viraptor 4 days ago

Yes, a few types are basically a numbers game. We're continuously successfully not getting them every day. But the longer we live and not die of other things, the higher chance there is of losing that game. And we're actually getting quite good and not dying of other things.

Then again, cancer treatments and vaccines are progressing recently, so that's good news.

  • guerrilla 4 days ago

    This sounds good, but it can't be right. There are animals that live centuries. Greenland sharks may live up to 500 years, for example. There are trees that live millenia.

    • thfuran 4 days ago

      But they aren't human. We don't survive being dessicated and heavily irradiated like a tardigrade or regrow severed limbs like starfish, and we aren't as good at avoiding cancer as some other animals.

      • cogman10 4 days ago

        And some animals are worse. Dogs, for example, are most likely to die from cancer. They also get cataracts decades earlier than humans do.

      • guerrilla 4 days ago

        You're supporting my point. The reason we suffer from this is not solely probabilistic. There are many other factors.

    • kragen 4 days ago

      being warmblooded is a huge disadvantage for longevity

      • AlphaCharlie 4 days ago

        Can you expand on that subject? What are the traits of warm blooded species that lead to higher cancer rates?

    • [removed] 4 days ago
      [deleted]
  • freedomben 4 days ago

    I don't think prolonging the life in a biological body is going to be the winning route. We will have to Star Trek it up and transfer our consciousness to computers. That, or replace parts, maybe even the entirety of our bodies with a machine that can be maintained and repaired rather than age.