Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Say Human Lifespans Have Already Hit Their Peak (newsweek.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Newsweek: We have reached our peak in terms of lifespan, athletic performance and height, according to a new survey of research and historical records... "These traits no longer increase, despite further continuous nutritional, medical, and scientific progress," said Jean-FranÃois Toussaint, a physiologist at Paris Descartes University, France, in a press release... For the study, published in the journal Frontiers in Physiology, a team of French scientists, including Toussaint, from a range of fields analyzed 120 years' worth of historical records and previous research to gauge the varying pace of changes seen in human athletic performance, human lifespan and human height. While, as they observe, the 20th century saw a surge in improvements in all three areas that mirrored industrial, medical and scientific advances, the pace of those advances has slowed significantly in recent years.

The team looked at world records in a variety of sports, including running, swimming, skating, cycling and weight-lifting. Olympic athletes in those sports continually toppled records by impressive margins from the early 1900s to the end of the 20th century, according the study. But since then, Olympic records have shown just incremental improvements. We have stopped not only getting faster and stronger, according to the study, but also growing taller... [D]ata from the last three decades suggest that heights have plateaued among high-income countries in North America and Europe... As for our human lifespan, life expectancy in high-income countries rose by about 30 years from 1900 to 2000, according to a National Institutes of Health study cited by the authors, thanks to better nutrition, hygiene, vaccines and other medical improvements. But we may have maxed out our biological limit for longevity. The researchers found that in many human populations, says Toussaint, "it's more and more difficult to show progress in lifespan despite the advances of science."

247 comments

  1. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "These traits no longer increase, despite further continuous nutritional, medical, and scientific progress ..."

    Perhaps not as much progress has been made as our scientists say then?

    1. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Jzanu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You idiots trot out that trite phrase as soon as research is mentioned because you donâ(TM)t understand it. Stop trying to âoelookâ smart and go study more. Try reading more than a Wikipedia page about research methods, because there are very rigorous ways to determine causality that require a bit more background to understand. Try SEM, and see how much you understand.

    2. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you idiots are just as quick to trot out your butthurt over people who make logical arguments. Go back and study your books on snowflake dynamics and leave the rational discussion to the rest of us Slashdotters.

    3. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely correct about a good 90% of who comes here. Unoriginal only able to spit back what they see others say. They talk a lot but produce nothing themselves even in geek land. Of the 10% that do good things the 90% unoriginal losers try to take down out of frustration and jealousy that they are so inferior which only shows they know they are. Try understand that life itself and women rejected most of them so they seek to be superior and powerful online under assumed names. They are weak and they know it.

    4. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will snowflake dynamics let me upload my consciousness to an AI machine and live inside a can forever?

    5. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "study your books"

      Ok gramps, thanks. We'll read dead tree books and newspapers while watching TeeVee news on one of three channels. Should we also duck and cover?

      Fucking graybeards.

    6. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Athletic performance and life span aren't the same thing.
      Telomeres determine how much your cells can copy themselves.
      That is your max life span assuming you don't die from something before you fall apart.

    7. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True butthurt snowflake does not duck and cover, it sits through the entire butthurt experience crying its ass off.

    8. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem so emotional about this

    9. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Something happened to bring in a lot of unhealthy people that stopped and then reversed what was a good standard of living?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "These traits no longer increase, despite further continuous nutritional, medical, and scientific progress ..."

      Perhaps not as much progress has been made as our scientists say then?

      It's more a claim that human health has an asymptotic limit that we're approaching.

      When it comes to athletics there's basically three ways to beat records, improve the talent pool (more healthy people), improve the training, improve the equipment, and doping.

      If Daniel Epstein is to be believed Usain Bolt was only slightly faster than Jesse Owens, which suggests it's almost all equipment and the talent pool, training, and even doping don't make much of a difference for male sprinters.

      For any sport there's an optimal physique, and outside of fundamentally changing human biology you can't really do much better.

      For longevity most of our improvements have come from nutrition and fixing things that go wrong. But at a certain age we exceed the design specs and a ton of really important things start going wrong at the same time. To really start changing things we'll need to figure out how to replace whole systems, how to replace worn out parts of brains.

      Now, I think the study is missing one big thing on the longevity side, obesity. I suspect it's cancelled out a ton of the medical advancements of the past few decades. At some point we're going to solve obesity and at that point we're going to see a big jump in longevity.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are fucking retarded

    12. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try SEM, and see how much you understand.

      WTF is SEM? Search Engine Marketing? Scanning Electron Microscope? Sequential Excavation Method?
      Ohhh, you probably meant Structural equation modeling. If so, wtf wouldn't you write that, especially to someone you are already berating as being ignorant.

    13. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also, you know, genetic mutations that can occur over time. Maybe we're not "humans" anymore at that point.

    14. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by ls671 · · Score: 1

      He might mean:
      Structural equation modeling
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    15. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, watch out wimps, or Anonymous Coward up there will mock your habit of using fake names!

    16. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Megane · · Score: 2

      At some point we're going to solve obesity and at that point we're going to see a big jump in longevity.

      Maybe in average lifespan, but age 114 seems to be a point after which the human body really starts to fail. And this is apparently related to the balance between the body being able to heal itself vs cells going cancerous.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    17. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by quantaman · · Score: 1

      At some point we're going to solve obesity and at that point we're going to see a big jump in longevity.

      Maybe in average lifespan,

      True, I should have said average lifespan instead of longevity.

      but age 114 seems to be a point after which the human body really starts to fail. And this is apparently related to the balance between the body being able to heal itself vs cells going cancerous.

      You're thinking of telomeres? But I think the issue is more basic than that. Evolution designed us to be built once and then last for 50-70 years, but after that there's no real mechanisms to keep things working.

      It's not that cells run out of steam ~114, it's that nothing is designed to last that long. So once you're past 110 it doesn't matter if you fix 5 potentially fatal things because 10 others are about to break.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    18. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously never heard of Ben Johnson or that doper who beat Bolt in Rio

    19. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      First of all, I don't believe that we have "design specs" when it comes to longevity, or any other characteristic. Indeed, the fact that "a ton of really important things start going wrong at the same time," is evidence of either a lack of design or poor design IMO.

      To my understanding, there are essentially three major problems, which may be interrelated to various degrees.

      1) DNA degradation over time
      2) Insufficient repair and regrowth of damaged tissue
      3) Inadequate waste removal, including cholesterol and heavy metals.

      If we find a treatment for the first, we will likely solve the second.

      There has been no evolutionary pressure to solve any of these things. In fact, we could just as easily call reproduction the solution to these problems, since it avoids all of them while maintaining the survival of the species. It does little for the survival of individuals, however, and may even hasten the aging process. ;)

    20. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Sugar or rather sugary syrups became cheap.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    21. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      . Stop trying to âoelookâ smart and go study more.

      Ironic. You can't figure out how to make your device post properly and you call others "stupid"?

      BTW, GP was spot on - pointing out that correlation does not imply causation is good science, something you'd know if you actualy practicsed in any science at all.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    22. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by quantaman · · Score: 2

      First of all, I don't believe that we have "design specs" when it comes to longevity, or any other characteristic. Indeed, the fact that "a ton of really important things start going wrong at the same time," is evidence of either a lack of design or poor design IMO.

      To my understanding, there are essentially three major problems, which may be interrelated to various degrees.

      1) DNA degradation over time
      2) Insufficient repair and regrowth of damaged tissue
      3) Inadequate waste removal, including cholesterol and heavy metals.

      If we find a treatment for the first, we will likely solve the second.

      There has been no evolutionary pressure to solve any of these things. In fact, we could just as easily call reproduction the solution to these problems, since it avoids all of them while maintaining the survival of the species. It does little for the survival of individuals, however, and may even hasten the aging process. ;)

      Have you ever added a major new feature to an application? You'd think you just write the new feature and you're done, but that's only part of it, because that new feature is going to do things to your application that it wasn't built for, and when that happens you're going to find your application has way more bugs than you realized.

      That's basically the case with aging, except its worse because our DNA wasn't written by someone saying "break up the grow_organ function so we can reuse it if we ever implement the regenerate heart feature". It's literally a collection of random hacks to fix fatal bugs, and that's not the recipe for a robust code base.

      We do not work well when you expose us to scenarios not covered by evolution. Just look how bad we are metabolically with modern food and lifestyles. And don't even try exposing someone to a vacuum for a minute.

      In extreme old age nothing works in the conditions it expects so every system goes haywire, we basically become walking instances of Windows ME.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    23. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever added a major new feature to an application? You'd think you just write the new feature and you're done, but that's only part of it, because that new feature is going to do things to your application that it wasn't built for, and when that happens you're going to find your application has way more bugs than you realized.

      Yes, and I don't understand that to which you are referring. Unless I made a design decision to be bad at X in order to be good at Y (hi/low memory usage vs low/hi cpu time for example), adding a feature has no impact on the rest of the system, beyond any additional resources for the new task.

      If my new feature is, for example, real-time (ish) HW control, and I previous ran at whatever speed, I need to add a polling interval daemon or feedback loop to a state machine. Neither of those should impact anything else I was doing before unless I did it poorly in the first place, or made conscious design choice based on states that are no longer consistent.

      If, for example, your design ran at 100% CPU utilization and assumed it was consistent, and is suddenly subject to clock scaling due to thermal or power regulation, you made a bad, or rather no longer correct assumption. Your choice was to ignore clock issues though, which makes it a design choice, not a bug. If you are finding old bugs... its because you screwed up the first time. Not because of the new feature.

      If the cops bust my house with a drug raid warrant and find twenty severed heads*, their warrant didn't sever those heads. That shit was already done.

      * I didn't know about the other two ;)

    24. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off

    25. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading more than a Wikipedia page about research methods, because there are very rigorous ways to determine causality that require a bit more background to understand.

      Objection! Wikipedia features some very deep, high brow, entries. Some are better than the run-of-the-mill academic prose.

    26. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that not many of those scientific results have been applied to the population as a whole by developing affordable treatments, medicines and practices. Oh, and we don't even have the computational capability and lab throughput to implement personalized medicine yet.

    27. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to athletics there's basically three ways to beat records, improve the talent pool (more healthy people), improve the training, improve the equipment, and doping.

      Good thing there's no math test involved...

    28. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      One could argue that doping improves the talent pool.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    29. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      To my understanding, there are essentially three major problems, which may be interrelated to various degrees.

      1) DNA degradation over time 2) Insufficient repair and regrowth of damaged tissue 3) Inadequate waste removal, including cholesterol and heavy metals.

      If we find a treatment for the first, we will likely solve the second.

      There has been no evolutionary pressure to solve any of these things.

      Nor will there ever be. Natural selection only applies to things which affect ability to reproduce. If these things struck at a young enough age that those with "inferior" genes died before they got a chance to reproduce, evolutionary pressures would apply. But they don't generally hit until after offspring have reproduced themselves, so there's no evolutionary advantage for those who are less affected by these factors.

    30. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by gnick · · Score: 1

      We'll read dead tree books and newspapers...

      Dead trees will never die. I read news articles, /., etc on a screen. But picking paper/plastic for an actual book, I go paper every time.

      Should we also duck and cover?

      Sure, why not? It doesn't hurt anything and if it makes you feel better, it's a win. You might also try a rabbit's foot and praying to your favorite deity.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    31. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Well if nk actually has nokes theu xan put atop ICBMs and allsoposees those ICBMsa bit of preparation fuck and cover not included) might be in order at least for the actermatb an attac. I mean at a goverment (national and locsl) level not the nutty prepper kind.

    32. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by careysub · · Score: 1

      When it comes to athletics there's basically three ways to beat records, improve the talent pool (more healthy people), improve the training, improve the equipment, and doping.

      You leave out one of the most important factors for athletics (and this an extremely common oversight, during the last Olympics I never heard a single commentator mention it): Increase the size of the talent pool! Now one can argue that this is a way of "improving the talent pool", but you parenthetic comment indicates that is not what you intended - that you were speaking of a separate thing, improving overall health of the existing pool.

      A dominating factor of Olympic athletics from its inception in 1896 is the pool of people who were allowed or able to compete. The strict "amateur" requirement was initially a way to restrict competition to wealthy "sportsmen", poor proles who were paid for their athletic ability were prohibited from competing.

      Among the way Communist countries set about excelling in the Olympics was to screen talented people from the entire population, and then set these "amateurs" up in state supported positions as full-time athletes.

      What we have seen is that the "base" of the Olympic athlete recruitment pyramid got broader and broader as the various "country club" restrictions came down, athletes from third world countries started entering the game, and finally "professional" athletes were allowed in.

      This process of base broadening is largely complete, sure it will continue to extend somewhat but most of that pool growth is now over.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    33. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      It's not that cells run out of steam ~114, it's that nothing is designed to last that long. So once you're past 110 it doesn't matter if you fix 5 potentially fatal things because 10 others are about to break.

      Does anyone here know the poem "The Deacon’s Masterpiece or, the Wonderful "One-hoss Shay": A Logical Story" by Oliver Weldell Holmes? It recounts the story of a superbly constructed One-Horse Shay, that is built so as to have no weak spot and begins:

      Have you heard of the wonderful one-hoss shay,
      That was built in such a logical way
      It ran a hundred years to a day,
      And then, of a sudden, it — ah, but stay,
      I’ll tell you what happened without delay,
      ...

      Continuing:

      Colts grew horses, beards turned gray,
      Deacon and deaconess dropped away,
      Children and grandchildren — where were they?
      But there stood the stout old one-hoss shay
      As fresh as on Lisbon-earthquake-day!

      And concluding:

      Close by the meet’n’-house on the hill.
      First a shiver, and then a thrill,
      Then something decidedly like a spill, —
      And the parson was sitting upon a rock,
      At half past nine by the meet’n-house clock, —
      Just the hour of the Earthquake shock!
      What do you think the parson found,
      When he got up and stared around?
      The poor old chaise in a heap or mound,
      As if it had been to the mill and ground!
      You see, of course, if you’re not a dunce,
      How it went to pieces all at once, —
      All at once, and nothing first, —
      Just as bubbles do when they burst.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    34. Re: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gave up before the second line of the post, did you? The part where he wrote "Ohhh, you probably meant Structural equation modeling" I mean.

    35. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by SandWyrm · · Score: 1

      "Progress" is not a one-way road. Scientists make mistakes all the time (see the low-fat diet fiasco that's killing millions). Scientists makes horrible assumptions constantly (all brains assumed to be same as ONE SINGLE dissection in the 60's until MRIs revealed the multiplicity of structures). Pop-Science gets manipulated by corporate marketing (see the efforts of tobacco and sugar companies to downplay the dangers of their products). Real Science gets highjacked again and again by political interests that control research funds (see the Global Warming/Cooling/Change insanity that every new project has to reference somehow). Real Science, in a false dichotomy against religion, also gets misused and twisted into it's opposite: Dogma (see the cult of the Big Bang).

      "Science" needs to rid itself of political chains, encourage not just discovery, but reward positive/negative confirmation, and recognize that it can only observe and describe natural processes. The instant a scientist tries to create moral meaning out of what they see, they are no longer practicing science.

    36. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Insightful.

      The world population nearly quintupling during that time frame doesn't hurt, either.

    37. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by catprog · · Score: 1

      Unless you count ability to assist to grandchildren and great grandchildren. But that is only a small effect.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    38. Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but that's not the distinction I'm making. That assistance is not programming in the same sense that we mean with computers. Advice is not directive - it's closer to data than code. Impulse, for lack of a better word, is internal in source, not provided externally.

  2. My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    A new kidney would have saved him. We need a plan to grow new organs, even if it's in pigs or in brainless human bodies. Of course the Christian fundamentalists will never let this happen. Fucking hypocrites.

    1. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a hair transplant from an alpaca cuz I was balding in front.

    2. Re: My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brainless human bodies won't grow without a brain. Are you suggesting some form of suicidal AI to volunteer itself to grow a body for me?

    3. Re:My dad died this year by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A new kidney would have saved him. We need a plan to grow new organs, even if it's in pigs or in brainless human bodies. Of course the Christian fundamentalists will never let this happen.

      The fundies object to embryonic research. Kidneys and other organs are grown from somatic cells, ideally taken from the recipient.

      A more immediate solution would be a free market in organs, which would increase the donor pool. Ignorant people object, by claiming that selling organs would lead to abuses, without realizing that the hospitals already buy and sell organs. It is only illegal for the donor to receive a portion of the money. So the money incentivizes everyone but the person capable of increasing the supply.

      Fucking hypocrites.

      You may disagree with them (as do I), but what about their behavior is hypocritical?

    4. Re:My dad died this year by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A new kidney would have saved him. We need a plan to grow new organs, even if it's in pigs or in brainless human bodies. Of course the Christian fundamentalists will never let this happen. Fucking hypocrites.

      My condolences, annon. Regarding organ growth I was thinking something similar. At the turn of the XX Century people thought more or less the same, they believed that humans could never travel at higher than 20Km/hr, or couldn't run faster than some record of the time. Then tech changed and we did. Once they figure out the kinks of individual organ cloning without having to grow a whole being (and hopefully, without having to grow them inside an existing being, such as a pig) then well be in another era of pushing back those limits.

      --
      +Raider of the lost BBS
    5. Re: My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clones don't have souls so they aren't truly living beings. It's ok to sacrifice them to save real people.

    6. Re:My dad died this year by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      A few benefits do not outweigh the possible dangers

      Perhaps you could list what you perceive as "possible dangers". The artificial scarcity in organs causes suffering and many unnecessary deaths. But it also inflates black market prices, and likely leads to more abuses, not fewer. If it was legal to compensate donors, the supply would go up, and prices would fall, possibly by an order of magnitude, leading to far less incentive for abuse.

      A hospital that harvests a human kidney can turn around and sell it for more than $250,000. None of that goes to the donor's family.

    7. Re:My dad died this year by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      "Fucking hypocrites."

      The solution would be to stop doing that. Then there might be fewer.

    8. Re:My dad died this year by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      I’m a Christian and I’m looking forward to any and all technological advance that would extend life. Perhaps your overly broad generalizations need some work?

    9. Re:My dad died this year by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      Fucking hypocrites.

      You may disagree with them (as do I), but what about their behavior is hypocritical?

      I'm not the original poster so he may disagree with my interpretation. These are the same people largely who are against abortion because of the commandment not to kill but who advocate the death penalty and endless wars. They won't even allow the use of embryonic stem cells from miscarriages or from those killed by accidents. They don't want abortion but block practical sex ed to help teens avoid pregnancy and scream about birth control. So yes there is a lot of hypocrisy among them.

      The current Roy Moore scandals combined with supporting him and Trump who has his own sex scandals while calling for the downfall of Hollywood powerful men and Democrats with their own scandals is also hypocrisy. It is Fake News when it is bad about their guy and Gospel Truth when it is about the other side. Judge your side the same way you judge the other side.

    10. Re:My dad died this year by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      “Fundies” don’t object to embryonic research. They object to taking new embryos for such research out of fear that such a practice would lead to a market for aborted embryos.

      They encourage research on the existing lines.

    11. Re:My dad died this year by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So yes there is a lot of hypocrisy among them.

      But they are not hypocrites about embryonic research, which is what is being discussed ... unless you think fundies are running secret embryonic cell research labs.

      In general, sure, they are mostly hypocrites ... as are many progressives.

    12. Re:My dad died this year by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      “Fundies” don’t object to embryonic research.

      Do you know any actual fundies? I know plenty because I grew up in the Bible Belt and I am related to them. They object to embryonic research. They may not completely understand what it is, but they object to it.

      They encourage research on the existing lines.

      No they don't. They are called "Fundamentalists" because they do not engage in ideological compromise.

    13. Re:My dad died this year by arth1 · · Score: 0

      A new kidney would have saved him.

      How do you know that? For one thing, there's a risk that he would not have survived the surgery, and then a risk of rejection. And even if that went well, he might have died of something else entirely. In best case, it would only have bought him more time, and not saved him. There are no save points and extra lives.

    14. Re:My dad died this year by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)m a Christian and Iâ(TM)m looking forward to any and all technological advance that would extend life.

      Why? A nagging suspicion that there might not be a better afterlife after all?
      It has always surprised me how religious people are those who cry the most when people die. You'd think they'd be happy on behalf of the person winning the big prize of eternal joy.

      I'm an atheist, and I'm not for extending life past the natural span. The old needs to give room for the new. When you're past the age of reproduction/rearing, there's no benefit to your genes in your survival - you just compete with your offspring for resources.. And if you're suffering from various age related ailments, there's not much benefit to you either. Death is nothing to be feared by an atheist. We know we won't feel a thing, and won't miss life one bit. I'll enjoy life to the fullest while I can, and when I no longer feel I can, or have become a burden, I'll reject any attempts at prolonging it. If suffering, I want an off switch.

    15. Re: My dad died this year by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      With gene editing programs you can get humanish bodies that grow without a brain.

    16. Re: My dad died this year by Immerman · · Score: 1

      What makes you say that? I haven't heard of any functionality the brain supplies to the growth process. Just remove everything but the brainstem from the clone fetus, and the body should probably grow okay. The pituitary glad may be important - leaving it intact is probably the most challenging part, might need to resort to chemical manipulation or DNA editing to prevent the cortex from growing instead.

      Of course the morality of such a thing is a whole different question.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re: My dad died this year by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not. They're in every measurable respect an identical twin that bifurcated decades later than usual, but hey, I suppose God only hands out an extra soul if the bifurcation occurs in the womb while he's still paying attention, right?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:My dad died this year by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The artificial scarcity in organs causes suffering and many unnecessary deaths. But it also inflates black market prices, and likely leads to more abuses, not fewer. .

      And some foks seem to think that they have a right to other people's organs. You know, unnecessary deaths that can be avoided?

      How far does that go - mandatory donation?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:My dad died this year by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'll enjoy life to the fullest while I can, and when I no longer feel I can, or have become a burden, I'll reject any attempts at prolonging it. If suffering, I want an off switch.

      Exactly, The wife and I codified and legalized our advance directive just recently. I have no desire to live a Terry Schiavo, and one of the worst fates I can imagine is being boxed in.

      There are several fates that are much worse than death. For me, if the angry desert god is real (and I'm wrong), heaven or hell would be interchangeablely awful. I want to enjoy life as long as I can, but that off switch will actually be pretty nice.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re: My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twins are natural, clones are fake. Fake people are fake. They don't have souls and hence have no right to life. They are things, not people.

    21. Re:My dad died this year by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Both of those statements contradict what you have posted in the past. Unless you think the Bible Belt is in southern California and "fundies" mean first gen Chinese immigrants, you are lying once again.

      I have never lived in SoCal, other than a few months at Camp Pendleton and a CAX at Twentynine Palms. I have lived (and currently live) in NorCal, specifically San Jose. I grew up in Tennessee. My spouse is a 1st gen Chinese immigrant, but I am white.

      If you can show me any of my posts that are inconsistent with these facts, please let me know, and I will patiently explain to you how your reading comprehension failed you.

    22. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    23. Re: My dad died this year by uncqual · · Score: 2

      Damn, now I wonder which one of the of the cute red head twins in my high school class decades ago was "truly" a "living being" and which one was something else. Although, I'm not sure I would have cared if both of them were interested in doing more detailed research on that question with me as the lead investigator. I'm sure my research completion deadlines would have continuously been moved out as I learned more though. So many tests, so little time...

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    24. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A new kidney would have saved him. "
      Maybe your Dad and I will meet up in some other time, and in some other place, maybe on a park bench. We will trade Kidney stories, while watching the Pretty Girls stroll by.
      My Kidneys no longer hurt; they are just now down to decaying in place. I have terminal Bladder Farts. This is actually very funny, my Doctors think so; I go to take a long awaited Pee, and my prick dribbles a bit, and then loudly proceeds to fart.
      This is no laughing matter, but it is excruciatingly funny. I am six feet tall, and down to 120 pounds, and I still look bloated, because my body now has to store all of that unwanted pee.
      Yes, I am getting to Jean Harlow, in my own way.
      Dialysis is no longer an option; the Cancers have spread too far. A new Kidney would be wasted on me. I just might make it to New Tears Day. I really would like that, waking up yet again to a horrendous hangover. I had one of those, just once. I woke up next to a very pretty girl, equally hungover, in the Aft Cabin of a boat. My boat, as it turned out. But not My Girl.
      No, we didn't.
      Looking at, and thinking about, Pretty Girls takes up as much of my time as I can allow it. You don't know this, maybe your Father didn't know this, but possibly your Grandfather did: Jean Harlow was a very Pretty Girl. Even the grotesque artifice of Hollywood couldn't obscure this, and Jean Harlow drowned in her own Urine, as I shall soon do as well.

      This is the most heinous Crime imaginable these days:
      It's OK to look at Pretty Girls.
      There, I said it. Guilty as charged. Execute me... please.

      Maybe on that park bench, while your Father and I trade Kidney stories, Jean Harlow should walk pass us. I can't whistle, I never could, but perhaps your Father could whistle for us. And Jean, braless and carefree as always, would pause, and maybe smile at us. It's OK to look; it's even OK to whistle. And then she would be off, for another Photoshoot with George Hurrell, who redeemed himself finally by Shooting those Album Covers for Queen and Fleetwood Mac.

      And then your Father and I would get back to our discussion of the Mysteries of Photons that cluster surround 495 nanometers in Wavelength, and I would tell him about the most beautiful Girl in this World, ever. Danika, the Morning Star, my Morning Star, who also drowned in her own Urine before reaching the age of 15.
      Rotten Kidneys. We hates them.

      You seem like a decent enough person. You are quite right about Christian Fundamentalists, but this also extends to Jewish and Moslem Fundamentalists. This world, and what follows after it, would be far better off without them.
      I know, I've been there. I went into Cave Zero, and emerged almost healthy. Al Ghiorso also emerged from Cave Zero, and he lived to be 92. There was only one Pretty Girl for Al, and he married her. Lucky Al.

      Captcha: furies
      No, not Furries. I quite like those slightly insane people, especially the Pretty Girl Furries. The Furies are another matter entirely. I shall go back again into Cave Zero, and fight them, and vanquish them, and they shall roll over and I will tickle them and rub them in that special place just under the right ear, and I will tickle and rub the Fury right out of them, and then we shall go out, find a park bench, sit and and look, just look, at the Pretty Girls strolling by.

    25. Re:My dad died this year by dryeo · · Score: 1

      When you're past the age of reproduction/rearing, there's no benefit to your genes in your survival - you just compete with your offspring for resources.

      The benefit to the old persons genes is in helping those same genes in their (great)grandchildren live. Babysitting is one obvious way the old folks help their genes. In the past, being a store of knowledge was also very important and is perhaps still important.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    26. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and organ donors are still DENIED the opportunity to leave that matter to the local priest. If you kept the family squabble out of it, then more would be harvested.
      The default reaction is no, but a priest could let them off the moral hook.

      As for longevity, if you survive youth motorbike and car and youth issues, and survive the heart attack at 55-65 then you may do 88 years, with smoker/nonsmoker and healthy trend adjustments. Pristine clean water can add another 2 years. If you are still mobile at 75 - you are on track. Cancer being a random luck event.

      I think the headline should show there will be a nursing care home shortage, and at 75 most wont have savings to support private facilities.

    27. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha we don't need old knwldgz by granpas who dunno how to use an iphone lol

    28. Re: My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, now I wonder which one of the of the cute red head twins in my high school class decades ago was "truly" a "living being" and which one was something else.

      You answered your own question. Red haired people have no souls, and thus are not truly alive. As proved in this documentary:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOAzrxspXD8

    29. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp-pU8TFsg0

    30. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you assume the deceased is going to Heaven. If you must really adhere to every tennet in that book to go to Heaven, I don't think it is a very populated place. So, crying is quite justified. Even more in the sense of "I'm next to the hot place".

      Oh yes, the "I regret everything" loophole, I forgot.

    31. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They take the pills generated by embryonic research and won't say no to having their own life saved. Seems hypocritical to me.

    32. Re: My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for your loss, but don't blame fundamentalist Christians for this. Remember also that ethics play into this, and there is more than one way to make organs. Why use brainless humans when you can grow them in a dish? The technology simply isn't there, so your attacks on religion are pretty misguided and flamebait.

    33. Re:My dad died this year by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 0

      Yeah those damn fundies and their objections to the mass murder of infants.

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    34. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very optimistic about genetics, especially engineering. Technologies like CRISPR are in infancy, but already delivering impressive results. We are humans. We are hostages of Evolution. The future is bright if we trust science and tech.

    35. Re:My dad died this year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very optimistic about genetics, especially engineering. Technologies like CRISPR are in infancy, but already delivering impressive results. We are humans. We are NOT hostages of Evolution. The future is bright if we trust science and tech.

      Fixed.

    36. Re: My dad died this year by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      We already have them - Politicians.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    37. Re: My dad died this year by Immerman · · Score: 1

      There you go. That's the attitude that will let you chase immortality on a road made of the corpses of your siblings.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    38. Re:My dad died this year by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Kind of crazy to think people would seriously think the human body couldn't go above 20 when men can run over 30. A search of the internet brought back a claim that people were concerned that women shouldn't travel on trains going more than 50mph due to their perceived fragility, specifically of their woman specific organs (since I imagine there is no difference between the brain matter or stomach of a woman or man).

    39. Re:My dad died this year by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

      While as organs cannot be sold, the system can be rigged. Steve Jobs got access to a transplant. He also "bought a house that his doctor was selling" in order to establish residence. At UCLA, a Japanese mobster go access to a transplant. While as it cannot be proved that he bribed people to get access, it certainly raises suspicion. If some Arab pulled the same stunt, it would be an issue.

    40. Re:My dad died this year by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Babysitting is one obvious way the old folks help their genes.

      The total costs of living for an elderly person including all medical costs is on average into six-digit dollar figures per year. You can hire some pretty good babysitters for that. (Not even counting the inheritance.)

      In the past, being a store of knowledge was also very important and is perhaps still important.

      Also a fount of wrong knowledge. My grandmother was a racist ("I have nothing against negros; I think everyone should have one") who thought colds could spontaneously occur if not dressing well, believed the fumes from a fireplace was good for the lungs, and that there was a man in the sky who would make you burn for eternity if you slept with your hands under the comforter.

    41. Re:My dad died this year by erapert · · Score: 1

      ...who advocate the death penalty...

      If someone did something to deserve it, yeah. You seem to have dropped something: context.
      How many serial killers have you heard of that were children or babies or embryos?

      ...and endless wars.

      Yeah, you're right, it's more moral to let dictators rape, steal, and systematically torture and murder their people.
      Also, nations have no right to self defense?
      Really? There's no such thing as a justified war in your eyes?

      They don't want abortion but block practical sex ed to help teens avoid pregnancy and scream about birth control.

      That's not hypocrisy. See, it's very simple: just don't have sex outside of marriage.
      I know it can be hard in our current culture to restrain oneself when everyone else seems to be "enjoying" themselves. But think of all the children growing up in single-parent households because the value and meaning of marriage has been undermined and all but destroyed today. What about all the people catching life-altering STDs from what they thought would just be a bit of fun?
      How is it hypocritical to say that maybe marriage and the permanence of it was a good thing?
      Wouldn't marriage and sexual discipline quarantine the population from STDs like HIV? How many millions died from HIV that would have lived if we'd all practiced monogamous sex with and only with our spouses?
      How does killing an innocent embryo (human) improve a teenage pregnancy situation? Doesn't it just make it worse?
      In chess there's moves that can be made that blunder a piece. Some moves are good and do improve your position but are sub-optimal. Then, of course, there's optimal moves which sometimes require a sacrifice the ramifications of which aren't fully understood 'till much later at which time one is usually very glad to have made the optimal move.

    42. Re:My dad died this year by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      A more immediate solution would be a free market in organs, which would increase the donor pool.

      So Keith Richards could buy himself a new liver and set of kidneys just to prolong his life, while poor people with cancer can....drink a bottle of cheap while while running a car in a closed garage to go quietly. Finally, the system will work as intended.

    43. Re:My dad died this year by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those people that are basically past the age of reproduction that you talk about and I spend close to zero on medical care, basically glasses, which I've had to spend money on since I left home. Likewise for my parents while they were alive though towards the end they did have to spend a couple of digits a year on medications, perhaps 10% of their income.
      Looking at your user ID #, you're probably one of those old people too, it's a shame if it is costing you that much money for medical care.

      And I did mention that in the past that elders were often a source of knowledge. Of course there will be exceptions, but in an age when education was rare, the elders usually had some good practical knowledge

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    44. Re:My dad died this year by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I'm one of those people that are basically past the age of reproduction that you talk about and I spend close to zero on medical care, basically glasses, which I've had to spend money on since I left home. Likewise for my parents while they were alive though towards the end they did have to spend a couple of digits a year on medications, perhaps 10% of their income.
      Looking at your user ID #, you're probably one of those old people too, it's a shame if it is costing you that much money for medical care.

      It's those older than us that rack up the costs. Once you hit nursing home age or contract a severe age related ailment, the costs go way up. On average, when a person hits late 70s / early 80s, the total medical expenses (including medicare, insurance, out-of-pocket and charitable) exceeds the income the person once had. As aging proceeds, the expenses continue to grow.

      Some are less lucky. One person I know contracted memory impairment just a few years into retirement, and now pays around $5k per month for assisted living, plus a huge amount of medical expenses. Just a 10% copay is a killer when you have to pay for things like regular MRIs. And it's only going to get worse.

    45. Re:My dad died this year by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Your idea of not having sex outside marriage has been shown to be completely unworkable. It's not only difficult to do in the current culture, it's been difficult in every culture I'm aware of. You're advocating something far less realistic than users that understand the Internet and don't get phished.

      Any halfway realistic analysis shows that large numbers of people are going to have sex outside marriage, and that blaming them is pointless. They're human. It's stupid to pretend they aren't. Therefore, the best way to avoid STDs and pregnancy is to tell people about sex and how to practice safe sex. It's fine to try to dissuade them from sex when they're still young, but relying on that is the act of a sanctimonious idiot.

      As far as a teenage pregnancy being aborted, what happens is that the teenager is no longer pregnant, and that can be a very good thing. The only reason you'd think necessarily it made it worse is rigid ideology and not paying attention to real people.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    46. Re:My dad died this year by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You mean there's someone for mass murder of infants?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    47. Re:My dad died this year by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

      Where do you think stem cells comes from? From the butchery of unborn infants.

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  3. Re: When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Rush, thatâ(TM)s the devil waiting for you!

  4. How to go to Heaven -- KING JAMES BIBLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How To Go To Heaven
    According to the holy Word of God in the King James Bible!

    Powered by Google TranslateTranslate

    It is very simple to be saved and takes only a minute to explain. Please let me show you how to get to Heaven from the Bible, God's Word...

    Man is a Sinner in the Eyes of a Holy God.

    Isaiah 53:6, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
    Romans 3:19, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”
    John 3:3, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
    Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”
    Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

    There is a Price For Our SinBurning in Hell Forever.

    Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
    Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
    2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
    Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
    Revelation 21:8, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

    Jesus paid that price by dying on the cross and shedding His blood; Christ was buried and bodily rose again the third day!

    Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
    John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
    1st Timothy 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”
    1st Peter 1:18-19, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,

    1. Re:How to go to Heaven -- KING JAMES BIBLE by gweihir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And then, you can also just disregard this crap and have a decent life on earth, regardless whether there is an afterlife or not. Incidentally, if there is an afterlife, it will be very likely just you getting reincarnated into a new body, not necessarily in this universe. And yes, that means that for most, life is going to continue to suck.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re: How to go to Heaven -- KING JAMES BIBLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it actually existed, I would tell you to go to hell.

    3. Re:How to go to Heaven -- KING JAMES BIBLE by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And then, you can also just disregard this crap and have a decent life on earth, regardless whether there is an afterlife or not. Incidentally, if there is an afterlife, it will be very likely just you getting reincarnated into a new body, not necessarily in this universe. And yes, that means that for most, life is going to continue to suck.

      Ain't that the truth! Even the concept of heaven doesn't seem that great. worshipping an angry desert god while on earth, in order to worship him for all eternity. Hell at least has more likeable people. I can't stand tohe folks who tell me they know they'll be in heaven. Nasty mean assholes who are full of hate.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Hitler was right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for Eugenics...

    1. Re:Hitler was right! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Hitler didn't invent eugenics. It was a popular cause long before the 3rd Reich. Plato advocated selective breeding of humans in 400BC (he also advocated plenty of other fascist policies). In the early 1900s, eugenics was popular in America and even the Supreme Court approved sterilization of undesirables. The Nazis drew much of their inspiration from America.

    2. Re:Hitler was right! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      This, Hitler was the worst thing to ever happen to eugenics - he vilified it in the public mind when acceptance was at the peak in exchange for some power. If the species eventually dies off it will absolutely be traceable directly back to Hitler.

    3. Re:Hitler was right! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Did you intend to imply that eugenics is inherently fascist? Seems like a rather extreme claim. Certainly a fascist regime would have a relatively easy time implementing such a thing, but that can be said for a great many social policies.

      Eugenics could be implemented in a great many ways, as easily with the carrot as the stick.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Hitler was right! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you would like the Nazi position on organ donation. They seem like a group who would provide many.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Hitler was right! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you would like the Nazi position on organ donation. They seem like a group who would provide many.

      Nope. Once the cyanide gets into the bloodstream, it messes up the organs, and they are no longer viable for transplant.

    6. Re:Hitler was right! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Eugenics could be implemented in a great many ways, as easily with the carrot as the stick.

      But in practice the stick was used more often. Adolf didn't give the untermensch any choice, and Oliver Wendell Holmes didn't give Carrie Buck a say either.

    7. Re:Hitler was right! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You could say that of a great many social policies as well. Currency for example. Pollution control. The reduction of violence and murder. The list goes on an on - the stick is very often the preferred form of motivation for most types of governments. Probably because it's often cheaper and requires less understanding of the varied motives of the population to offer an effective carrot.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  6. Interesting but old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already worked this out a few years ago. Just graph some of the changes in world records in various Olympic sports. It's clear we are approaching asymptotes in these sports. Barring some radical changes, the world records are not going to change significantly. This mostly applies to the traditional sports that are "human powered": running, swimming, javelin. Better shoes aren't likely to make much of a difference anymore. A better sled could improve times. If you are looking to break world records, you are going to need to look to mechanical improvements in the equipment.

    1. Re:Interesting but old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we can advance in precise measurement techniques. New world record by -0.00000000000000000001 seconds!!!!

  7. Wish I had this much ENERGY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is one old person who has not peaked.

  8. Failure of imagination by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    When we reach the limits of our genes, we'll modify our genes.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Failure of imagination by Altrag · · Score: 1

      We already do that, by choosing our sexual partner(s).

      I'm assuming you mean direct genetic editing though, but I'd equally suggest that the article is working on the assumption of our current genetic make up (and really, if we start mucking with our genes could the results still be considered "human"? Perhaps not, at least in the taxonomy sense..)

    2. Re:Failure of imagination by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, good luck with that. For a reference for human skill in modifying comparably simple code, look at all the bad software out there these days. Modifying genes is several orders of magnitude more complex. Also, the execution mechanism for genes has limits that no genetic modification will overcome.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  9. In other news by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    The patent office will soon be closed due to lack of new inventions

    1. Re:In other news by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The public domain utopia is nigh!

      Well, I can dream...

  10. Oh look! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The French are surrendering something again!

    We haven't even gotten to DNA meddling on Humans yet, let alone implanted devices to enhance the function of existing organs.

    Drug use shows we can exceed our current limits. Medical devices can keep a body alive long past the time its given up. Maybe we can't turn the clock back and live hundreds of years right now, but we've barely scratched the surface of how can fix that.

  11. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you die, the atoms that compose your body will return to the universe. You will simply cease to be.

  12. Well, sort of. by jerry33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Human Lifespans Have Already Hit Their Peak Based on Current Methodologies and Technology" should be the title. My thought is that new methodologies and technologies, such as being able to keep cellular information from deteriorating as people age due to replication degradation, should increase lifespan. My understanding is that almost all body cells are replaced every seven years, but each total replacement is less accurate than the previous one. After a few replication cycles, information deteriorates, similar to a photocopy of a photocopy.

    1. Re:Well, sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: advancements in health care can no longer stay ahead of the rapid deterioration of our health due to the Standard American Diet (SAD): processed foods containing sugar and other fiberless carbs (that includes alcohol). It's not fat in our diet that's the issue.

  13. Medicine needs to change focus by Kjella · · Score: 2

    We've gotten *very* good at dealing with sick people. But we haven't really made any big progress on making healthy people healthier by slowing the effect of aging. Being in "good health" means entirely different things for a 20yo and an 80yo. I think it's because it's very ethically challenging to experiment on healthy people, like if you got cancer obviously we'll treat that. But if you're "only" getting older, do we really dare mess that up? I'd say the answer is overwhelmingly no, unless there's nothing wrong with you we'll do nothing. Okay eat healthy, exercise but nothing to truly stall the decline.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot of stagnation in human lifespan is due to our extremely sloppy diets and an overabundance of food. We eat less healthy high carb food, and we eat too often. Hence the insulin resistance epidemic worldwide that's causing over weight, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Unfortunately modern medicine is stuck with the mantra of "eat less, move more" and "eat frequent small meals". Both of those are compete bullshit. Until we let go of these misconceptions, we'll keep dying early from heart disease and cancer.

    2. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think a lot of stagnation in human lifespan is due to our extremely sloppy diets and an overabundance of food.

      The statistics don't really support that. There's quite a few people living very healthy and their lifespan is obviously longer, but not extremely so. Once you're quite old death seems more and more random with less and less connection to how you lived years ago. Like if you're 90 years old then how you lived the first 80 years of your life isn't much worth in predicting who'll become 100. There's just too many things people in their 90s die from where it doesn't matter. Anecdotally, when they interview the record holders and such they're often not the stellar example of healthy living you might think. Granted, good health will help you avoid a "premature" death. But that last bit from quite old to really old seems to be mostly luck.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The healthcare system makes too much money treating the sick to do more to maintain our health. Healthcare and the global food industries would both suffer greatly if the hazards of eating sugar and other fiberless carbohydrates were widely known and admitted. (The 1st step of the 12 Steps is admitting one has an addiction/dependence problem!) Our addiction to sugar is far more costly to society than the opioid addiction problem, but few people are willing to admit to the problem.

    4. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Yes; medicine is focused on preserving life rather than improving it.

    5. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by DamnRogue · · Score: 1

      My favorite interview was with a man who was at the time the oldest in the world (or something) at 115. When asked about his secret to longevity he replied, "Well, I stopped smoking at 95 and I stopped eating bacon at 108."

    6. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by thomst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Kjella opined:

      We've gotten *very* good at dealing with sick people. But we haven't really made any big progress on making healthy people healthier by slowing the effect of aging. Being in "good health" means entirely different things for a 20yo and an 80yo. I think it's because it's very ethically challenging to experiment on healthy people, like if you got cancer obviously we'll treat that. But if you're "only" getting older, do we really dare mess that up? I'd say the answer is overwhelmingly no, unless there's nothing wrong with you we'll do nothing. Okay eat healthy, exercise but nothing to truly stall the decline.

      Actually, almost all of the gains in average human lifespan in the 20th century are directly attributable to antibiotics and widespread vaccination against (mostly) childhood diseases.

      Maximum human lifespan has changed little, if at all, since the dawn of recorded history. What changed dramatically in the prior century was average lifespan, which is a very different thing. Prior to the wide availability of penicillin in the mid-1940's, a staggering number of humans died from infections that became easily treatable afterward. As more antibiotics - and especially antibiotics that were effective against infections for which penicillin was useless - were introduced, mortality from infection essentially came to a halt in the developed world.

      The advent of immunizations for diseases other than smallpox likewise had an enormous impact on morbidity rates from endemic and epidemic diseases that had theretofore taken a staggering toll among infants and children, such as polio, whooping cough, measles, rubella, and mumps. One of the principal reasons families in the pre-immunization era tended to be large was that approximately 50% of children died before they reached adulthood, and the death of a young child was a commonplace tragedy that most families experienced at least once.

      Largely halting those deaths - and the equally common deaths of women from "puerperal fever" as a result of infections acquired during childbirth - accounts for virtually all of the apparent increase in human lifespan in the past century or so. As the number of women who survived childbirth, and their children who survived childhood diseases that were ubiquitous prior to widespread, mandatory immunization as a public health measure rose almost logarythmically, the average age of death also increased, as a direct result of their survival.

      The truly frightening thing to me is the prospect that the antibiotics upon which so much of this apparent increase in human lifespan depends are rapidly losing their effectiveness due to overuse. (And, while general practictioners who allow their patients to browbeat them into prescribing antibiotics for viral infections such as colds and flus - against which they are completely ineffective - are major contributors to the trend, the most responsible culprits are livestock growers who use them in incredible quantities, not to treat diseases in their food animals, but as preventatives, which they add to their fodder every freakin' day.) Combine that with the profoundly anti-scientific "anti-vax" movement among parents in the USA, and you have a prescription for a planet-wide return to the same death rates that were the rule for all human populations prior to the 20th century.

      If you doubt that; if you consider the threat ludicrously overstated, consider this: penicillin - the miracle drug that began the antibiotic revolution - is no longer prescribed by doctors. That's not because there are "newer and better options available." It's because it no longer works. So many bacteria have evolved strong resistance to penicillin that it has become almost entirely ineffective. And it's not the only one that has lost its power.

      It's just the first one ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    7. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC has a short video about a farmer in Belgium who started a movement which had a significant impact on a number of farms there after his daughter had issues with a superbug - http://www.bbc.com/news/av/mag...

    8. Re:Medicine needs to change focus by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look like penicillin is in that bad a shape. The Wikipedia article calls it a family of antibiotics, and lists Amoxicillin as one of the varieties. I just finished a course of the stuff prescribed by my dentist.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. This wasn't obvious? by quonset · · Score: 1

    For centuries humans had a limited diet and essentially non-existent medicine and medical care.

    Once the ability for a varied diet took place and advances in medicine kicked in, there was a sudden growth of humans in both size and virility. We can see these changes in the size of skeletons. Afflictions which would have in the past killed us in droves are now, for all intents and purposes, gone.*

    With those limitations removed, evolution was free to do the voodoo that it do. This doesn't even take into consideration the amount of time people now have to pursue sporting events using modern training methods. Despite this, it's quite obvious we've essentially reached our peak size. There may be incremental increases over the coming centuries, but nothing near the pace which happened over the preceding centuries.

    * We're leaving the anti-vaccine idiots

  15. Peak for average education? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Lets just keep funding education so that below average students who might pass a test will pass a test?
    More funding and test results will improve next decade?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Charts by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is the chart of peak athletic performance. I didn't realize it had plateaued so much since 1980.
    Chart of oldest person, compared with oldest living olympian since olympians tend to live longer.

    The paper is basically an argument against Aubrey de Grey, who claims that in the near future, we will figure out specific technologies (and de Grey lists them) that will allow us to live 200 or even 500 years. Unfortunately the argument is weak (as I understand it), because it relies on analysis of aggregate technology improvements (technologies including things like washing hands and antibiotics).

    The obvious counter-argument would be, "Of course, sometimes progress goes fast, sometimes slow; sometimes in spurts, sometimes it stalls. Regardless of whether it comes fast or slow, when we figure out the solutions to these problems, we will live a really long time." In that sense, the paper knocks down something of a strawman (by not addressing their opponent's strongest argument).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Charts by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >The paper is basically an argument against Aubrey de Grey, who claims that in the near future, we will figure out specific technologies (and de Grey lists them) that will allow us to live 200 or even 500 years

      Look, I think de Grey's a bit of a whack job, but his fundamental vision of the human body as a complicated device where we can figure out how to repair age-related failures seems pretty logical to me.

      I think he oversimplifies the task, but human bodies aren't magical constructs. At the very least, we should be able to have the immune system of a naked mole rat and the lifespan of a giant tortoise. Nature's already done those things, they're absolutely possible. Then you add human minds to the investigation, and there's the possibility to exceed what random mutation and natural selection have achieved.

    2. Re:Charts by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The main idea that I think de Grey contributed is that:

      A) We can enumerate the issues in the body that lead to aging.
      B) We can systematically solve each one of those issues.

      He might be wrong on the details of which issues need to be solved, and he definitely doesn't know how to solve them, but I think he's got the right direction.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Charts by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I doubt we've gotten faster or stronger over the past 100-years, one assumes improvements aren't genetic and are as a result of actual science applied to sport instead of old wives tales.

      There is also the issue of numbers, the bigger the population the more likely we have individuals physically capable of doing it, e.g. Usain Bolt pushed the 100m records significantly. That said for many sports including running and high jump one wonders how big of an impact equipment has had on the records.

    4. Re:Charts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      compared with oldest living olympian since olympians tend to live longer.

      Citation needed. Athletic activity is known for taking a huge toll on people. Athletic living is not *healthy*. It's very demanding and always deleterious. Show numbers to back up your claims.

    5. Re:Charts by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I doubt we've gotten faster or stronger over the past 100-years

      We definitely have, as a result of nutrition (our size has collectively grown) and better training regimens (people used to drink alcohol the night before a race to give them extra 'power'). I think you are probably aware of all that, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say otherwise.

      There is also the issue of numbers, the bigger the population the more likely we have individuals physically capable of doing it, e.g. Usain Bolt pushed the 100m records significantly.

      Interestingly, sprinting is a skill we have deep understanding of. The proper running technique is well known, and once everyone on the track has proper running technique, the only differentiator is physical aspects. And we have a strong understanding of which physical aspects are important as well, it's been studied quite a bit. Short sprints are a good microcosm from which to study the larger athleticism world.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Charts by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Citation needed

      Fortunately the citation is right in the summary. Because you don't read, you are ignorant.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Not increasing, decreasing. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    "These traits no longer increase, despite further continuous nutritional, medical, and scientific progress,"

    They are correct, progress in nutrition isn't increasing our lifespans but the fail to mention it's bad progress resulting in worse nutrition than before. Heart disease the the leading killer of people and we know the cause is entirely dietary for the vast majority of cases.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re: Not increasing, decreasing. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You're confused. It's actually pretty awesome that people are living long enough for heart disease to have a chance to kill them.

    2. Re: Not increasing, decreasing. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      You're confused.

      No, I'm quite aware that stimulants are being added to all our foods which putting undo stress on your cardiovascular system, the most popular being sugar and caffeine. When people begin living long enough that the primary cause of death is suddenly getting cancer throughout their body, that's when we've hit the limit for (unmodified) humans.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re: Not increasing, decreasing. by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      No, I'm quite aware that stimulants are being added to all our foods which putting undo stress on your cardiovascular system, the most popular being sugar and caffeine. When people begin living long enough that the primary cause of death is suddenly getting cancer throughout their body, that's when we've hit the limit for (unmodified) humans.

      Theres no evidence at all that "stimulants iin all our food" has anything to do with higher rates of cardiac arrest globally. There is PLENTY of evidence that longer lifespans are, however.

      Doubly so for cancers.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    4. Re: Not increasing, decreasing. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It's still a big point of failure... its a muscle that needs to work constantly or you die. So bereft of anything else killing you like a lion or falling anvil, a critical organ under constant strain is a good bet. Next up, cellular regeneration failure with cancer.

    5. Re: Not increasing, decreasing. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      It's still a big point of failure... its a muscle that needs to work constantly or you die.

      Absolutely! Your heart and liver are terrible single points of failure. The good news is that we're close to a robotic replacement for hearts. Hopefully someone will take it and extend it's functionality so that it will act as a redundant organ.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    6. Re: Not increasing, decreasing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that 'entirely dietary' is false. Mostly? Sure. Entirely? No.

  18. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And simultaneously, my spirit will be in the arms of Jesus.

  19. Because "medical science" is still mosty a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why one 100-year-old will credit having a cigar and a bourbon every day and another will credit never having smoked or drunk alcohol. And "medical science" can't explain either one of them.

    1. Re:Because "medical science" is still mosty a joke by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it is. Medicine is the scientific field with the biggest egos and smallest skills in the physical sciences. It really is pathetic. Fortunately, some fundamental progress has come from medical statistics, telling all these big egos that no, their pet theories do not work and no, their pet treatment have no or negative effects. But it still will be decades, perhaps centuries, before medicine can be taken seriously as a science.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  20. Ehh, stress? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    Stress severely limits life expectancy and while nutrition, medicine etc might improve, stress seems to be increasing as well at the same time, possibly removing part of the benefit of the other factors. Also, it is possible that there will be some sudden disruptive discovery in medicine that will have a significant effect to life expectancy.
    As for athletic performance & height, well, I guess we can't expect much improvement there without drugs, genetic manipulation etc - you don't exactly get taller by eating better, you just don't grow to your full potential when malnourished...
    Not that exciting research IMHO...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  21. Is the plateau due to crummy diet advice? by swb · · Score: 2

    I wonder how the misguided diet advice of low fat/low dietary cholesterol/high carbs in the late 1960s onward is reflected in this study.

    I would guess that the general improvement of human metrics extended slightly past the dawn of that dietary advice (ie, the 1990s) and the drop in statistically broad improvement may not be a hard limit but a byproduct of bad nutrition advice which has turned into the obesity epidemic.

    I'm also not sure that growing any taller is really of that much utility, either. It may be in a world defined physical combat, but its general utility is kind of limited because it implies greater nutritional demand. Maybe some distant future interstellar anthropologists will say something like:

    "It's apparent from their overly large skeletons that these were a people who would not have been capable of organized long distance space flight. Their nutritional demands and excess mass would have consumed too much energy and literally crushed them to death when accelerating to hyperspace. We now understand that only species whose height doesn't exceed 12 Nzsrs and mass doesn't exceed 35 Pmbrs will ever become interstellar."

  22. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my country that's hate speech.

  23. Fight CLub by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  24. I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...since natural selection is actually the mechanism for evolution, yet society has totally undermined it with its ongoing mission to remove even the slightest possible risk to humans. It also mandates that even the most unsuitable people banging out kids as fast as they can is supposed to be celebrated by all.

    1. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are. (going backwards)

      We have not lost natural selection for the reasons you think however, we have lost natural selection because sexual selection has replaced it near completely. A human male's chances at reproduction no longer have anything to do with survivability. Modern human females select for large penis size and stupidity (for control). I'm not saying this is wrong or evil, it is just how it is.

      What are the stats on human penis size for the last 50 years? (Height is related to this due to perspective, penises look larger on smaller males.)

      What are the stats on human brain to body mass ratio for the last 50 years?

    2. Re: I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf? Females select based on large penis size? Is you whole view of reality based on watching internet porn? Women actually mostly detest penises. On 'kinky dating' websites where the guys get a little carried away and post or send crotch photos women generally just ditch those guys.

    3. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I believe you misunderstand how "suitability" works in evolution. Being "more suitable" does not mean "more intelligent". Lots of things determine suitability, and intelligence is just one aspect.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re: I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this conclusion is based on years of observation in high school and university many years ago, before the internet or internet porn ever existed.

      All the girls in the high schools and universities I attended would fuck the same roughly dozen guys, out of hundreds.

      As a young gay man I was able to get some candid responses from them as to why, Consistently the answer was: penis size, obedience and reports on these two attributes from the other girls (they would not waste their time on unknowns).

      Anecdotal admittedly, but my view of reality is in fact based on reality.

    5. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not disagree. However, large penis size does not improve survivability/fitness (unless the penis is to small to actually penetrate). Similarly, stupidity in general is an attribute that has adverse effects on survivability.

      Though one could argue, that since these are the attributes that modern women select for, that these are in fact attributes of survivability now.

      But from an objective standpoint an increase in penis size and decrease in intelligence in humans cannot be argued to represent an evolutionary advancement.

    6. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, intelligence currently defines 78% of suitability. That's why unsuitable Bantu depend for existence so much on affirmative action laws.

    7. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by blindseer · · Score: 2

      But from an objective standpoint an increase in penis size and decrease in intelligence in humans cannot be argued to represent an evolutionary advancement.

      Objectively speaking there is no such thing as "evolutionary advancement" since advancement implies some form of goal that evolution is leading towards, and that we know what that goal is.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution is leading towards perfection within a specific set of parameters. Those parameters being changed all the time (by evolution itself), that goal is not achievable, and evolution is an everlasting self-sustaining process.
      Also, take a look at the Idiocracy movie. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/idiocracy

    9. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fucking bullshit. You scared she won't fuck you this week?

      Have some fucking dignity and self respect man.

      Listen to yourself, you are defending sexual selection for large penises and stupidity.

      The fact is, there is a goal here: stupid, obedient men with large penises. So I guess by your (your girl's) definition then we are advancing.

      Fucking shameful. Humanity is doomed.

    10. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you any evidence to back up that this is what women are selecting for? (Aside from adverts on porn sites)

      It does seem stupid people breed more than intelligent people, but that doesn't mean women are selecting for stupid men with big dicks. Intelligent people just seem to find pursuits other than raising children to fill their time. How this affects demographics is less clear, the way genes combine to affect intelligence can still result in intelligent children from not so intelligent parents, so this might not result in a overall decrease in intelligence in the population.

      My hope for the future is genetic engineering for improving future humans, as I think evolution has taken us as far as it can.

      And as to your last question, without checking the stats, I'm pretty sure people have got fatter over the last 50 years, so the ratio of brain to body mass will likely have gone down, but this says nothing about the average intelligence of the population. Intelligence isn't strongly correlated to brain mass anyway.

    11. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Quite true of Naturalistic Evolution--"advancement" is meaningless. Some DNA permutations are living (for a while), others are not. No further distinctions of "better" are meaningful within that context.

      Not true however of Theistic Evolution. Within that context Teleology, notions of "purpose" or "goal", can be integrated.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    12. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Facts don't care about your feelings.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    13. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presented "Evidence" (anecdotal) earlier in the thread (that predates porn site ads by about two decades). To see it, click "Load All Posts" above and adjust the threshold slider to -1. (Fucking stupid slashdot, only forum I know of that needs four clicks just to load a page...)

      I have seen nothing in the last 30 years to tell me that it has changed at all. Actually no, I have seen a little change - more young men are fine with homosexual relationships now. My generation was punished hard for making such a choice to retain their dignity and freedom, Thankfully it is more acceptable now (though frightening violence still happens.)

    14. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about feelings you pedantic twat?

    15. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I actually wasn't thinking about intelligence specifically. I was intending to mean bad genetic traits/mutations are now being allowed to propagate that cavemen would have just died early of without ever being able to breed.

    16. Re:I'm just surprised we're not going backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Measure the distance from the start, then, and not the distance to the goal (which does not exist).

  25. Study fails to understand what happened. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) It is not true that human life spans, height, and athleticism naturally improve. They assumed this by looking at an unusual period of time, the last century. There was NO natural, gradual improvement.

    2) What is true is that in the past hundred years we made three different discoveries, each of which INSTANTLY raised lie expectancy, height, and athleticism to their current values. But it took a long time for that knowledge to spread. There are still people out there smoking cigarettes, drinking to excess, etc. Those three issues were healthy lifestyles (life span), nutrition (height), exercise (athleticism).

    3) There are several discoveries that are not advances in healthy lifestyle, nutrition, or exercise that are very promising new ways to improve all three of those statistics. Genetic engineering and cyber-replacements could each individually increase any or all of those three things.

    Technically, we can already increase anyone's height that has lost both legs. (https://www.quora.com/When-someone-is-getting-two-artificial-legs-can-they-pick-their-new-height)

    The basic question they asked shows their assumptions are silly.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you write an illogical thing, that "there are people still smoking cigarettes, drinking to excess, etc."....guess what, plenty of people do those things and (over half of them) have a lifespan just as long as anyone else. Those things might just weed out the less fit, ha!

    2. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus it's not mean or median they're talking about... it's max, smoking and bad diet drag down the mean but probably does not impact the max at all

    3. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      my very longest lived relatives did the unhealthy things like drink and smoke, getting cut down in their 90s from their filthy unhealthy habits. Well there was my great grandmother who didn't use tobacco or alcohol and didn't exercise but had a bag of chips and a can of soda pop (sugared) every afternoon about 3 o'clock. She lived to be 101.

    4. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal outliers do not disprove statistical facts.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      You do not understand logic. It is not a video game where activities directly reduce your lifespan.

      Instead it is a percent chance to die very early. As such, the existence of atheistical outliers like you mention does not in any way affect my logic.

      The Alocholism reduces life expectancy by over 7 years. Smoking by ten years. The fact that one guy lives to 90 does not change the fact that some guys die at 20 from those activities.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      but the "statistic fact" is NOT that smoking or drinking shortens *every* human life. And by the way we're not talking of outliers here, there are MANY drinkers and smokers that live to life expectancy or beyond.

    7. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not understand logic.

      Claiming your criticizer has the flaw that you have proven to have by his argumentation is not a convincing argument.

      It is not a video game where activities directly reduce your lifespan.

      The Alocholism [sic] reduces life expectancy by over 7 years. Smoking by ten years.

      Thus proving that your criticizer was correct and your childish mirroring failed.

    8. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      but the "statistic fact" is NOT that smoking or drinking shortens *every* human life.

      Nobody said it was but you.

      Smoking and drinking tend to kill people after they reach breeding age (moreso smoking, but still) so we do not tend to breed out the tendency to smoke and drink, nor do we tend to evolve to tolerate them "rapidly" (on an evolutionary scale.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Study fails to understand what happened. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No, drinking and smoking don't kill at all in most cases. Not even a question of impacting evolution then, there can't be.

  26. Given the circumstances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it may be safer to say that human lifespans and performance have hit their peak for this set of environmental conditions. These genetics are likely to behave rather differently, say, on another planet (or whatever).

  27. Re: When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off chimp, use your own internet.

  28. Doesn't this come out every few decades? by mveloso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't this story come out every 15-20 years or so?

    It basically says the same thing, that humans will never get better/taller/faster/more attractive than today. Then they say the same thing in 15-20 years, except that everything got better/faster/taller/more attractive during that time.

    1. Re:Doesn't this come out every few decades? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this story come out every 15-20 years or so?

      It basically says the same thing, that humans will never get better/taller/faster/more attractive than today. Then they say the same thing in 15-20 years, except that everything got better/faster/taller/more attractive during that time.

      Uh, more attractive?

      Narcissism and plastic surgery skills are not exactly traits of natural evolution.

    2. Re:Doesn't this come out every few decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you really compared the attractiveness of society's most attractive people (generally people from Hollywood) from, say, 1940 to today? Those considered beautiful today are quite inferior to those of the 1940's and 1950's. (I realize this is entirely subjective, but just study the differences for a while before deciding I'm wrong.)

    3. Re:Doesn't this come out every few decades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, more attractive?

      Narcissism and plastic surgery skills are not exactly traits of natural evolution.

      Evolution doesn't have to fit your definition of natural.

      Plenty of birds and other creatures create "displays" to attract mates...

      Humans ability to create a display is not particularly different, just another method of ensuring your genome is propagated.

  29. They've grabbed all the low-hanging fruit by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    Training and equipment allowed significant performance improvements in a relatively short period of time. How high could one of today's pole vaulters reach using a pole from the 1950's? Or put one of today's cyclists on a bike from that era and see whether they break any Tour de France records. Technique and nutrition have also been refined to the point where there will probably be very few more major improvements.

    These factors allowed elite athletes (now sorted into various sports by body type) to improve their performance very significantly without changing the basic human body all that much. The next step, though...actually modifying an individual's genetic structure...may produce some pretty spectacular results.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:They've grabbed all the low-hanging fruit by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      A lot of recent sport innovations have been simply excluded from the sport, compared to many being allowed during the middle part of the 20th century. Cycling is a great example. A cyclist on a recumbant cycle (feet-first rather than upright) is much faster and better, but that bicycle design has been excluded by the rules. Why are completely new materials for bikes, tires, etc, electronic training monitoring and similar allowed but not completely different designs? It's somewhat arbitrary really. A lot of sports have these kinds of things. Why aren't springloaded shoes allowed but poles in pole vaults changed vastly? Technique innovation can have this also. In swimming there are rules about how far down the pool a swimmer can dolphin kick. So a lot of the current caps on "athletic performance" have as much to do with the interaction of the innovation with the sport's rules as they do with the ability of the athletes. Much the same is true in auto racing where the speed of the cars is mostly set by the rules, not the state of the art.

    2. Re:They've grabbed all the low-hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best chew on the CORE! Different rules derive different games. If you want to play spring-my-feet instead of hi-jump then ... knock yoself springy ... springy-dodo perhaps, but it's not the hi-jump you are playing ! Sez me. Same with springy pole-vault-poles ...

    3. Re:They've grabbed all the low-hanging fruit by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      "Clap skates" are an excellent example of your point. For some reason, they've decided to allow them. But in golf, square grooves on a club make it illegal.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  30. Not actually true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is still room for improvements. Just stopping the use of tobacco can add five years to the average human life span. In First World countries more exercise and less junk food can add another 5 years. Comprehensive Health Care can add another 5 years. Overall I think we could add twenty years to our average life span.

  31. Re: When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gaaaaay.

  32. Unicode cockups now in the summaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great work on the character set stuff, Slashdot. Not!

  33. Sugar confounds and is toxic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eliminate sugar and other fiberless carbs from our diets, and the picture will improve.
    Or just examine longevity of the fraction of the population that avoids sugar/fiberless carbs.
    Through higher premiums, I'm sick of paying medical costs for the poor dietary behavior of the vast majority.

  34. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your "spirit" is just a combination of chemicals. It ceases to be when you cease to be.

  35. It's bioengineering time by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Natural selection has brought us this far, and this is where it stops. It's time for us to start exercising intelligent design. Fire up the CRISPRs!

  36. Find a cure...for Greed. by geekmux · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is a 1 in 3 chance that you will get cancer. A cancer-riddled society is a profitable society.

    Your manufactured food supply is poisoned. We will never clean up our food chain because that would cost too much. An obese society is a profitable society.

    Alcohol, tobacco, and other poisons will continue to be legal no matter the impact. An addicted society is a profitable society.

    Death is no longer a natural event. Death is now manufactured.

    Could we live a longer, healthier life? Yes. But you must find a cure for Greed first. Good fucking luck with that shit. Might as well order that snow-cone maker for Hell.

    1. Re:Find a cure...for Greed. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      I'm just curious because you sound really bitter. Where is this human society that is like what you want? When has it ever existed in history? I'm just curious. It seems a lot to me like you want a totally unworkable Utopia and your idealism has disillusioned you. It's just that this greed is the force that has maxed out our lives and given us better food than anywhere on the planet, alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed and provide tons of revenue. In fact, those are "sin taxes" that are a result of Christianity. It just seems nothing is good enough for you, where does this society you desire exist?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  37. We don't just appear from nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fix the god damned nature murdering habitat of this hellish dirt bowl of a fuck fest... that concludes my hypothesis on improving longevity. So what do you think should we continue to stick our heads up the specimen's asshole or shall we look elsewhere for real problems to answer?

  38. Kids don't die like they used to by Scott+Tracy · · Score: 1

    We can't forget that a lot of that 30 year average life expectancy increasing is because almost all kids survive childhood now. It's not like everyone used to keel over at 50, it was that a bunch of childhood diseases prevented a sizeable number of kids from getting past age 5.

  39. I haven't hit my lifespan peak yet. by Subm · · Score: 1

    I haven't hit my lifespan peak yet.

    I mean, I hit my personal best a moment ago, but I just beat it.

    And I did again too.

    There, I did it again.

  40. They forgot the third dimension! by Picodon · · Score: 2

    We have stopped (...) growing taller...

    I fear that we haven’t stopped growing wider, though.

    1. Re:They forgot the third dimension! by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      My dick's growing shorter

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  41. Eat a dick, Kurzweil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proving him wrong yet again

  42. Generalized nutrition and medicine limits only by erice · · Score: 1

    Lifespans have plateaued as a result of generalised improvements in nutrition and medicine. We don't know how much improvement is possible when specifically targeting ageing because very little has been done.

  43. Re:When I die by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I cease to be every night when I go to sleep. Sometimes I am reborn in a dream only to die again and get reborn in my body.

  44. Re:When I die by hackwrench · · Score: 0

    The spirit is a part of the universe that coincides with the motions of physics and need not be ascribed to whole atoms or a given set of chemicals. It arises from quantum motions on a submolecular level until you arrive at a copy of a universal state.

  45. Research into Human Performance Enhancement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are unexplored paths, such as research into human performance enhancement. These are blocked by the anti-doping organizations that plague athletic organizations. Some competitions should be open to deliberate enhancement.

    1. Re:Research into Human Performance Enhancement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cocaine high jump. The methamphetamine 100m dash. The LSD triathalon.

      That shit could be pretty entertaining man!

    2. Re: Research into Human Performance Enhancement by jo.cool · · Score: 1

      It's been tried already, with disastrous results. A documentary is available from the 1980s: https://www.hulu.com/watch/409...

    3. Re:Research into Human Performance Enhancement by sad_ · · Score: 1

      not only that but we will keep on replacing more and more body parts, these could potentially keep on working for ever (and if they do fail, replaced again).
      ofcourse the question is until what level we will still be human?

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    4. Re:Research into Human Performance Enhancement by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but what the hell is the point of that?
      The purpose behind athletics is already destroyed; our athletic role models live for nothing but the game. That's not healthy. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in 99.9999% of cases. They just play games.

      Athleticism is supposed to make you a well-rounded individual.

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    5. Re:Research into Human Performance Enhancement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go down this route, NOT taking life-threatening levels of performance enhancements will not be an option for anyone who wants to compete in sport, and it will filter on down to the level that kids are having dangerous drugs pushed on them in school by ambitious school coaches.

      If you want to "experiment" on yourself, then more power to you (just don't expect me to pay your inevitable and totally avoidable medical costs), but allowing anyone to use such enhancement in competition means that everyone competing must in order to maintain a level playing field, and that is not OK. The reason why there's not a lot of research on how to do this kind of "performance enhancement" of humans safely is that it's blisteringly unethical to do potentially-unsafe things to healthy people for no good reason.

  46. good by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

    The last thing we need is for humans to live longer.

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but is typically the last thing an individual needs.

  47. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, sure it is. Whatever faerie tales you need to tell yourself to stop from wetting yourself.

  48. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even small children can understand the difference between sleep and death. It's really sad when you see a grown person who still believes in faerie tales.

  49. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the atoms making up JesusAC's body are already in the universe - so there won't even the level of change you imply.

  50. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will be in the arms of Jesus.

    When I die, I will be shitting on the toilet, like Elvis.

  51. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strange, even as I'm alive the atoms in my body are continuously being returned and taken from the universe.

    Kind of interesting that something ageless like an atom can somehow magically have an age inside my body!

    Translation: Go buy a nice banana at the supermarket. Peel it and cut it in two. Feed one half to an 8 year old, feed the other half to and 80 year old.

    How did the banana know to make carbon atoms turn into 8 year old human cells in one case, but 80 year old human cells in the other?

    Life is were all the breakthroughs and technologies will appear in the next few years, and it will make everything that happened before look like cave drawings.

  52. Infinite Human by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I see no reason why some currently unknown discovery would make an arrogant premise like this any more than a belief system - we know everything now, no need to strive or explore. The Human species has been artificially limited simply as a process of the economic systems we have in place before discussing any of the many flow on effects from that.

    Nutrition itself is a massive factor and considering whether athletes have reached peak human performance has little to do with maximum functional longevity for people who have different objectives. The lessons I have *personally* learned from a lifetime of fitness training and martial arts has left me with so many questions about unexplored areas of human potential that tell me that we still have so much to learn and that this article is just wrong.

    One such lesson was how do I address the accumulated injury that I carry in my body? So roughly three years ago I started a process of extreme physical therapy to resolve accumulated scar tissue throughout my body. In that time I have resolved 28 physical injuries, I have had joints and bones in my body become jelly like and reform stronger and more flexible than they were before. At this very moment my right elbow is reforming and has maintained a constant temperature of 33C for the last two months as it gradually improves, an extremely painful process, however one that has obliterated scarred muscles and the painful knots associated with it.

    This has destroyed many stressors in my life, I sleep better, my body functions better and I am more relaxed. I documented the process and collected data because I was trying to understand it however I had no idea of the profound impact this would have on my well being. Fingers, wrists, elbows shoulders, neck, ribcage, toes, ankles knees hips and even my spine have all been radically repaired and improved, many minor aliments I suffered just disappeared. I have less aches and pains now than I did 30 years ago and I don't groan when I get up or move.

    So if I can can uncover that process myself I think that people dedicated to improving human health and performance can uncover a lot more in the years to come.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  53. Level Cap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait for the v1.1 update, it buffs humans and sharks and gets rid of the pesky mosquito spawn camping.

  54. And Moore's Law ended a few years ago by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    People many times predicted that Moore's Law couldn't continue much longer due to physical limitations, and yet somehow it did anyway. A new solution was found to get around each new physical limitation, allowing computers to continue to increase in speed for decades.

    Modern medicine has simply reached a physical limitation. For the past couple hundred years, medicine has largely focused on fighting diseases and conditions that shortened people's lives. Antibiotics and vaccines have had dramatic effects on average human lifespans, but didn't really change what "old age" meant. But I'm confident that as scientists learn more about life at the molecular level, it will find ways to get past this "barrier" and surge ahead in its progress towards longer, healthier human lives.

  55. No surprise since we've killed evolution. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    Glasses, surgery, steroids, cosmetic surgery, etc.

    Not all bad, but not what nature intended when she designed natural selection.

  56. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not magic. Magic is believing in an all-powerful creator and his son who was nailed to wood for some reason. Magic is believing that somehow people are special in the grand scheme and have everliving "spirits", "ghosts" or "souls".

  57. Insufficient selective pressure by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    There are still isolated individuals who push the limits- but the selective pressure is low.

    Say if you couldn't run a 4 minute mile, you were sterilized.

    Say if you didn't have red hair, you were sterilized.

    Say if your grandparents didn't have long lifespans, you were not allowed to have children.

    Extreme selective pressure (over 99%) would get things moving again.

    Sure- it's horrific. Just saying that we are only at an end to improvement under the current level of selective pressure (which is really low).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Insufficient selective pressure by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Eugenics gets a bad name from the early 20th century when nobody had any decent idea about how heredity worked. With a basic concept of 'I have power in this society, therefore I and my children are superior, let us proceed to sterilize people I do not like', it was bound to go south quickly. Then comes Hitler.

      You might think trying to kill all the Jews in German-controlled areas was bad (and you'd be right, obviously), but that wasn't eugenics. It was scapegoating and taking political advantage of racism. In terms of eugenics, it was the Nazi attempt to kill off homosexuals, the retarded, and the deformed that was particularly horrible and exposed a complete lack of understanding of the difference between genetics, disease, and environmental influences.

      The general concept of eugenics itself isn't to kill off people you don't like - the general concept is that you can breed for traits in humans just like any other animal. And that's 100% correct.

      We're getting to the point now where germ line genetic engineering will become a thing. Eugenics relies on understanding what is heritable and how it is passed on, and then getting people to agree to have children with specific other people or refrain from having children at all. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can be a case of 'here, take this pill and you will be healthier'. And ANYONE can take the pill in question.

      I think genetic engineering will remove the question of eugenics from the table long before we get over our distrust of it due to past ignorant abuse in the name of the concept.

    2. Re:Insufficient selective pressure by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Germans considered undesirables were indeed killed, which is eugenics. There was also the program that rounded up a lot of healthy-looking blonde blue-eyed young women to mate with similar-looking SS men, which was positive eugenics (and perhaps a reward for making it into the SS).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Insufficient selective pressure by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >There was also the program that rounded up a lot of healthy-looking blonde blue-eyed young women to mate with similar-looking SS men, which was positive eugenics (and perhaps a reward for making it into the SS).

      My understanding - and I admit I am not a strong student of history - is that this program turned into a brothel system pretty quickly.

    4. Re:Insufficient selective pressure by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not all that familiar with the program, but I sure wouldn't be surprised. I know that there was at least some consideration at some time of getting pure Aryan children.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  58. Unless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As for our human lifespan, life expectancy in high-income countries rose by about 30 years from 1900 to 2000, according to a National Institutes of Health study cited by the authors, thanks to better nutrition, hygiene, vaccines and other medical improvements."

    Unless you live in the US where healthcare is so expensive and so crappy that your life expectancy is less than other 1st world countries... BUT hey keep telling yourselves, we have the BEST healthcare in the world! We pay more for less... This is amazing, if you are an insurance, hospital or big pharma company.

  59. On average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are well below our peak. There are still billions of people who donâ(TM)t get enough to eat. And have no access to decent healthcare.

  60. Re:When I die by Joce640k · · Score: 0

    Life is were all the breakthroughs and technologies will appear in the next few years, and it will make everything that happened before look like cave drawings.

    You'll even be able to pay for it with all those Bitcoins you own!

    --
    No sig today...
  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. It's time we could artificially end Malthussianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could start artificially ending the main problem of overpopulation. And all the consecuences that rule horrible politics and social attitudes..
    Just by designing a new nano-human . Deminishing human scale to the half in every next generation.
    As in the chess legend, we could retain all our knowledge and standard size tools and crops. And at the same time, by reducing our standard size to a future size of insects, we could trouble no more about overpopulation or lack of nutrition.
    I imagine that one day, we could reach any galaxy using the same ships that today, but carrying all the world population and food that could last for centuries...
    This is just nature's wisdom, but today we should be able to accomplish it with our technical knowledge...

  63. Fictional citations by scotts13 · · Score: 1

    Read Robert Heinlein's "Beyond this Horizon." from 1942. Or, at least read the Wikipedia article. Clever method of eugenic selection without direct gene manipulation. (Granted, I'm not sure the method would actually work). Or, "Methuselah's Children" - same period, same author - for a simpler, guaranteed method.

    Simple fact is, modern medicine is allowing more, genetically less fit, individuals to survive and breed. Note the current research on Huntington's disease. We have to combat the deterioration somehow...

    1. Re:Fictional citations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetically less fit based on what? What is the fitness test? Hint: by definition those who survive and breed most prolifically are the best fit. Whether we LIKE the output of the fitness test is a completely different discussion.

    2. Re:Fictional citations by scotts13 · · Score: 1

      (Sigh) The POINT was, classic Darwinian standards of fitness are already irrelevant as regard humans in civilized countries. Rather, fitness as regards utility to the individual, as in NOT having the genes for Huntington's, hemophilia, etc. But you knew that.

    3. Re:Fictional citations by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Methuselah's Children was merely the marriage of people who had long-lived grandparents. That's hardly guaranteed. It might produce more centenarians, but not the lifespans of the Howard families. It's been a long time since I read Beyond This Horizon, and the Wikipedia article gives no details on how the breeding went on, or for that matter why it would work.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  64. Re: When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey having an imaginary friend means u r never alone

  65. Re:When I die by gnick · · Score: 1

    I cease to be every night when I go to sleep.

    Your consciousness alters when you fall asleep, but doesn't cease. I'd describe being put under for surgery as being closer to death than just sacking out, but even then your consciousness is suspended, not ceased.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  66. Re:When I die by gnick · · Score: 1

    How did the banana know to make carbon atoms turn into 8 year old human cells in one case, but 80 year old human cells in the other?

    In both cases, the banana will transform into brand new human cells. How do you create 80yo cells without waiting 80 years?

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  67. Sweet Home! Alabama? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    "Big Men???" keep on turning
    Carry on like boys of sin
    Singing songs about the teen-girls
    He rapes 'ole' 'bamy once again and He likes 'em young

    Well I heard Mister Moore deny about her
    Well I heard ole Roy put her down
    Well, I hope Roy Moore will remember
    A southern folk don't need him around anyhow

    Sweet home Alabama
    Where the guys have not a clue (apparently)
    Sweet home Alabama
    Lord, it's startin' smell like poo

    In Ole 'Bamy they love the POTUS, boo-hoo-hoo
    Now we all did what we could do
    Now Pussy-Gate does not bother 'em
    Does your conscience bother you, tell the truth

    Sweet home Alabama
    Where the skies WERE so blue
    Sweet home Alabama
    Lord, can not these people be true?

    Now GOP has got Deniers
    And they've been known to twist the truth
    Lord they make nearly vomit
    They lie and cheat and steal, now how bout you?

    Sweet home Alabama
    Where the skies CAN BE AGAIN so blue
    Sweet home Alabama
    Lord, I promise to make it for YOU!

  68. Re:When I die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if he said he would be in Paradise with Allah and 72 virgins?

  69. Re:When I die by scottrocket · · Score: 1

    I.e., you are removed from the simulation, and put into another, or an android body. Pass the plate! : )

  70. Bad time to check on lifespans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are currently being (1) poisoned with fluoridated water, (2) poisoned with mercury & aluminum in vaccines (that have gone up to 100 recommended shots by age 5), (3) poisoned with fluoridated Pig Pharma drugs, and most importantly (4) irradiated at ever increasing doses with microwave radiation.

    No wonder our lifespans & size have "peaked". So has our population.

    1. Re: Bad time to check on lifespans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the multitude of scientific advancements doesn't cancel out the effects of the poisons we now eat or drink or breathe in the city or the farm or the mines.

    2. Re: Bad time to check on lifespans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn, nothing new.

      Have been poisoning ourselves with tobacco, alcohol and drugs for centuries.

  71. Dolly the sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a lecture I give every now and then to various public audiences on tissue engineering (I'm faculty at the University of Calgary). On one of the first slides I show a picture of Dolly the sheep, and also some mice from Wakayama et al, Cell Stem Cell 12(3): 293-297 (2013) (TLDR: they cloned a mouse, then cloned that mouse, etc - 25 generations at time of publication, of which the first 16 had aged through their normal lifespans by that time with no detectable abnormalities).

    Lots of interesting things come out of that work, but the key one for this discussion is that a single cell, from an animal that may be old, or sick, or injured, contains the information necessary to recreate the entire body of that organism when it was young, healthy and whole. There's the proof-of-concept - now we just have to figure out how to implement (which won't be trivial).

  72. Misconception... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that this "slowing" of improvements could only be just a plateau.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.