TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates

151 点作者 sirteno超过 11 年前

24 条评论

hooande超过 11 年前
There is no reason that human beings cannot live forever. Gompertz Law is not a law of physics, but a law of observation similar to Moore&#x27;s Law. Medical and safety technology are also advancing exponentially. Barring a catastrophe that blasts us back to the stone age, one growth curve will eventually overtake the other.<p>The article uses a cops and criminals analogy to explain how our bodies degrade over time. Technology can allow us to produce artificial cops and conditions that make things more difficult for the criminals. The Methusaleh Foundation [1] is working on pieces of this problem right now, with a cash prize. There are many other research institutions working on different aspects of immortality. Once medical nanomachines become a practical reality we might be able to turn the work of Gompertz on it&#x27;s head within a generation.<p>Many people, myself included, find the idea of effective immortality to be disconcerting. But all of the arguments have been made and rebutted: Just because we can&#x27;t imagine immortality doesn&#x27;t mean that isn&#x27;t a good thing, if we were born into a world without death we wouldn&#x27;t give it up for any of the advantages of mortality, we would have more productive time to solve the problems of overpopulation, etc and so forth.<p>If our species is able to continue on its current path then death is going to, well, die. The tragedy is that none of us will live to see it. That doesn&#x27;t mean that we can&#x27;t consider the implications and start preparing an infinite future for our descendants.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.mprize.org/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mprize.org&#x2F;</a>
评论 #6985568 未加载
评论 #6985435 未加载
评论 #6985403 未加载
评论 #6985439 未加载
评论 #6985827 未加载
评论 #6985629 未加载
评论 #6985503 未加载
评论 #6985465 未加载
neals超过 11 年前
I&#x27;d hate to die, for so many different reasons. Why can&#x27;t we all just keep on living? Any change of immortality in the coming 60-odd years? Or is that just not far enough into the future? Are we doomed to die?
评论 #6985143 未加载
评论 #6985210 未加载
评论 #6985354 未加载
评论 #6985109 未加载
评论 #6985265 未加载
评论 #6985183 未加载
评论 #6985114 未加载
评论 #6985138 未加载
评论 #6985272 未加载
评论 #6985186 未加载
评论 #6985129 未加载
JumpCrisscross超过 11 年前
Biological immortality does not mean immunity from accidents or homicide. Hugh Hixon, at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, calculated the half-life of a biologically immortal population at 1 654 years [1].<p>If we lowered fatality odds to 1 in 100 000 per year (no accidents, Sweden&#x27;s homicide rate) this figure inflates to 69 315. It&#x27;s an interesting illustration of how the effects of randomness will not be muted, just shifted.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MisadventureAsACauseOfDeath.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.alcor.org&#x2F;Library&#x2F;html&#x2F;MisadventureAsACauseOfDeat...</a>
评论 #6987549 未加载
chrisamiller超过 11 年前
As a cancer biologist, I can tell you that at least some of these assumptions don&#x27;t hold true. Acute Myeloid Leukemia is driven entirely by &quot;accumulated lightning bolts&quot;. Every time your blood stem cells divide, a small number of replication errors occur randomly in the DNA. If one of these cells accumulate two to three of these mutations in the wrong genes, you will develop AML. The longer you live, the more likely it is that this will occur. Bottom line, everyone who lives long enough will eventually get cancer.<p>While I agree that these plots are interesting, it&#x27;s dangerous to read too much into these without thinking more deeply about the vast number of ways that there are to die, many of which will have strikingly different age distributions.<p>(see <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412007775" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S0092867412...</a>)
评论 #6989079 未加载
评论 #6986061 未加载
300bps超过 11 年前
4.5 year old blog post that I didn&#x27;t find any interesting information on. For example:<p><i>Exponential decay is sharp, but an exponential within an exponential is so sharp that I can say with 99.999999% certainty that no human will ever live to the age of 130. (Ignoring, of course, the upward shift in the lifetime distribution that will result from future medical advances)</i><p>The author makes a hugely controversial statements saying that no human will ever live past 130 and then says, &quot;of course, ignoring the most important variable&quot;.<p>Anyone interested in this topic might want to check out:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Aubrey_de_Grey</a>
KiwiCoder超过 11 年前
&quot;... millions long for immortality who don&#x27;t know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.&quot; - Susan Ertz
评论 #6987185 未加载
评论 #6985197 未加载
评论 #6985250 未加载
mathattack超过 11 年前
Having taken care of some elderly, and watched others pass, my impression that living forever appeals more to the young than the old. Some of it may be their bodies breaking down, some of it may be losing old friends and loves, but most of the folks 75+ seem to be ready when the time comes. Certainly more ready than their kids.<p>But still... To quote the Rolling Stones, &quot;What a drag it is getting old.&quot;
评论 #6986367 未加载
评论 #6987120 未加载
avn2109超过 11 年前
A reliability engineer might say that as a first approximation, the time-till-failure of the human animal (really just an electro-mechanical-chemical machine) has a governing equation which is a linear combination of many Weibull equations [0] and Arrhenius equations [1]. Mechanical failure is known to be governed by Weibull, and chemically-driven devices fail according to Arrhenius.<p>From this claim it isn&#x27;t hard to cook up superexponential-ish results over certain timescales by tuning the fitting parameters and combination coefficients. But that doesn&#x27;t mean the underlying failure physics here are truly superexponential.<p>But as a better approximation, human death may be governed by a system of differential equations with primarily stochastic coefficients and plenty of strongly nonlinear operators. So after our biomedical engineers remove the first few bottlenecks at ~105 years old, these curve shapes might change dramatically to reflect the true complexity of the underlying physics.<p>[0] <a href="http://reliabilityanalyticstoolkit.appspot.com/mechanical_reliability_data" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;reliabilityanalyticstoolkit.appspot.com&#x2F;mechanical_re...</a> [1] <a href="http://reliawiki.com/index.php/Arrhenius_Relationship" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;reliawiki.com&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;Arrhenius_Relationship</a>
erroneousfunk超过 11 年前
In response to the the morbid web calculator at the bottom of the article, I made this a few years ago: <a href="http://javasaur.com/deathCalculator.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;javasaur.com&#x2F;deathCalculator.html</a> that provides similar information, but takes into account current age and gender. It uses US actuarial tables (so this assumes that you&#x27;re living every year as if it were 2007 or whatever year it was I used...)
abhiv超过 11 年前
Great article. For me personally, the issue is not so much dying but aging. Seeing your hair thin, your eyesight deteriorate, your memory weaken and your energy decrease with time must be a profoundly depressing experience -- one of the major reasons why the old in general are more solemn than the young, I think.<p>These changes are still in the future for me (thankfully), but I imagine they will happen some day if I live long enough.<p>I think a world in which people would keep remain mentally and physically fit, but simply die (maybe from a lightning bolt type event) at some point, would be much better than one in which your body and mind slowly fade with time.<p>I&#x27;d be happy with medical advances that let you keep the mind and body of a 25 year old till you&#x27;re 80 and then simply die one day. Unfortunately, some period of old age and infirmity seems to be present no matter how much lifespan extends.
awjr超过 11 年前
One consideration, is that prolonging human life into 100s of years would be very useful for colonisation of space.
michalu超过 11 年前
I don&#x27;t really want to die, but if there was no end, I would keep wasting my time and life forever. Now I feel a sense of urgency to do something - and a short life with purpose feels better then eternity of boredom and procrastination - that&#x27;s just my personality though.
Futurebot超过 11 年前
For anyone here who has not yet read Eliezer Yudkowsky&#x27;s &quot;You Only Live Twice&quot;, please do so:<p><a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/wq/you_only_live_twice/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lesswrong.com&#x2F;lw&#x2F;wq&#x2F;you_only_live_twice&#x2F;</a><p>Pertains to Cryonics, which is our best bet for immortality until we solve the aging issue (i.e., we hopefully stay cryopreserved until immortality is achieved.) At least with SENS&#x2F;The Methuselah Foundation&#x2F;Calico now getting attention and a bit of funding, there&#x27;s hope here. One day, perhaps governments will consider aging &quot;force&quot; or &quot;harm&quot; and do the number one job government should do: protecting people from it (by funding research to prevent it.)
评论 #6987001 未加载
VikingCoder超过 11 年前
Your body is a cannon, meant to shoot DNA into the future. Once it has fulfilled that purpose, and possibly done a bit to nurture the next generation(s) of your &#x2F; your tribe&#x27;s DNA (or harm the DNA of others), your body serves no more purpose.
评论 #6986072 未加载
评论 #6985574 未加载
dave1629超过 11 年前
Peter Thiel&#x27;s version of this: <a href="http://blakemasters.com/post/24253160557/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-16-decoding" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blakemasters.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;24253160557&#x2F;peter-thiels-cs183-...</a>
dorfsmay超过 11 年前
&gt; I can say with 99.999999% certainty that no human will ever live to the age of 130<p>That is unfortunate. I grew up in the 80s (the 8 bit µ processor era), always had a very positive outlook on life, and thought 127 was the perfect age for me to die.
negamax超过 11 年前
I often wonder if all our life&#x27;s earnings will eventually be used in upgrading our bodies. Could future be like &#x27;In Time&#x27; or something parallel to that?
评论 #6985347 未加载
dsego超过 11 年前
We don&#x27;t neccesarily need a body. I posted this link a while back but it went unnoticed:<p><a href="http://aeon.co/magazine/being-human/virtual-afterlives-will-transform-humanity" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;aeon.co&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;being-human&#x2F;virtual-afterlives-will-...</a><p>&quot;The question is not whether we can upload our brains onto a computer, but what will become of us when we do&quot;
评论 #6987039 未加载
jostmey超过 11 年前
This is a very interesting approach to describe the mortality rate as a function of age. I wonder how this theory ties in with more established theories of aging, such as the Evolutionary Theories of Aging (ref. <a href="http://www.genetics.org/content/156/3/927.full" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.genetics.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;156&#x2F;3&#x2F;927.full</a>)
exarch超过 11 年前
We already know why cancer rates increase with age: cancer is a result of several <i>cumulative</i> cellular mutations. Obviously, the chance of these mutations all occurring in any given cell increases with the number of cell divisions that occur, i.e. the length of time the person lives.
a3n超过 11 年前
If people lived to, say, 150 or 300 years, 500 years, I wonder how hard it would be to convince people to risk their lives in war? I wonder if people would be more careful with the environment if they knew they&#x27;d actually have to live with their treatment of the environment?
评论 #6985929 未加载
sirsar超过 11 年前
It bothers me that 8 is the &quot;magic number.&quot; Did Gompertz simply round? I find it hard to believe that the real number is not 7.7 or 8.3, and those would have vastly different effects. Why should evolution mark itself by whole rotations around the sun?
scotty79超过 11 年前
Do you know any other scenario that results in distibution of this kind?
onedev超过 11 年前
Honestly, I don&#x27;t want to live forever.<p>100 years I think is what would be ideal.