47 replies to this topic

[Antonio2014]

They are clear and they are invented.  The problem is that current medicine only acts when symptoms occur, but many age-related diseases, like AD and PD, must be treated decades before symptoms appear.

[Danail Bulgaria]

The therapies from your link are at development currently. 

 

I also want to see them soon used on people. 

 

I even started a topic about stem cells technologies, that are used on people. 

[niner]

 

And I don't see how the study you site 'does not support' the idea of a species natural lifespan. To the contrary, they say:

Recent studies found that the exponential increase of the mortality risk with age (the famous Gompertz law) continues even at extreme old ages in humans, rats, and mice

 
The Gompertz law hasn't a natural lifespan limit. The bigger the population you observe, or the longer the period you observe the population, the bigger will be the maximum lifespan you will observe.

 

The Gompertz law is a mathematical model.  Like many mathematical models of the natural world, it has regions where it fits very well, and may have regions where it fits poorly or not at all.  I suspect the far extremes of human lifespan would be one of the latter type of regions, although I suppose that if it's predicting a population of less than one, that is essentially "the end".   OTOH, if you had a population of a trillion people, I don't think you would ever see a person living to 300 years of age, or whatever might be predicted by the law.

[Antonio2014]

The Gompertz law is a mathematical model.  Like many mathematical models of the natural world, it has regions where it fits very well, and may have regions where it fits poorly or not at all.

 

As I showed before, Gompertz law is satisfied from adulthood to extreme ages (around 106 years; above that, data is too sparse to confirm or deny). This is another reference, freely available: http://longevity-sci...y-NAAJ-2011.pdf

 

 

Edited by Antonio2014, 24 November 2015 - 12:16 AM.

[xEva]

-?? to me the rectangularization of the curves rather confirms the the species 'in-built' lifstpan.

 
What the curves confirm is that "old people living well into 80 and 90, and even past 100" were rare.

Not rare at all. Just read history or old novels.

Don't know why but Pythagoras comes to mind. Hi died at the age of 85 and neither his contemporaries nor numerous historians of the ~26 centuries that followed ever spoke of his lifespan as exceptional. The other example is the old countess from Pushkin's The Queen of Spades. She was 87 and again, not referred to like an exceptional outlier at all. Then in The Bro Karamazovs I think there was an abbot (or 'a holy man' -?) who was at least 90. And these are just random examples from my head. But true, living past 100 was rare, just as it is now.
 

-See, if advances in medicine would actually extend the species lifespan, I would expect the curves to simply become longer, expanding to the right.

 
The curves are expanding to the right since around 1954.

No, the curves are ballooning to the right as they are 'squaring'. With true life extension for a species the curves should keep their general shape and simply shift to the right (I believe the proper term is translation). Squaring of the curve implies a limit toward which the function tends; and limit here implies a specific lifespan.

On that graph, see how all of the curves converge at ~105, as if someone put his foot and and holds it there? From there on, any growth to the right will be very slow and getting slower still, until, like niner said, it slows down so much that it practically comes to a halt. That's what exponential growth of death rate means to me, anyway. 

 

They are clear and they are invented.  The problem is that current medicine only acts when symptoms occur, but many age-related diseases, like AD and PD, must be treated decades before symptoms appear.

You make it sound so easy. I guess we should be waiting with a bated breath for that fabled super-duper-smart AI, who --any moment now!-- will come up with a proper therapy for us. In the meantime, who in their right mind would sign up --decades in advance!-- for a potentially dangerous treatment (there are always side effects) for the disease whose causes are not even understood? Though new to the States, I prefer to go by this bit of ancient American wisdom: don't fix what ain't broken

[niner]

 

The Gompertz law is a mathematical model.  Like many mathematical models of the natural world, it has regions where it fits very well, and may have regions where it fits poorly or not at all.

 

As I showed before, Gompertz law is satisfied from adulthood to extreme ages (around 106 years; above that, data is too sparse to confirm or deny).

 

But you said "The bigger the population you observe, or the longer the period you observe the population, the bigger will be the maximum lifespan you will observe."  I contend that this is precisely where the Gompertz law breaks down.  It's not just a matter of the data being too sparse; the data is sparse because everyone is dead.  Looking at a larger population isn't going to change that in a meaningful way.  Expecting to find a 500 year old person in a large enough population is kind of like expecting that if you watch long enough, all the air molecules in a room will find themselves in one half the room, leaving a pure vacuum on the other side of the room.  The math may allow it, but the likelihood is so small as to render it effectively impossible.

[Antonio2014]

But you said "The bigger the population you observe, or the longer the period you observe the population, the bigger will be the maximum lifespan you will observe."  I contend that this is precisely where the Gompertz law breaks down.  It's not just a matter of the data being too sparse; the data is sparse because everyone is dead.  Looking at a larger population isn't going to change that in a meaningful way.  Expecting to find a 500 year old person in a large enough population is kind of like expecting that if you watch long enough, all the air molecules in a room will find themselves in one half the room, leaving a pure vacuum on the other side of the room.  The math may allow it, but the likelihood is so small as to render it effectively impossible.

 

I was only pointing out that your claim is not based on any data. The available data shows just the opposite behaviour for all ages outside infancy/puberty.

Edited by Antonio2014, 24 November 2015 - 09:08 AM.

[Antonio2014]

Not rare at all. Just read history or old novels.

Don't know why but Pythagoras comes to mind. Hi died at the age of 85 and neither his contemporaries nor numerous historians of the ~26 centuries that followed ever spoke of his lifespan as exceptional. The other example is the old countess from Pushkin's The Queen of Spades. She was 87 and again, not referred to like an exceptional outlier at all. Then in The Bro Karamazovs I think there was an abbot (or 'a holy man' -?) who was at least 90. And these are just random examples from my head. But true, living past 100 was rare, just as it is now.

 

Are you seriously trying to disprove demographic data with novels??

 

No, the curves are ballooning to the right as they are 'squaring'. With true life extension for a species the curves should keep their general shape and simply shift to the right (I believe the proper term is translation). Squaring of the curve implies a limit toward which the function tends; and limit here implies a specific lifespan.

On that graph, see how all of the curves converge at ~105, as if someone put his foot and and holds it there? From there on, any growth to the right will be very slow and getting slower still, until, like niner said, it slows down so much that it practically comes to a halt. That's what exponential growth of death rate means to me, anyway.

 

No, they don't converge. There has been an increase of maximum lifespan, as the above paper shows. In the Gompertz-Makeham law (M(x) = A * e^(Bx) + C), if you reduce C (what happened in 1850-1950) you obtain rectangularization, and if you reduce A (what happens from 1950) you obtain right shift. If you reduce B (not yet done) you reduce the slope of the "right side" of the rectangle. If you totally eliminate aging (same mortality rate for all ages) you obtain an exponential decay survival curve.

 

You make it sound so easy. I guess we should be waiting with a bated breath for that fabled super-duper-smart AI, who --any moment now!-- will come up with a proper therapy for us. In the meantime, who in their right mind would sign up --decades in advance!-- for a potentially dangerous treatment (there are always side effects) for the disease whose causes are not even understood? Though new to the States, I prefer to go by this bit of ancient American wisdom: don't fix what ain't broken

 

SENS doesn't require any AI. It's standard gerontology what needs an AI or a big amount of time, since it messes with metabolism. SENS bypasses metabolism and only removes the resulting damage.

 

SENS has potentially much less side-effects than current medicine, again, because it doesn't mess with metabolism. There's already enough knowledge about age-related diseases to start doing something about them.

 

All people above 50 years old are badly broken. I prefer to do something about it instead of wishfully thinking that there's no problem at all.

[xEva]

Are you seriously trying to disprove demographic data with novels??

Why yes! In the story the old countess dies at 87 but in reality, the real Princess Galitzine, who inspired the character and whose palace served as a setting for the story (which was written while she was alive of course), died a decade later (even after Pushkin's death on a duel). The real Princess Galitzine was less than a month short of 97 when she died. The same goes for the 'holy man' in The Bro Karamazovs. His character was based on a real 'holy man' who lived ~100 years (103 -?). See, great art, history and life have always marched hand in hand.

 

 

SENS doesn't require any AI. It's standard gerontology what needs an AI or a big amount of time, since it messes with metabolism. SENS bypasses metabolism and only removes the resulting damage.

SENS has potentially much less side-effects than current medicine, again, because it doesn't mess with metabolism. There's already enough knowledge about age-related diseases to start doing something about them.

All people above 50 years old are badly broken. I prefer to do something about it instead of wishfully thinking that there's no problem at all.

Stop right there!! and dump the A in 'SENS does't require AI' 

 

which is to say that your enthusiasm for SENS is admirable (and would look less fanatical, if you'd go easier on red buttons). Speaking of wishful thinking, your comments above betray that you have a unique way of looking at things and interpreting their meaning.

 

PS

and I certainly don't 'disprove demographic data'. It's you who has an.. unusual way of interpreting it. This apparently makes all those who deviate from your opinion wrong. Ever considered it could be the other way around?  

Edited by xEva, 24 November 2015 - 01:20 PM.

[Antonio2014]

 

Are you seriously trying to disprove demographic data with novels??

Why yes!

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

I got a strange idea for you, Antonio. Using the statistics, can you find out what is the factor, that makes us live longer? Is it the progress as general, or the development of the medicine as general, or some speciphic branches of the medicine? 

 

[Antonio2014]

Probably nobody knows for sure, and probably all medicine has some influence. There are some attempts at guessing, anyway, like this:

 

 

https://www.fightagi...n-outrage-1.php

[niner]

 

But you said "The bigger the population you observe, or the longer the period you observe the population, the bigger will be the maximum lifespan you will observe."  I contend that this is precisely where the Gompertz law breaks down.  It's not just a matter of the data being too sparse; the data is sparse because everyone is dead.  Looking at a larger population isn't going to change that in a meaningful way.  Expecting to find a 500 year old person in a large enough population is kind of like expecting that if you watch long enough, all the air molecules in a room will find themselves in one half the room, leaving a pure vacuum on the other side of the room.  The math may allow it, but the likelihood is so small as to render it effectively impossible.

 
I was only pointing out that your claim is not based on any data. The available data shows just the opposite behaviour for all ages outside infancy/puberty.

On the contrary, I have about ten billion data points. No one has ever lived longer than Mme Calment. Do you mean that if we observed a population of a trillion people, we might in fact see a person live to 500? If a trillion data points is what it would take to "prove" that the Gompertz relation doesn't hold over infinite time, then yeah, I guess I don't have the data to make such an outlandish claim. Nor do you have the data to prove that infinite angels can in fact dance on the head of the Gompertz pin. Given this lack of data, I'll continue to go with the hypothesis that requires the least amount of magic.

[Antonio2014]

On the contrary, I have about ten billion data points. No one has ever lived longer than Mme Calment. Do you mean that if we observed a population of a trillion people, we might in fact see a person live to 500? If a trillion data points is what it would take to "prove" that the Gompertz relation doesn't hold over infinite time, then yeah, I guess I don't have the data to make such an outlandish claim. Nor do you have the data to prove that infinite angels can in fact dance on the head of the Gompertz pin. Given this lack of data, I'll continue to go with the hypothesis that requires the least amount of magic.

 

Unless you can show that we have reached a big enough population to see 500 years old people, no, you haven't proven anything. Talk is cheap, show me the math.
 

Edited by Antonio2014, 25 November 2015 - 10:34 AM.

[niner]

 

On the contrary, I have about ten billion data points. No one has ever lived longer than Mme Calment. Do you mean that if we observed a population of a trillion people, we might in fact see a person live to 500? If a trillion data points is what it would take to "prove" that the Gompertz relation doesn't hold over infinite time, then yeah, I guess I don't have the data to make such an outlandish claim. Nor do you have the data to prove that infinite angels can in fact dance on the head of the Gompertz pin. Given this lack of data, I'll continue to go with the hypothesis that requires the least amount of magic.

 

Unless you can show that we have reached a big enough population to see 500 years old people, no, you haven't proven anything. Talk is cheap, show me the math.

 

You completely misunderstand me.  I am saying that people do NOT live to 500 years, and that there is NO population large enough to see that.  I am saying that the Gompertz relation does NOT hold as population goes to infinity.  You were arguing with me about that, and in the quoted post, I was asking if YOU think we would see a 500 year old person.  That's what Gompertz predicts if it holds for very large N.  I explicitly said that I do not have the data to "prove" that Gompertz doesn't hold forever, nor do you have the data to prove that it does.  Math is cheap.  Show me the data.

[Antonio2014]

I can't see any logic in your argument. You claim that Gompertz law fails for extreme ages. Yes, you claimed it:

 

But you said "The bigger the population you observe, or the longer the period you observe the population, the bigger will be the maximum lifespan you will observe."  I contend that this is precisely where the Gompertz law breaks down.  It's not just a matter of the data being too sparse; the data is sparse because everyone is dead.  Looking at a larger population isn't going to change that in a meaningful way.

 

I am saying that people do NOT live to 500 years, and that there is NO population large enough to see that.  I am saying that the Gompertz relation does NOT hold as population goes to infinity.

 

You claim that, but at the same time you admit that you don't have the data to prove it. You are constantly repeating that we don't see 200 years olds or 500 years old, but afterwards you admit that that absence doesn't prove anything. WTF?

 

OTOH, the paper I linked proves that Gompertz law holds for all data we have, even for extreme ages. But you are still asking me for data. Honestly, I don't see what your point is.

Edited by Antonio2014, 25 November 2015 - 05:50 PM.

[niner]

Antonio, I feel compelled to go back to my original post:

 

 

 

And I don't see how the study you site 'does not support' the idea of a species natural lifespan. To the contrary, they say:

Recent studies found that the exponential increase of the mortality risk with age (the famous Gompertz law) continues even at extreme old ages in humans, rats, and mice

 
The Gompertz law hasn't a natural lifespan limit. The bigger the population you observe, or the longer the period you observe the population, the bigger will be the maximum lifespan you will observe.

 

The Gompertz law is a mathematical model.  Like many mathematical models of the natural world, it has regions where it fits very well, and may have regions where it fits poorly or not at all.  I suspect the far extremes of human lifespan would be one of the latter type of regions, although I suppose that if it's predicting a population of less than one, that is essentially "the end".   OTOH, if you had a population of a trillion people, I don't think you would ever see a person living to 300 years of age, or whatever might be predicted by the law.

 

xEva used Gompertz to argue in favor of a natural limit to lifespan.

 

You (correctly) argued that Gompertz does not provide evidence for such a limit.

 

I simply pointed out that the unlimited lifespan required in order for Gompertz to hold as populations approach infinity is highly unlikely.  Do you not agree with this?

[Antonio2014]

I simply pointed out that the unlimited lifespan required in order for Gompertz to hold as populations approach infinity is highly unlikely.  Do you not agree with this?

 

How could I agree when all our data fits the law and you don't provide any reason why you think it's highly unlikely?