The example of Rita Montalchni is incredibly interesting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini). She administered a nerve growth factor (NGF) as eye drops and lived for 101 years while her twin sister died when she was 91. (Bearing in mind the average life duration difference of twins is six years, we can conclude that she gained about four years.)
Actually, all we can conclude is that you have managed to find a single anecdote to support your point. (Sidenote: according to the link she died at 103 years of age.)
After reading turchin’s post on my phone last night, I was going to make this same point when I got to my PC this morning.
While turchin calls this “incredibly interesting”, it seems pretty uninteresting to me. The very least of reasons being that the average life duration difference between twins being six years can easily mean vast swaths of twins die at the same age difference Rita Montalchni did.
Very small group of people remain productive scientists after age 100.
And almost no one invented life extension method, used it on herself and lived until 100.
Of course it still could be fluctuation, and I put this not as a statistical evidence but as as an example of the approach. Unfortunately, NGF as well as other promising life extension drugs which were known for many years remain unstudied.
For example, metphormin is known for more than 40 years and it was known for long tome that it extends life on mice, but only in 2015 FDA gave permission to try it as antiaging medication on humans.
NGF was not available for other people until 2015 also, now some people on Longecity ordered it in China.
So, it is not only my problem that I managed to find so small evidence for my points. It is the problem of all humanity that so much needed research was not made and millions life were not saved.
Basically my idea was not to support any points, but to write short introduction to the map, which include many different things.
I think that idea of preventing brain decline as focal point in personal life extension is important, but its best supports comes not from anecdotes, which I used just for illustration, but from logical reasons.
To consciously put efforts into life extension someone need clear and rational mind. It is necessary condition. That is why it is rational to invest most in preventing age related brain decline. Such investment for now should mostly be in the form in research as very small amount of actual interventions is known to work. (Apart from pure NGF, good studies are about green tea in Japan, and also about lithum and taurin).
I think, I should improve the map by concentrating them in one box (with links).
But basically it is the same logic as for AI that invest most resources in self-improvement. We also need best mind condition to be able to fight aging. If my IQ fell below certain threshold, I will be unable to rise it back as well as implement new life extension technics.
Also the statistical difference in 12 years is still strong in this case as Hompertz curve is much steeper in 90th that in 70th.
For example, after 100 a person has the probability to die 50 per cent a year. In this case gaining several years is very unprobable event.
For example for 91 years old person to survive until 103 has probability around 1 in 1000.
The statistic for twins is also probably distorted by earlier deaths of most twins (like 65 and 71) - because most people die earlier than Hompertz curve is not so steep.
I agree that it is some support, but I do not have any knowledge of the statistical distribution of differences between twins deaths. I would assume that there are enough twins that such a large difference is not terribly unlikely to happen just by chance alone.
However, it’s quite clear to me that you are more informed about this than I am, so it would be nice if you could point me toward some resources with stats on this.
Actually, all we can conclude is that you have managed to find a single anecdote to support your point. (Sidenote: according to the link she died at 103 years of age.)
After reading turchin’s post on my phone last night, I was going to make this same point when I got to my PC this morning.
While turchin calls this “incredibly interesting”, it seems pretty uninteresting to me. The very least of reasons being that the average life duration difference between twins being six years can easily mean vast swaths of twins die at the same age difference Rita Montalchni did.
Very small group of people remain productive scientists after age 100.
And almost no one invented life extension method, used it on herself and lived until 100.
Of course it still could be fluctuation, and I put this not as a statistical evidence but as as an example of the approach. Unfortunately, NGF as well as other promising life extension drugs which were known for many years remain unstudied.
For example, metphormin is known for more than 40 years and it was known for long tome that it extends life on mice, but only in 2015 FDA gave permission to try it as antiaging medication on humans.
NGF was not available for other people until 2015 also, now some people on Longecity ordered it in China.
So, it is not only my problem that I managed to find so small evidence for my points. It is the problem of all humanity that so much needed research was not made and millions life were not saved.
Basically my idea was not to support any points, but to write short introduction to the map, which include many different things.
I think that idea of preventing brain decline as focal point in personal life extension is important, but its best supports comes not from anecdotes, which I used just for illustration, but from logical reasons.
To consciously put efforts into life extension someone need clear and rational mind. It is necessary condition. That is why it is rational to invest most in preventing age related brain decline. Such investment for now should mostly be in the form in research as very small amount of actual interventions is known to work. (Apart from pure NGF, good studies are about green tea in Japan, and also about lithum and taurin).
I think, I should improve the map by concentrating them in one box (with links).
But basically it is the same logic as for AI that invest most resources in self-improvement. We also need best mind condition to be able to fight aging. If my IQ fell below certain threshold, I will be unable to rise it back as well as implement new life extension technics.
Here is discussion about IQ and aging: http://lesswrong.com/lw/4gi/age_fluid_intelligence_and_intelligent_posts/
Also the statistical difference in 12 years is still strong in this case as Hompertz curve is much steeper in 90th that in 70th.
For example, after 100 a person has the probability to die 50 per cent a year. In this case gaining several years is very unprobable event. For example for 91 years old person to survive until 103 has probability around 1 in 1000.
The statistic for twins is also probably distorted by earlier deaths of most twins (like 65 and 71) - because most people die earlier than Hompertz curve is not so steep.
I agree that it is some support, but I do not have any knowledge of the statistical distribution of differences between twins deaths. I would assume that there are enough twins that such a large difference is not terribly unlikely to happen just by chance alone.
However, it’s quite clear to me that you are more informed about this than I am, so it would be nice if you could point me toward some resources with stats on this.