https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/09/28/living-to-120-is-becoming-an-imaginable-prospect
Efforts to slow ageing are taking wing
Living to 120 is becoming an imaginable prospect::undefined
im imagining someone rotting from 90-120 but still conscious then making this news story
im joking tho i only read the headline
When we can live to 150, I’ll believe we can live to 120 in good health. In reality I’m watching 80yo people around me deteriorate into shells of their former selves.
Maybe, though I think that’s a bit overstating it. 50 years ago, leading men in romance movies were sometimes 50+
Lead, smoking, post war trauma… all less of an issue in today’s generations. What are the big longevity extenders for the next generation? I don’t think projections are very good.
The projection is that we'll repair the damage regular living does to us (basically metabolism).
And I disagree with you, it will help us better than penicillin or what ever other progress that made us live longer and healthier in the past.
Most problems are based largely on aging, it's because our body wears out. Very few people get cancers, heart attacks, alzheimers or die from simple infectious diseases in ther twenties.
The theory exists since a couple of decades and althought being challenged thoroughly no cracks has been found up to today at least, we can repair the damage done and cure ageing, and today funding is there.
On a side note, senolytics and some other first gen treatments are probable for say in ten years or earlier (some experimental stuff already exist too), if they roll back your age just by a meager 10 years when you're 60, it's 10 years of research and new treatments that you can have access to and so on.
I see… anti aging.
Well, if that technology ever actually lands, then I agree with you, it will be momentous.
However, we’ve been 30 years away from being able to slow/stop/reverse aging for the last 30 years. It’s like fusion. It’ll be facking great if it happens, but no one should talk about it like it’s a sure thing.
Well 30 years ago was when it all started (basically Dr de Grey shaking up gerontology, and the subsequent book Ending Aging), and the first ten years he fought all the problems in old academia and funding research himself. The next 10 was more fighting the "deathists" and trying to get at least some seriously funded adventures on the road and now ten years after that we have bio gerontologists not only wanting to push forward but they also can without jeopardizing their careers, lots of well funded biotech startups (rich people did finally get it) and the first treatments (Dasatinib + Quercetin was the first one IIRC, which can be had over the counter. It's a senolytic and removes senescent cells) actually exists.
Now we need ways to assess the effectiveness of those treatments in humans (better ways than trying and waiting for 30 years), and see if they actually do rejuvenate, and that's one another tricky question that lots of people are working on right now, so for me the future is bright.
I would want to too, but not on this planet with these people and the very uncertain future.
Why? There's so much to experience! If I could stay healthy, age more slowly or not at all, it would be great to try and experience as many good things as possible.
Oh you were talking about living longer if you were in a utopia or something close to it. Ok yeah I agree with you there, but unfortunately that's not reality xD
I doesn't have to be a utopia, it just has to be better than this.
And just in case you didn't know, aging has been reversed in mice and the existence of biologically "immortal" species ("immortal" jellyfish) means it's possible to achieve the same in humans.
It's hypothetically possible that we could hack biology enough to become functionally immortal, but do you really want that? Considering the impact 90 year old Senators are having I'm just imagining an ever more out of touch gerantocracy. Imagine young people being born into a world where no one ever retires or dies, and their opinions are fixed based on what they experienced 100 years ago. Change is good.
Change is good indeed. Maybe if people didn't think "eh, I can fuck up the world as I won't be alive to live with the results" they might care a little more. Also, if were able functionally immortal, traveling to a new star system would be well within our possibilities.
I think people are confusing “people want to live to 120” with “people want to be 120.”
Actually being 120 would probably be awful. But seeing the year 2130 might be truly wild. On a basic level, it’s the same as wanting to live to see tomorrow.
What age do you want to die at?
This is actually a really interesting question, personally never. Not like heat death of the universe never but I don't feel like there's a point in theoretical forever young immortality where I would want to die, there's always more shit to do and I've never felt like I need to up my game or something. I'm curious what you guys think though
Average life expectancy is, what, 75 years? I’m 31, so rough estimate, I have 44 years left, and that’s not nearly enough time to conquer the galaxy
That's life expectancy from birth. Once you've made it to your 30s it's probably more like 85
Average life expectancy in the US is ca 80, a few years above that in most of Europe, and highest in Japan, Macau, Hong Kong, at 84-85 years (this is across everyone - typically there's a 3-4 year spread between men and women, so e.g. Hong Kong is 83.2 for men and 87.9 for women)
After seeing my parents lose mobility as they age, I don't know why I'd want to live even longer with a broken body.
I work in hospice and see a variety of conditions. Some people in their 60's with significant mobility issues that are chronically exhausted, but then there's the patients in their 90's who just recently started cutting back on social events and activities due to injury/illness.
Seeing these differences was why I started roller skating (again) at 49 and increased other activities to keep my ass moving and challenge my coordination and balance. I want to get everything I can out of this life.
You can't control how or even if you will arrive at old age but you can swing the odds dramatically in your favor by the choices you make when you are younger. Eat healthily, avoid hard drugs and tobacco, drink alcohol only in moderation and get plenty of excercise that consists of four categories: resistance (aerobic), VO2 max (anaerobic), strength and stability.
Healthy people with good genes that have relatives who are mentally fit up to thier last days. And people who think that all the money being dumpped into longevity by billionaires will increase the amount of time people in general can maintain a decent quality of life. And then me, who is curious about how the world changes over long periods of time and just wants to be there to see it. And maybe see a breakthrough that somehow keeps us alive even longer. Death is so final.
Soon it will be possible to cling to the broken shell of what you once were, a mere vessel for arthritis pain and bittersweet memories of a time when you used to be able to walk to the bathroom. Hooray!
The point isn't just extending a vegetative state but a livable state. If life expectancy expands to 85, then you live comfortably until 65 or so. That means you can more or less be physically active just fine.
Look up on Google images old grandpa bodybuilders. There are 70 year olds that are stronger than majority of young men.
If life expectancy shifts upwards to 120 presumably the age of comfort also expands to 100, or what have you. Then it's a slow deterioration until 120 where you're basically a zombie. Of course this age depends on genetic variables as well as your personal health decisions.
My great grandma died this year at 100 and she was only a zombie from like 95. Until that point she was walking by herself and giving speeches, hosting parties, etc. 96 she caught dengue fever and lived, but was weakened. Then she caught covid a year later and lived, but was further weakened.
The final nail in the coffin was her falling and breaking her hip in January of this year. She was dead about a month later.
I want to live as long as possible because I want to know what humans discover. What is the fundamental nature of reality? Will we find life in the cosmos? Will we explore other planets? What is the secret behind the brain and consciousness? What maths is left to be discovered? How will human society develop? Will we fall into authoritarian surveillance states or break free into a post-scarcity classless utopia?
So many curiosities sometimes I wish I was like a vampire, just floating around the world forever seeing what happens.
I want to live long enough to see society deteriorate into nothing more than a roaming band of cannibalistic motorcycle mutants.
Let’s see if we make life expectancy consistently go up again before we start talking about 120. I could just as easily see it fall to 60 before going up to 120.
I see the quality of life people have when they start approaching 100, and lemme tell you I wouldn't want an extra 20 years of that. Living in the US sucks for healthcare, you're gonna be miserable if you live that long.
And it sucks because usually when your that old you can't do much besides sit. Sucks that are body's don't last long.
Or you could share this weird esoteric knowledge that other people don't know about but you do.
Obviously he’s talking about hockey, and means blue lines - it’s to help with calling off-sides
So instead of being a prick like the person you're actually replying to I'll answer you. Blue zones are areas where the population regularly reaches over 100. The point they're making is the people over 100 in those areas usually seem to be doing pretty well, moving, some even run, and die suddenly (things just happen to turn downhill very fast when you're that old, nothing sinister implied)
I would happily live 500 years if I could keep the quality of life prior to old age. The issue isn't a number, it's what your life is like in those last 20 years. I can't imagine we will regularly get to 120 without slowing the aging process, which would improve quality of life.
I’ve not been enjoying the last 30 all that much, I don’t think I want another 90 or nearly that far even
I've enjoyed a fairly privileged life in recent years so I suppose that changes my perspective. I fully recognize that not everyone is dealt a fair hand, whether it be financial or the chemicals in ones brain. Though even when I was poor and less mentally together, I always valued a long life. There are so many interesting things in the world, I want to live long just to see what happens to humans. Will we get over our fundamental flaws as a species, will we make it to being a space faring civilization? Will we protect the environment and create artificial consciousness? Also I value new experiences and life always offers more.
Because a world in which people live to 80 tend to live well till 65, And a world in which people can live to 120 might open up the possibility of living well to 90.
Stretching out life expectancies tends to stretch out the length of quality time too.
I’m 30 now, having a hard time looking at the next 40-50 and thinking I want that. Definitely not 90
Are you suicidal? Longer life does not mean living as a cripple, we can extend our health if we research more. And exercise and lower calorie diet seems to improve health a lot. A 70 year old who exercises and eats lightly will be healthier than a 30yr who eats like an American and drives without walking much.
I'm close to your age and I'm excited for the next 40-50 years. It often surprises me when I get perspectives like yours. I have to remember people have different opinions on things I take for granted.
We can have a tendency to project our views onto everyone else and assume everyone thinks the same thing. False consensus effect
I think people are fundamentally different because of some stuff that happened in childhood. There are people who are negative about the past and positive about the future. I fall into this.
There are others that are positive about the past and negative about the future. Maybe you're here.
Oh, I do look forward to living through the climate wars and AI ascendancy. Amazing prospect.
No shit. Depending on how things are going in the next 10-15, I might retire way early, do as much bucketlist type stuff as possible until the money runs out, and then check out early. I probably have enough to live for 5 or 10 years if I move somewhere with a lower cost of living, and better that than working until I'm 75 while the world burns.
Perhaps you are half joking or not, but I used to think like this in my younger years. I spent a heck of a lot of time in my 20s and 30s doing all the bucket list stuff. Bunch of sex, drugs, traveling, wild adventures, starting a company, etc. Having gone through that I can tell you that I am much happier now than I was when I thought all those bucket list items were going to make me happy. Sure, they felt good and some were amazing, but it wears off and before you know it you're chasing the next thing again.
A while ago I came across a nice, although a somewhat simplistic, equation that said that happiness equals the number of things you have divided by the number of things you want. I find that wanting less is a much easier route to increase that metric than getting more. Easier said than done though, but I found that silent meditation retreats do the trick for me.
I'm 39, and my bucket list mostly involves traveling to historical sites and trying lots of different food, so I don't think we're particularly comparable.
A middle aged person saying, "I would rather retire young and do things that are important to me before those things are no longer possible, instead of spending another 30 years working my ass off hoping I'm financially and physically capable of doing anything at the end and that the world isn't literally on fire" is hardly the same as a 20-something doing a bunch of drugs, but sure. Silent mediation. That'll solve global warming and capitalism.
Have you ever considered asking a question or are you only just interested in misrepresenting what I said?
Living that long would break the economy. I'm retired on a fixed income, and my planning was based on living no longer than age 90. After that, my savings will be depleted, I will live on social security alone. When I imagine young people having another 30 years to pay for social security per person, it's just broken. We would need to work until age 95 instead of 65. What would be the point?
We spend as much as the top 10 countries combined on defense.
Infrastructure - dangerously old Healthcare - non-existent Education- death spiral Social health - All measures worse every year
Don't know, we tried nothing and are out of ideas thanks to the vice grip of lobbies and bribes Eisehower himself warned about.
We would not.
The extra amount you need as life expectancy increases diminishes with each extra year. E.g. let's assume (for each of calculation only; you can just scale it up linearly) that you need 10k/year on top of social security to live off in retirement. If your savings is 100k, and you only get a 5% return every year, you'll run out after about 15 years. Hence a typical lifetime annuity bought at age 65 will be around that in the US because it matches up with current US life expectancy (it won't deviate much elsewhere).
So that's for living to roughly 80. Here's how it'll play out as you approach 120:
85: ~20% more 90: ~38% more 95: ~52% more 100: ~62% more 105: ~70% more 110: ~77% more 115: ~82% more 120: ~86% more
As you can see, the curve flattens out. It flattens out because you're getting closer and closer to have sufficient money that the returns can sustain you perpetually (at a 5% return, which is pretty conservative, at $200k, you can perpetually take out $10k, and no further increase in life expectancy will change that).
Now, that of course is not in any way an insignificant increase, but if we assume 40 working years, $100k is about $850/year additional investment + compounding investment return at 5%. $186k is around $1550/year compounding.
But here's the thing, if you work 10 years longer, you grow it disproportionately much, because you delay starting to take money out, and you need less, while you get the compounding investment return of ten more years, and that drives down the yearly savings you need to make back down to around $850/year.
So an increase of 40 years of life expectancy "just" requires 10 more years of work to fully fund it assuming the same payment in during the later years. But here's the thing: Most people have far higher salaries towards the end of their careers, even inflation-adjusted, so most people would be able to fund 40 more years with far less than 10 extra years of work.
(Note that if you already were on track for your pensions to last you to 90, if you were pre-retirement now, you'd "only" need about 35% extra savings to have enough until 120, because you'd get returns from a higher base, so the extra savings or extra years of work needed over what you managed would be even lower)
These all work on averages btw. - due to differences in health, this is where we really want insurance/state pensions rather than relying on individual contributions.
This doesn't mean there aren't problems to deal with. Especially if the life expectancy grows fast enough that it "outpaces" peoples ability to adjust. But it's thankfully not quite as bad as having to add another 30 years of work.
Most of our financial advice for retirement has a hidden assumption that there is a large number of working age people helping not just social security, but also the stock market. A standard retirement portfolio will have a mix of t-bonds, stock market holdings, and a few other sectors.
We'd be looking at a scenario where there are a lot of small investors (a few million dollars is small on this scale), but proportionately fewer workers making use of that investment.
A US Millennial working today is going to need to be a 401k millionaire to retire with something comparable to their current standard of living. Most are going to fall short of that before we even talk about adding on extra life span.
The numbers I gave are entirely independent of social security. They presume a far below average stock market return. You're right they'll need to be a 401k millionaire, and per the numbers I gave, to achieve that will take around ~9k/year in pension investments if they intend to retire at 65. A lot obviously can not afford that, especially not early in their career, and will need to compensate accordingly later in their career to the extent they want.
But that wasn't really my point. My point is that the number of extra years - irrespective of your current pension situation - you need to work in order to maintain the same financial outlook is far lower than the number of additional years of retirement you can cover. Whether or not you're able to get to a sufficient pension level in the first place is a separate issue.
To how the stock market will fare, the big challenge there is whether or not automation will keep up or not, and frankly I think the biggest social upheaval over the next century will not be that it can't keep up, but that automation will outpace the proportional decline in the potential labour pool.
You might want to look at the Trinity Study of retirement portfolios. The general rate of withdrawal is lower than what you're quoting here. Closer to 4% or lower. Though this is giving way in some quarters to a sliding system, where you live it large in good return years, and frugaly in bad years.
But again, this all overlooks how that depends on a proportion of working people feeding stock market returns.
The general rate of withdrawal need to be lower if you have a portfolio that is very conservative. That may make sense when you're saving for you yourself and have a low risk tolerance, but it's not needed. That people feel worried enough to do that, though, is a good argument for insurance/state run pension schemes, because they an inherently pay out more since they can smooth out the risks and pay toward the maximum averaged returns.
Economy is about to break soon anyway. Technology increasing to a point of killing a dangerous amount of jobs combined with a declining birth rate...
We're gonna have to do something in the next couple decades. There's really no other option unless the elites want chaos.. and they don't.
Also, the point would be that you live longer. I know a lot of people hate their jobs but not everyone does. I wouldn't mind getting another 30 years.
I think things are gonna get really ugly in the next twenty years.
We're nearing a point where artificial intelligence can replace a lot of white collar and logistical jobs, which would skyrocket unemployment rates and lead to widespread riots.
Don't get me started on what a leftist pipe dream universal basic income is. The guaranteed income UBI would give would either bankrupt our economy or be such a pittance that nobody could live off of it
I did number crunching on how much it would cost to pay every UK adult a guaranteed basic income that could theoretically pay for rent in most cities outside of London, assuming £800 pcm and 50,000,000 adults. That would cost £480,000,000,000 a year, or almost 2.5 times our entire welfare budget, of which about £100b alone goes into pensions.
And before you suggest automation and wealth taxes would pay for UBI... good luck with that. We can't even get the rich to pay their fair share of taxes right at this moment.
Given how much politicians serve the rich, I think they'd sooner sic the military on protesters than actually cave in to the demands of the masses, especially when armed drones could do a lot of the gruntwork. The wealthy don't care if you're destitute, starving and living on the streets.
UBI isn't a leftist idea
It's a more radical version of welfare capitalism. Socialism is about worker control of the means of production. This would mean all the factories and agricultural land and cloud servers, etc would be owned by the people who work there. UBI is simply keeping the poor alive through subsidies. We do it already through all sorts of things. For example food prices are heavily subsidized. It's just taking that idea and taking it to the logical extreme.
It's not leftist at all. Leftists may support it because it will improve the living conditions for the bottom class. But fundamentally it does nothing to put the means of production into the hands of the workers. A leftist idea would be for example forcing all private companies to become cooperatives.
I agree with you that things are going to get ugly very soon. Our society simply isn't equipped to handle this dramatic transformation that is coming. I think we will likely see some sort of serious war going forward as well. I'm just glad I live far enough away from the likely nuclear bomb targets where I probably wouldn't die immediately, lol.
I think UBI is really the only solution that will be able to maintain our current capitalist system and way of life. Anything else would essentially lead to revolt. Idle hands are the devil's plaything. If 50% of the young people in the country aren't working, you're either going to see a massive prison complex or a militant revolt. Probably both.
UBI however would further our jump into dystopia. Imagine a society where the bottom 80% survive off of the government's hand. They live in ghettos, segregated from the people who own capital. Majority of the country live in abject poverty getting only basic necessities. Starting to sound a lot like 1984...
But it is. It may not be Communist or Socialist but it's a radical idea to redistribute wealth to the masses and effectively create a literal welfare state. Pretty much every party that supports UBI is left wing.
If 50% of the young people in the country aren't working, you're either going to see a massive prison complex or a militant revolt. Probably both.
I think we'll see a full societal collapse in the next few decades, whether that's a descent into lawless anarchy or civil wars.
Ok we should have a clear definition of what left means so this conversation is clear. My definition of left is socialism and communism. Welfare capitalism is still right wing. Please feel free to share yours and we can see where we differ
UBI is an attempt to keep the capitalist state going through this radical change. Fundamentally, nothing changes. The people with capital still control the capital. Companies still exist and make profit in a market structure.
People aren't really suggesting this because they want to pay taxes. They are suggesting this because they are scared of the system falling apart. Do you have any other solutions? I really don't think there's a way to keep our current capitalist system and not have a UBI if +50% aren't working.
If we allow the system to collapse, we risk too much. Nazi Germany style authoritarian government with the current surveillance state capacities we have is an incredibly scary thought. They're even working on mind reading - they've done small scale experiments where machine learning models can listen to your brain waves and see what you are thinking.
We cannot allow fascism to have a serious resurgence. It's too dangerous.
Things will need to change like a guaranteed basic income. We've been moving towards this eventuality for the last 5 decades or so.
My great grandma died at 101 earlier this year. She had ran out of money a while ago, but she had so many descendants at that point that everyone took turns caring for her. One of her daughters lived with her and the other 6~7 children all pitched in.
She never had to stay at a home. That's a nice thing about being old as shit, assuming you had at least some children. Your descendants exponentially increase allowing you to draw money from a significant pool of people.
I flew into the country to visit her for her 100th birthday and there were almost 100 people there, majority family members.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't think working till very late age is a bad thing. I don't expect to be sitting on my ass whole day long by the time I get to retirement age. What I do think is a bad thing is if by that time I am financially struggling to get by.
The problem is we're not fixing the economy at the other end. People work later because they're healthier, and that could be good.. but that means more people to do the same amount of work, increasing unemployment.
Until we stop demonising non-work and that's going to be hell for those stuck on it. Get some level of basic income so it's a valid choice. Meanwhile in the UK our govermnent is appealing to the boomers by announcing increased punishment of the unemployed.. We're a long way from fixing the issues.
I don't tend to think about the amount of work available nor the demand for the fruits of work to be fixed.
I agree with the issues you are raising.
What happened to having hobbies? Working and languishing till death are not the only two possible options.
Well I, for one, would like to live for as long as I want. I understand the sentiment here, though a little depressing, is against that concept. I understand people's reticence toward extending a painful life, particularly if that comes with strings attached. Life extension would need to be paired with a basic income and the rich will need to foot the bill.
I think we can all agree that George R R Martin should be put on this regimen immediately. We're going to need 16 or more years for this dude to finish the series.
By properly taxing companies and rich individuals? Besides, those leaving to 120 would most likely be among the richest of us. Do they really need a pension at all?
It should be though, we need to demand change rather than just saying “oh they’ll never do it” and giving up.
Sorry, but if one can dream of properly taxing companies and rich individuals, there's plenty of other shit to fix with that money first.
Making living until 120 sustainable is not on the list, or very, very low on it.
Their work amounts to sitting in a hearing non-coherent and voting yes when an aide tells you to. Real people on the other hand spend all day actively doing work for pennies.
I would advise to look up some information yourself. You can either read about the pilots and their results or find a video if you prefer that format.
And these final things to consider:
By fully funding them. The return from a lifetime annuity bought at 65 is just marginally higher than a reasonable expected safe return from the same investment. (A lifetime annuity pays out on the basis that the provider needs to guarantee an income until you die, so if it returns so much that it eats too much into the capital, it'll be unprofitable for the provider). At the margins, the expected remaining life years of someone at 65 in a developed country is long enough that you can't safely offer that much more without eating away too much at the capital too quickly.
Aw c'mon! Just think, at ninety you could be hiking the Appalachian trail with a Camelbak tactical colostomy bag and a keen sense of wonder
God damn it LET ME LIVE FOREVER LET ME LIVE FOREVER LET ME LIVE FOREVER I'm sick of lying in bed every night scared of the nothingness of death
Man imagine how fucking boring it'd be after only a few hundred years.
Everything ends, and if it didn't the thing in question would lose all value.
You sit awake scared of the nothingness of death, do you ever contemplate the nothingness before life? You are what the universe is doing in the here and now, like the crest of a wave in the ocean. The oceans waves, while the universe 'peoples'.
I will never get this attitude. If you were born in the 1800s would you call today boring? There is just so much to experience and we always have new things being invented. If I had infinite time I would still never run out of things I want to do.
That talk that "death is what makes life worth living" feels like a coping mechanism people invented to make peace with mortality. Everything that makes life worth living only happens while we are alive. The only thing that makes long lives so tragic is death itself.
Also to respond to your example - yeah, I reckon seeing civilization repeating the same dumb patterns every hundred years would get boring fast. "Oh, facism is on the rise again, better grab the popcorn".
In my country there are people who are still alive who lived during a military dictatorship and I cannot imagine of all things that they would be bored by its resurgence. The ones I hear speaking in the media seem livid if anything.
I could see someone ending their immortal life out of desperation, but boredom? Only if they completely give up on themselves and the world. Even that sounds like a treatable form of depression.
And that's not even bringing up all the technology and arts that advance every day. In the most mundane sense I could think of several franchises I'm constantly waiting on the next entries, without mentioning all that I haven't yet tried and ones that haven't even been invented that I might like.
Funny, what you wrote sounds to me like a coping mechanism in itself haha.
Which is cool, like 90% of what we humans do is in some way a coping mechanism for our own mortality. We are all still going to die though, accept it or rage against it, it makes no difference in the end.
In what way? I don't deny that I'm going to die, I don't think this kind of life extension medical technology will become widely available quick enough and affordably enough to help me. But I also don't romanticize the prospect. It's one of those common mundane tragedies that happen every day.
Frankly, sounds like you are trying to Uno Reverse Card me but I don't even get what point you are trying to make. What, is just cherishing life a coping mechanism now?
Can a common mundane thing not still possess some beauty? And even in having beauty or not, must we judge it to be good or bad?
I'm not trying to do anything except talk shit on the internet. But yes, absolutely! It can be a coping mechanism, and there are definitely people who try to live to the fullest in the hopes that if they do it enough they'll be able to forget their own impermanence.
I mean, I spent most of my life trying not to die so it seems pretty bad to me. I can't exactly contemplate it like the falling leaf. I can see what you mean by how momentous it is but even if you can find beauty in it... it's in someone else's. You cannot really witness your own death to regard it as beautiful or horrible or anything.
Yeah there are people who fill their lives with noise not to think about their own mortality but I don't think that's my case. We are talking about it right now. I don't seek all my experiences as a checklist for death either. I won't be the one keeping track. I won't be the one remembering.
Death is the cessation of self, and as much as I don't fool myself into thinking I'd be immortal, I'd like to have as lengthy a self as I am afforded. Everything I cherish, I can only do so because I am. I can't see death as bringing meaning to anything. More like the ultimate meaninglessness. How could people define themselves by something which, as far as we understand, they won't even get to experience themselves?
I suppose there is spiritual belief, but even then it's ultimately unknown. However people believe they may exist past their deaths, it won't be like this.
But really, I feel really skeptical when people talk about the beauty and meaning of death because, if they truly believed that, wouldn't they be more proactive about it? Though that's pretty unhealthy to consider. Far from me to convince anyone they really truly see death as so wondrous.
These things that you cherish, would you still cherish them if you knew you could have them forever and never lose them? Or would they just become permanent things you get used to being there?
Happiness is only possible thanks to the sadness that contrasts it - without the suffering, is there really pleasure?
The way I look at it, life and death cannot be seperate things because one implies the other. Death has as much meaning and beauty as say, the fact that it rains - its something that happens, no more and no less.
Buddha teaches that the self, the ego, is merely an illusion - a very fun one, it's true, but an illusion regardless. It's the ego that attaches judgement to things, and this attachment is what leads to suffering. Someone who greatly cherishes life is therefore likely to fear death, and suffer because of it. The man who seeks only happiness is forever disappointed.
Shit, I didn't want to hit 12 much less 120, and now I'm in my 40s. If some jerkass figures out life extension even for the poor, I'm gonna give that a hard pass. Just because I've chosen not to kill myself doesn't mean I have to drag it out one day longer than necessary.
Putting aside world inequality and the grim future that awaits us for a sec, medical science keeps moving forward... It took us 13 years to even sequence all the human genome (which was a tremendous effort done by many universities and researchers). Predicting the structures of proteins was an immense problem in biology that was finally solved with AI like 2~ years ago. mRNA vaccines were a super theoretical thing many years ago, but served us to fight covid. There's a growing number of scientists (like david sinclair) that aren't afraid of openly taking immortality as an academical challenge and publish research without fear of mockery
People forget technological progress is driven by an exponential growth, seeing all the things we have discovered in the past decades I can't help but be optimistic about treatments or medicines available for the general public that slow down aging
They don't want you to retire. That's why in many western countries they keep trying to raise the retirement age.