How long can we live?

 

In ancient times, if you outlived infant mortality you could live long lives. But, for instance in ancient Roma, half of the children died before 5 or 10, according different sources.

But if you survived, you could live a long live. for instance, Cato the elder lived 234–149 BC.

It was not so different in Europe up to the 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#:~:text=records%20and%20observations.-,Mortality,doubled%20to%20the%20late%2D50s.

Even if living to 200+ was possible AND you were guaranteed good health, what the heck would you actually do for 200 years? Kind of analogous is people for whom money is no object. You’ve travelled to every place on earth, you’ve done all the fun things, you’ve established foundations to help others, etc. etc. You’ve read all the great books, seen the great movies, and on and on. Then what? Similarly with living for 200 years. Assuming one wasn’t rich, ugg, how boring would that get.

<p style="text-align: left;">how boring would that get. - cuth</p>
I think the same question goes for just about everyone today who has made it past 50 or so. We figured out how to live to a ripe old age, and what are we doing? Hooking ourselves up to machines to live an extra 3 years, sitting in casinos, watching Wheel of Fortune. Sad really. I was thinking about the ones who would do something worthwhile in my post above. One more breakthrough from Stephen Hawking, one more book from Christopher Hitchens, how many more great songs did John Lennon have in him? But, if we start picking a select few, we can guess where that will lead.

Maybe by that time it may have nothing to do with money. I seriously doubt economics of the future will be as they are now and no, I’m not saying they will be Star Trekish, though it might with everything else that’s we have that is like Trek (cell phones, tablets, Alexa, etc), but it will be different. Maybe the goal won’t be to just survive anymore. Life should be more than just survival and should be more than just working until one drops from being overworked and severely underpaid. IF we get to the point where medical science keeps us alive longer, twice as long as we live now, MAYBE by that point we MIGHT be living and striving to better ourselves, instead of just existing as most people do now.

About humankind future, when she is very young I told my daughter that she should learn weapons, unarmed fighting and survival. I was joking. …

I have a quote saved, something like that, Morgan. It’s about being a poet, saying it’s hard to be a poet, that you should try something easy, like blowing things up.

What would extend life would be taking care of the environment we live in and respect the planet but we're going the other way.
Too true.

I don’t know, given there are people who live over 100 years, I think it could be possible to expand human life to maybe 120 years. Not sure how old the oldest living human was/is, but I think it was over 110. Granted, the people who do live well over 100 are outliers, but it gives us a framework to achieve for more humans. I’m not sure of the number of humans who have lived well into their hundreds, but it’s been many. Of course, many of these people don’t eat a lot of meat and eat far more plant based foods than most other people. The Okinawans are well known for living to a ripe old age and their diet is heavy with plant based foods. So at least 120 is possible for medical science to strive for and strive for quality of life, not just longevity for humans.

Well, guess 120 is doable for the human body, biology, as it currently exists, given proper environmental conditions.

World’s oldest person passed away this past week.

At 119, She Was a Symbol of How to Live With Wit and Vitality

Kane Tanaka, who died in Japan this month, survived two world wars, the 1918 influenza outbreak, paratyphoid and two rounds of cancer. She loved chocolate and hated losing at board games.

The oldest documented person ever lived to be 122. These individuals are obviously genetic outliers.

Here’s more on this topic, which states we haven’t yet reached our maximum lifespan yet, according to Live Science. I found it a very interesting read:

Theoretically we should be able to live forever as long as our bodies can perform mitosis.
Trees can live thousands of years, But relative to humans trees are very simple organisms and only very simple organisms can withstand the ravages of time.

The practical problem lies in the eventual degrading of the genetic codes and accurate cell copying. Over time little transcription errors amount to large errors.

What’s this “Theoretically” thing?

“Relative to humans”

This is storytelling.

Seriously, what organism withstands the ravages of time?

Without the storytelling and the misdirection of anthropomorphizing.

Nothing can step outside the ravages of time, except our imagination and the stories it concocts.

It does Physical Reality a disservice. Write have you had a chance to check out Ed Yong’s, An Immense World? It really brings our senses back down to Earth,

Theoretical can be the idealized concept that can only be approximated in a ever-changing dynamic environment.

Living is a process and a process requires a reliable machine to perform the homeostatic processes consistently. As with all complex machines the human biome is subject to ageing due to information loss.

So theoretically the human biome can regenerate itself infinitely, but practically that will never happen.

Nothing can . That’s the point!

The oldest known single individual living thing on earth is a tree.

The oldest living thing on Earth


The Great Basin bristlecone pine is found in the western United States

150 years would be great, if I could live the majority of them in good health. My grandmother, as did her mother, did well. Even helped my mother make lunch on her last day. My great grandmother fixed her own breakfast the day she died. Both took a nap and that was it. Here’s the thing though, they didn’t eat a lot, especially not a lot of meat. They ate a lot veggies and fruit. Sometimes they had dessert for dinner and that was it, but it wasn’t a large piece of cake or pie or large anything. Many of my ancestors often lived 60-70 in the 1700 and 1800s. 1900s we’ve been seeing 90s, so it’s quite possible, if my sons ate their veggies and keep their dead animal intake to a very small percentage of their diet, they could live well into their 100s.

Science, along with diet, has also helped to increase longevity among humans. So I see the article as talking about a good possibility. Okanoans (spelling? Spell check isn’t catching it) eat a diet high in plant food, much like my grandmothers. They aren’t vegetarians, but they eat more plant based foods than they do meat. The U.S. diet is high in dead animal fats, which can short life greatly. Between medical science and a diet that is is more plant based then dead animals, could very well increase human life expectancy to well over a 100. Of course, there is also genetics, but medical science is working on genetically inherited illnesses. Of course, there will always be the unexpected diseases like COVID taking lives, but the more medical science advances, it might not be as bad in the death count as past pandemics.

Eat a healthy diet
exercising regularly
weigh loss
connect with nature
and see more

And stay away from shady supplements, you never really know what’s in them.

1 Like

Welcome shivasup.

IMO, longevity depends on the ability for continued cell division (mitosis). Without cell division the body begins to age as old cells die and are not replaced by new daughter cells.

And cell division (mitosis) is performed by microtubules. It appears that microtubules eventually undergo a process called microtubule catastrophe that results in all kinds of neural problems as well as inability to function as the mitotic spindle and perform the transfer of chromosomes into a daughter cell.
Therefore I suspect that longevity might be possible from our ability to stimulate continued microtubule health.

1 Like