"You have a limited amount of time and energy from birth to death, and you've got to figure out whether you're going to dedicate that time and energy toward biological reproduction or cultural reproduction," Last says. "We're opting to take ourselves out of the gene pool in favor of immersing ourselves in an idea pool."
I was surprised to hear someone suggest that a baby girl born to affluent American parents today has a 50-50 chance of celebrating her 100th birthday. The idea was that today's life expectancy figure, in the 80's, is calculated by combining the mortality rates observed at all ages from all causes. But of course today's baby will not be driving today's cars when she is 20, nor will she rely on today's medicine if she falls ill at age 50. Almost every factor relevant to longevity has been improving, and it is reasonable to hope that this positive trend will continue.Last suggests life expectancy could increase to 120 as early as 2050
I can't find the number "120" in the source paper; perhaps that was an embellishment. But that age was reached by Madame Calment, so it is plausible that improvements in health and safety could make such an age more attainable to the masses.
I don't actually predict 120 by 2050. I am more interested in how our life history should change given radical life extension, whenever it happens to occur. I state this at the end of the paper:I can't find the number "120" in the source paper
This analysis should prove useful for the impor- tant reason that you can make a fairly reliable prediction for biological reproduction given radical life extension (RLE). If RLE is not achieved before 2050, but instead at some later date, 100, 150, or 500 years from now, this will likely coincide with the indefinite postponement of current biological reproduction in favour of current cultural repro- duction. Therefore, any popular or political opposition to the practical application of RLE breakthroughs on the basis that they would lead to catastrophic overpopulation issues, are almost definitely unfounded. Also, any scientists cur- rently involved in research related to RLE should not fear that their breakthroughs will lead to major population prob- lems that will need to be solved at some future period of time.
The article ecib shared about How Americans Die was pretty interesting.as the average population ages we run up against more and more cancer
That's true, but something is going to get you in the end. As more people survive childhood diseases and accidents, age-related illness like cancer will claim a larger share of the 100% of people who (at least for now) succumb to death.
Right. In the past, though, the things that "got us" were mostly exogenous. A hypothetical hermit won't get the flu or tuberculosis but if male has a 50 percent chance of getting cancer. Now, obviously, in 1800 or whenever people probably never thought we'd deal with deadly infections, and we largely have. So you never know. But cancer strikes me as a lot more insidious than previous rampant causes of death. I'm also not sure I agree with Cadell that "the biological clock won't last forever" -- based on various things I've read lately, that seems pretty optimistic.
I don't know exactly when it will happen, but our choices about biological reproduction will change dramatically before 2050.the biological clock won't last forever" -- based on various things I've read lately, that seems pretty optimistic.
As for later reproduction, this has to be occurring already. I can't tell you the number of men/women I know that are in their late 30's and are either having their first child or are attempting to. Thing is, some of them are having a difficult time. Psychologically we may want to wait longer but biologically we may not be able to yet. Thus, the lower population. Even with things like IVF it can be very difficult for a woman to get pregnant later in life. Congrats on the press Cadell, I enjoyed reading it.In addition to longer lives, humans will likely delay the timing of biological reproduction and reduce the number of offspring too, according to Last. Taken together, these changes could signify a new type of human, more focused on culture than biology.
-What... no mention of "thought sex?" They must have edited that part out because it's pretty much a drinking game at this point: Drink every time Cadell mentions thought sex. -Just kidding. "Your 80 or 100 is going to be so radically different than your grandparents,'" Last says.
-I sure hope so since I'm already not going to make the singularity according to you. (gonna prove you wrong my friend)
Yes, the data are certainly clear. Will be interesting to track over the coming decades. I agree, we seem to be in an odd reproductive period. However, I think it is a pretty safe bet that rejuvenation biotechnology will eventually allow anyone to have children at any time in life. Will be interesting to see how we culturally adopt artificial wombs as well. Well I've never said that you wouldn't make the singularity. And in my last paper I am critical of the singularity concept, period. I think it's best to understand and model what is happening as an evolutionary process, as opposed to a sudden event.As for later reproduction, this has to be occurring already.
Psychologically we may want to wait longer but biologically we may not be able to yet.
-I sure hope so since I'm already not going to make the singularity according to you. (gonna prove you wrong my friend)
This is fantastic! Congratulations! I hope to live long and slowly as well haha