[–] AmaleksHairyAss 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
I can believe 125 is the absolute limit for a human lifespan. That is, for a body unaugmented, without organ replacements, gene therapy, and other major medical intervention... you know, without all the stuff that we have every reason to expect to be possible soon.
The closer we get to a breakthrough the more desperately conservative people deny it. This has been the case for every major scientific change ever. From the telegram to the airplane to the industrial revolution as scientific advances near more people have always loudly proclaimed them to be impossible.
[–] ArsCortica 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I generally agree with you from the point of technical feasibility, but I still have concerns regarding whether or not allowing people to become dramatically older than, say, 100 actually is a good idea in terms of population development and the like. Furthermore, the question remains whether people who theoretically can live to 200 or whathaveyou actually remain in their good years (i.e., capable of working) when they are 100 years old, because as of right now, advanced geriatric medicine may increase the total age the patient can reach, but not the budget of the pensions office. And this is not going to get better if increase longevity may have a negative effect on the birth rates. Finally, there's the entire drama about social stratification.
We would have to talk to them directly to know for sure, but I expect these researchers would agree.
I personally think that there are a few common factors that drive aging. It may have many genetic influences, but they probably act mostly through a few genetic pathways. Experiments on lower animals and humans show that mTor pathways substantially affect lifespan, for example.
Generation competition theory also gives reasons to think that there are a few switches that flip so that the elderly do not steal too much food from their descendants. The existence of such a switch would free up a lot of nutrients for the younger generations, and so it would be strongly selected for at the tribal level.
[–] golgotham 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Just like the four-minute mile folks said was the absolute limit of human achievement. Rules are meant to be broken, especially in nature...
[–] Owlchemy [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I can never disagree with that statement. Science is always progressing and as all those who've ever tried to predict the future show, they rarely even get close to reality.
[–] golgotham 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
It's funny too, because in science fiction (which tends to become science FACT over time) almost always predicts changes to happen too soon, on the other end. All we need is time...
[–] lord_nougat ago
But when you go against nature, that's part of nature too!
[–] golgotham ago
Right on! We didn't get/develop these troublesome brains and their free will for nothin'!