind him anyway and fighting it would lengthen his life but to little benefit. He won't have a pacemaker put in and would avoid those kinds of major procedures in an effort to prolong his life.

My step dad lived into his 80's and was a vibrant person up until the last couple months before his death. He had had heart trouble since his 40's. He was a gift to my kids and his other grand children even though he wasn't making major contributions to society. I'd argue that lots of people never do so I don't know that that is a good measuring stick anyway. On the other hand, my mother was very healthy until 70, injured her back and then rapidly declined. She spent most of the last 7 years of her life in bed and was really unable to take care of herself for the last 5.

sounds like, Obama Death Panel Talk!

[iggymanz]

-- Homer

Unspoken and faulty premise

[smellsofbikes]

We largely agree that it sucks to be stuck drooling in a nursing home. But the reason people are keeping strict diets, exercising, and doing math puzzles is almost certainly not to live longer, but to live better during the time that they have. I want to die the moment living isn't fun anymore, but I want to delay that moment as long as possible. That's why I spend time and effort on keeping healthy: not because I simply want to live forever, but I want to feel like I'm able to have a really good time forever.

Quality. And golf.

[Mal-2]

I was golfing at a municipal course (because it's cheap), and the two of us got paired up with another random pair to fill out a foursome. This pair happened to be father and son, out celebrating the elder's 80th birthday. He wasn't doing great, but he wasn't doing that badly either, and there were no golf carts. We had to walk the entire course.

At one point, he asked me if it bothered me to be paired up with an old man like him, and I said "Hell no, I hope I can play a round of golf when I'm 80." From that point on, it was pretty obvious he no longer felt compelled to hurry up for anyone else's benefit, and was content to proceed at a pace that worked for him.

Why an arbitrary age?

[davidwr]

I can understand the "At some point, I'm going to stop trying to stay alive for the sake of staying alive" attitude.

I can't understand projecting a fixed age. He doesn't know what his health will be like at 75. If his health starts to rapidly decline at 70 or 65, he may want to change his health-care attitude earlier. If he's still in great shape at 75 he may try to stay alive as long as he's healthy or only suffering acute ailments.

As for me, I'm going to treat my body like an old car: Barring a sudden fatal or mentally-incapacitating calamity, I'll try to keep it running well enough to be "fully functional" until it gets to the point that "it's just not worth it" then I'll cut back on how much effort I spend staying alive. Whether that's 65, 75, 85, or some other age, $DIETY only knows.

Cheat Death?

[ArhcAngel]

Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible.

Unless he is just referencing people older than 75 I find this statement insulting. I exercise, eat right, and take supplements to IMPROVE my quality of life not to extend it. That may well be a side affect but after hitting 320 lbs. on this 5'7" frame I knew I had to make a change. And I'm glad I did. the mental puzzles I do for fun and to challenge myself. It sounds to me like he's just lazy and needs an excuse for avoiding exercise.

I plan to live to 100

[Cro Magnon]

And on my 100th birthday, I'll die quickly, shot in the head by the cute 25 y/o chick's hubby after he catches me in the act.

Re:I plan to live to 100

[I'm New Around Here]

If she's giving you oral sex, the hubby could claim a twofer.

moron

[slashmydots]

Ah yes, because medical science won't advance at all in the next 50 years. I might put my brain in a robot body by 75.

What a total load of bollocks!

[flightmaker]

At 55 years old I'm one of the youngest members of my walking club.

The guy I maybe admire most (although I would never tell him that!) is 75 years old now, and goes striding up hills that would defeat many 20 year olds. Most of the members are retirees, and absolutely loving and living life to the full.

Life is partly reaping what you sow, partly luck.

If you eat crap, smoke, don't exercise, you can look forward to a miserable and early death. If your parents taught you to cook, and instilled in you enjoyment of exercise and the great outdoors rather than sitting on a fat arse in front of a games console eating chips and burgers, then you're off to a flying start.

On the other hand, you can be just plain unlucky. My wife started developing MND at maybe 45, and suffocated to death at 50.

The lady customer of 92 who I drove to her home last week, after a holiday to the USA, is a little slow these days and has to use a walking stick to get around, but I hope that at 92 my mind is still as sharp as hers is today. Will I still be able to code in C++? Who can tell?

Looking on the bright side, I have a photo of my great grandfather who, also at 92, was looking very dapper, dressed up in his suit, out in the countryside with his bicycle. He got it exactly right - he went to bed one night, slept peacefully, and didn't wake.

Don't expect and look forward to death, be good to yourself and with good luck, look forward to a long and fulfilling life.

False Premise

[JerryLove]

"It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic."

For example: See the cast of the Expendables.

Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible.

I believe this assertion to be false. Doing mental puzzles will not make you live longer, and exercise mostly prevents causes of death like falling or having a heart attack.

People don't do these things to live longer... they do these things to live better. So that, when they are 75, they won't be... how did the OP put it? "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic"

My grandfater was still running his store in his 70s. My grandmother was daycare to several of her great-grandkids. One of my martial arts instructors is in his 80s (and I would lose a fight with him). The premise is BS, and the "75" number is arbitrary. Further: it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he isn't exercising, if he isn't eating well, if he isn't keeping his mind active, he is more likely to be "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic".

Why die at 75 when your high prime might be 90?

[angel'o'sphere]

I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.
Endlessly ... not at our technology level.
However why would anyone die at 75 (voluntarily?) when he can live healthy and happy till 90 (and die with 100)?

This is Hiroshi Tada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I believe he is now 84. Last years All Japan Aikido Demonstration. When you are close to him you would estimate him for "approaching 70" ... ten years ago you could had hold him for an old looking 50 year old. That guy is incredible fit, when he gives seminars even the best trained 30 year old "attackers" are completely worked out in 3 minutes.

I have been on a few of his seminars. If you are an aikidoka and have the chance to see him, do so! He is the greatest living master of Aikido!

Ofc at 'this age' he is now a bit slower, but google for his previous demonstrations ...

Btw he is not one of the "soft" guys ... he believes in projecting your own power (but that is also the reason why he became a bit slower recently) nevertheless: as he is aging now, take your chance and visit his seminars in Switzerland or Italy!

So i for my part prefer to get old :D

Re:RD

[I'm New Around Here]

God willing, he will be.

Something I once saw...

[flightmaker]

...on one of those amusing plaques that hang on the walls of gents toilets in pubs:-

"May you live for as long as you want to, and want to for as long as you live"

What an ultra-maroon

[EdZep]

The physical and mental exercise and other healthy living efforts that he chastises are not so much to extend ones life, as to enhance quality of life -- for however long that may be.

He's just trying to ease the public into acceptance of euthanasia. I'm not necessarily opposed to euthanasia (by choice), but, it's not widely enough accepted for those who believe in a "duty to die," and who might like to see that built in to our "health care" system.

I want to die when my life insurance term ends

[Eponymous Coward]

This is something I thought about when I took out a term life insurance policy. My biggest fear is that near the end of that term (20 years), some problem will be discovered that indicates I may have only a few years left to live. I'll have to decide if I kill myself so that my family gets the life insurance payout or let nature take its course.

If I choose the latter option, I'm terrified that my death will be slow and incredibly expensive consuming everything I've saved. I'm going to die no matter what and if I can help it, I won't leave my wife and kids with nothing.

Why do you want to live forever ?

[nehumanuscrede]

I certainly don't want to sit in this cubicle ( or any cubicle for that matter ) for the rest of my life.

Barring winning the lottery, you need to have a fixed number somewhere down the line ( where you think you'll die ) so you can determine WHEN you can finally give up the daily grind and try to enjoy ( what's left of ) your life. You know . . . actually LIVE instead of just existing as a taxpayer. I can't understand the desire to live forever unless your current life is so abso-fucking-lutely amazing that words cannot be used to describe it.

I don't want to live to see all my friends and family die off over the years. ( already started and I'm only in my early 40's ) I don't want to go bankrupt trying to fight cancer ( go price cancer treatment and watch how quickly that kills your retirement nest egg ) or paying never-ending hospital bills for some unforseen bullshit that happens to you down the road. ( see recent story about guy who got hit with a $100k hospital bill from an assistant surgeon he didn't even know was working on him ) I don't want to get stuck in a gd nursing home sucked dry of any savings that took me nearly sixty YEARS to accumulate.

You want a good dose of reality ? Go visit a nursing home sometime. Get a good understanding of the morale and quality of life of those who live there and try to picture yourself as a resident who will never leave.

So, for those of you enjoying the most amazing gold-plated life that could ever be bestowed upon a human being, go for it. Live forever if you can. Have fun.

For others whose life doesn't exist at the top 1% ( and no expectations to see it improve as we age ), well, perhaps we look at death a bit differently than you do. We see it more as a merciful escape than an unpredictable and scary eventuality.

I don't think so.

[Prototerm]

As a wise old woman once said to me: "It ain't so old when you get there." Never give up and never give in. I have plans to go bungee jumping on my 100th birthday. Geronimo!

Re:A public service announcement from George Orwel

[nbauman]

Ezekiel (like his brother, the mayor of Chicago) is from a family with a history of liberal political activism. In a very direct way he was raised with liberal, and arguably progressive leanings. His formative years (the dying of his wool) developed the philosophies he now holds as a mature adult.

In Israel, his father a member of the Irgun, a terrorist organization responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre. I don't think Ezekiel disagrees significantly with AIPAC.

His mother supported the civil rights movement, but I don't know of any other way in which I would consider him liberal.

I would call Ezekiel and Rahm neoliberals. I don't consider them liberals, and they certainly aren't progressives.

Most significantly, they both opposed single payer health care, and instead gave the health care industry over to the insurance industry. That basically followed the Heritage Foundation recommendations, although once Obama adopted it, the Heritage Foundation disowned it.

Rahm also supported the Iraq war (which is not surprising, since Israel supported it).

Why put a number on it?

[liquidsgi]

So I know some 60 year olds with massive illnesses and are a burden to society. Even some 40 year olds have reached their expiration date because of drinking/drugs and hard living. On the other hand, my mother and father are 75 and 78 and are in relatively perfect health with no issues to speak of. They get regular checkups and both are still working and productive members of society. Why say that just because they have reached a magic number, that they should all the sudden go jump off a cliff. This guy is an idiot. Tomorrow he could have a stroke and be a burden to his friends, family and society.

Re:Why put a number on it?

[Moof123]

Yep. A much better argument would be to encourage people to have clear expectations for old age, and to make options to check out much easier. I would welcome the ability to choose my exit day while I still have the faculties to do so. The US's lousy options are deplorable. Old folks have few options in most states to pull their own plug when they determine the time is right.

In my Grandmother's case she knew it was time a few weeks before she died, but ended up in a lot of misery and humiliating circumstances for her final days due to a lack of legal options. Little has made me angrier at the religious set than listening to my grandmother beg God to let he die, and there being no legal avenue for any of her family to grant that wish thanks to those selfish bastards keeping euthanasia illegal.

News you read two days ago somewhere else

[zephvark]

...slashdot is having a real hard time posting either "news for nerds" or "news that is news". Go ahead and bring the beta online, guys, I'm ready to quit this dusty old place, it's become irrelevant.

Health is cheaper, less painful.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The reason for the diets, supplements and exercise aren't to extend life, but to enhance life's quality.

You can be 75 and a cripple, in pain and bankrupted by health care costs or...

You can be be 75, run marathons, be fairly pain free and pay relatively little for health care.

I know people in both situations. To some degree, it's your choice.

Re:I knew it! Death Panels ahoy!

[mythosaz]

Leela: It's called Soylent Cola."
Fry: "So, how does it taste?"
Leela: "It varies from person to person."

The real worry for many people

[RevWaldo]

And it's been around since at least the 1980's, is the worry that you'll be the one the ones that just misses out on the discovery of practical age reversal and effective immortality. Lying there in your hospital bed, listening to NPR, hearing that the cure for aging should be on the market within the next three years and it's for real this time and that's when you flatline. (His last words were "Oh, son of a bitch!")

.

Reject the Culture of Death...

[dtjohnson]

...and embrace a Culture of Life. This 'bioethicist' is asking you to buy into his values: that the 'feeble' are less valuable than the 'non-feeble', that life is not worth living unless you are 'vibrant and engaged,' etc. These are the same sorts of values that are used to justify suicide, abortion, executions/murders, assisted suicide, euthanasia, eugenics, mercy killings, and the like, with the implied blanket claim that the killing somehow improves things for the killers. In TFA, we have the 'bioethicist' arbitrarily selecting some calendar age to begin neglecting his health based on the idea that life after that point is not worth living.

It's more complicated.

[InterGuru]

I'm 72 with slowed capacity. I have had similar thoughts. Even if you agree with the idea, implementation is tricky. Let's say I stop all life lengthening treatments at 75. Well, I take warfarin blood thinner to prevent clots from forming on my mechanical heart valve. These clots could break off to give me a heart attack or stroke. Clearly this is a life lengthening treatment. Should I stop taking it? If I stop and a clot develops there is a chance the the ensuing heart attack or stroke could leave me deeply crippled, either mentally or physically, but very alive -- to spend my last decade(s) in bed.

In biology there are no sharp lines. When does a child become an adult? 16? 18? 21? 25? All of these ages could do. In the same way, Emanuel, if he does not change his mind -- as most people I know do, will have great difficulty making these decisions except in extreme cases.

Tech future for oldies

[DMJC]

Interesting that Noone brought this up, in addition to medical tech advances things like occulus rift will allow old people to travel the world from their beds. I could see a drone mounted with cameras being a popular occulus rift application experiencing flight by just throwing the headset on and going for a ride. There's always more options than bring stuck in a bed unable to move.

THIS is why we of the dark side hate Obamacare

[Applehu Akbar]

We recognize that a large segment of the population can't afford healthcare and need to be subsidized by the public. We realize that because the pharma and hospital lobbies are not about to allow a free market to develop (imagine if medallion cab drivers had the nationwide ability to behead people who used Uber - that's the power of the lobby we're talking about here), that is going to cost a lot more than it would if a free market did exist. What we fear is that as the costs inevitably mount, policy Twinkies like Emanuel are going to cement the "suggestion" of this article into national policy. Like the people in Isaac Asimov's "Pebble In the Sky" we will be required to be gassed at a specified age to keep the system solvent.

My hiking club in northern Arizona includes about 400 members, most of them retired. At age 75 most of them are still hiking every week, enjoying more of the outdoors than city folk half their ages. Hikes are routinely led by people in their eighties. Our oldest member recently hung up his cleats at the age of ninety-three. As time goes on we get titanium knees and hips, implanted teeth, and pacemakers, and we stay on the trail farther and farther into senescence. We're going Borg, and that's how we like it.

My case is typical. When I was a child I had to wear huge Coke-bottle eyeglasses. For high school graduation, I got contact lenses. That was already fifty years ago, and now I'm about to take the next step up, to implanted lenses. Ezekiel Emmanuel, please take your early exit option and never get to set health policy in this country.

Then there is my Great Aunt Carrie

[Wild_dog!]

She was out weeding her garden and investigating new recipes to cook at 105. Sharp as a tack and spunky as well. She was an inspiration. It would have been a bit premature if she had cashed it in at a mere 75.

What a load of crap.

[jpellino]

The idea that you can't be creative after 75, or "contribute" (he really means make money for someone) or be a blessing to your friends, neighbors and family is utter rubbish. And the idea that you are burdensome to the point of giving up is even worse. When my father at 85 was in the last stages of RCC I realized I had a long way to go to help him with everyday functions, seeing as he did the same for me for the first several years of my life. I wouldn't trade the last ten years of his life for anything. The idea that I help my 84 year old mom out with tasks that would drain her is hardly a burden. If I get to the point where I don't have the time or inclination to do so, then *I* am the one who has run out of importance.

This guy must be the hit of every party

[jpellino]

he doesn't get invited to.

I'm going to live forever,

[reboot246]

or die trying. I refuse to set an arbitrary age for death.

Some people are in great shape mentally and physically at 80 or 90. My 83 years old neighbor lives by herself and drives to the senior citizen center to help out with the "old people". My mother is 79, lives by herself, sees a doctor once a year, and drives everywhere she wants to go (safely). Of course, some people are ready for the nursing home at age 65. People are all different in every way you can imagine.

Maybe Ezekiel J. Emanuel is just aging faster than he'd like. Doesn't he have grandchildren or great-grandchildren he'd like to see grow up?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Does anyone RTFM?

[clay_buster]

They guy doesn't say he'd end it at 75. He didn't say that was a hard date or any other such nonsense.

"Let me be clear about my wish. I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life."

He was talking about how much health care/pain he'd be willing to put up with

"I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75"

Please read the article before posting all kinds of protestations how stupid the guy is.

Pardon me if I doubt the author's motivation ...

[rogerz]

... in writing this piece is merely to express a personal preference.

I support Emanuel's absolute right to purchase or refuse any medical treatment he wants at any time. Indeed, I support his right to suicide. It is his life, and he can do what he will with it. Moreover, I whole-heartedly support his first amendment right to speak and try to convince others to adopt similar values. For all that I care, he can start a movement of medical care refuseniks - as long as the care they are refusing is their own.

Would he support my rights equally? Does he believe that I have the absolute right to purchase, at any age, with my own wealth, any medical treatments that I judge to be valuable in pursuit of my own happiness? Somehow, given his crucial contributions to the largest government encroachment on personal medical decision-making since Medicare, I doubt it.

I already know ...

[PPH]

... I'm going to die at 112.

It will be in a gunfight over a 26 year old woman. I'll still be a quicker draw than her husband, but my gun will jam.

Why not 65?

[RogueWarrior65]

If this guy is so smart on the subject of aging, why not set the limit at 65? On the plus side, Social Security and Medicare would go away. And if this guy is so eager to drop dead at 75, why not right now? Go ahead, buddy. I have the same feeling towards the wackos who think humans are destroying the planet. Okay, then, go ahead and off yourself. Show us how great the planet will be after you're gone and we'll be right behind you. Go on. Lead from the front.

Will you have the same answer....

[laing]

...when you are 74 years old? Many people live healthy lives well into their 80's (and beyond). There is no single correct answer for everyone when it comes to how long you will live before you become a burden to someone, or lose the capacity to decide for yourself. Perspective is everything. Having recently crossed the half century mark, in my youth I figured I wouldn't make it to 30. I probably have fewer brain cells today than I did back then, but I also have more synaptic development and more "wisdom". Try it! You'll see that there is life after 75.

Future state and normalization

[RabidClown]

Dr. Emanuel makes an error when he assumes he knows how he will feel at age 75. Humans are notoriously bad at predicting their emotional state at some future time or in response to some event. Even if he casts it in the hypothetical ("If I were to get multiple myeloma at age 75...") there is no guarantee that he'll have the same emotional state as the one he predicted. Furthermore, most of us have a great capacity for reframing and normalizing adverse circumstances. One may claim that life confined to a wheelchair, for example, would not be worth living; but after a period of adjustment, life in the wheelchair would become the new normal. Lastly, the transition from being vital, healthy people to dependent, non-functional, elderly doesn't usually happen as one giant step. It is an accumulation of small functional declines each of which has its own adjustment and normalization process. I don't disagree with Emanuel's conclusions about the futile pursuit of long life at all costs, though.

Re:Sammy Hagar

[dcw3]

Did the same...155mph on the autobahn removes a lot of stress.

Generalities don't apply

[DarthVain]

Bioethicist makes him sound like a scientist, his comments do not. As anyone with a wit of common sense can tell you for various reasons, some people live better longer than other people.

Perfect of example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

The current mayor of one of the larger cities in Canada, and has been since the 1970's and she is 93 years old. She is about to retire this year, even then when asked she wants to stay in the political game. To see her in an interview, she has certainly not diminished, and is probably sharper than most at any age. In another case a rock star in his 50's was diagnosed with early onset dementia in BC, Canada recently. That is a pretty big spread. Now you might be able to say, statistically 75 is about the right age, but you don't use statistics to figure about variables like that.

That fact is it varies from person to person for a lot of different reasons, genetics, lifestyle, environment, dumb luck, and for that reason only your own personal individual assessment is going to be relevant. Should people stop doing things that are good for them after 75 if they are feeling good, I don't think so. There are extremes of course, but for the most part I am not sure most people are like that.

Re:people are very different at the same age

[__aaclcg7560]

I was hoping for a more intelligent response from the AC crowd. Oh, well.

75 too old?

[kage.j]

I met a man who was 91 a few weeks ago. He gave his 66 GMC C1000 to me. Very nice, entertaining, funny guy. He was a little out there and was not very physically capable, but he seemed to have a lot to say and was articulate and humorous.

I think that the scale in which we age and how drastic it is directly relates to how we choose to live and treat our bodies.

I plan to keep taking care of myself and to see how it goes...if I hit 75 and want to end it then that's easy. Not really something I can speculate on now...and don't really think this guy is in his right mind to speculate either.

Many do decline rapidly after 75, BUT...

[Stubbyfingers]

I worked for a couple that were in their early 90's and weren't terribly slowed down by it.

The Professor's last year was a quick spiral down. He got sick and never quite recovered that last year, but he certainly wasn't miserable, just declining. His wife, however was still going strong at 93...running her businesses and active in her social circle. We were all SHOCKED when she just keeled over one day and that was it.

Good genes, I guess.

Good people, too. I miss them both.

A Dutch poet once wrote...

[vikingpower]

"We were not missed before we came / when we'll be gone, it shan't be different". Anyone who realizes that, can happily set him- or herself such a limit as in TFA. Not a bad idea at all. My limit is the day I will be obliged to admit, honestly and only to myself, that I can't do productive work anymore. Wurscht if that is 60, 75 or 80.

I blame The Next Generation for this foolishness..

[Methadras]

This is all based off of the 'Half a life' episode and is pedantic nonsense. If this guy doesn't want to live to 75 that's his prerogative, but why does he think other people care to read his semi-nihilistic desires?

Re:people are very different at the same age

[__aaclcg7560]

Weight lifting took me from 350 pounds to 375 pounds before I discovered that 3XL clothing is hard to come at the stores. I'm now slimming down in the other direction with a low-carb diet that puts me at a borderline XL/2XL for clothing. Except for my weight, my medical stats are in the normal range.

Sure. Say this when you are 74.

[pcwhalen]

It's easy to say things like this when you are 40 or 50 or 60. I'm 50 and this sounds quite logical to me.

Of course, at age 21 I never thought I'd see 30.

When you are still alive at 74 and feeling ok, the instinct to survive doesn't allow for anything other than "keep going." No higher level thinking kicks in and says "Right. It's all down hill from here. Fuck it."

You will want to see one more sunset, see your great-grandchildren, smile at one more memory.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel is 63, he has 12 years left. Talk to me in 11, Doc.

my real grandmother got lost

[nobodie]

Yes, yes yes!
I remember my grandmother as a failing, doddering old lady who was confused on her good days. Only as I got old enough to be old myself do I appreciate her history, what she did before I was an active part of her life. She wrote three books (on semi-autobiographical and two based on the history of the Surratt family during the assassination of Lincoln) in the fifties and early sixties, was a newspaper reporter in the 50s through the sixties. She was an active part of the war effort in her community during WWII and in general was a feisty woman in a world full of housewives. But I never knew her that way because of time. In some ways I prefer to let go of the actual memories of the doddering old lady and hold on to her real achievements, even though they are not part of my memories about her.

Makes sense but...

[sunnydelight126]

But what about your family and loved ones? Yes, it's your life and you have a right to end it anytime you wish but is it really fair to your loved ones? I think I'd pull the plug when I got to a certain point of inactivity specifically, but at a certain predetermined age? That doesn't make sense to me.