How Long Can Humans Live?

Google just launched a biotech company, Calico, to combat disease and dramatically extend longevity:

Calico will trying and take a different perspective on medical research by focusing on by using data analysis to solve existing problems. Take cancer, for instance. Cancer kills roughly 7.6 million people per year, according to the Center for Disease Control, and despite millions of dollars poured into research a cure remains elusive. Cancer is a small project in Calico’s greater plan for things. “One of the things I thought was amazing is that if you solve cancer, you’d add about three years to people’s average life expectancy,” Page told Time. “We think of solving cancer as this huge thing that’ll totally change the world. But when you really take a step back and look at it, yeah, there are many, many tragic cases of cancer, and it’s very, very sad, but in the aggregate, it’s not as big an advance as you might think.”

Aubrey de Grey suspects the new company is a turning point:

The “beginning of the beginning” of the war on aging  began in the 1990s. Since then, the battle for hearts and minds as to that quest’s feasibility—especially among the high-profile academics who occupy the pinnacle of opinion-formation—has been proceeding at full tilt. With Google’s decision to direct its astronomical resources to a concerted assault on aging, that battle may have been transcended: once financial limitations are removed, curmudgeons no longer matter.

Sonia Arrison looks at the economic impact of longer and longer lives:

As people work longer and spend money longer, the economy will grow. Health begets wealth, and according to University of Chicago economists Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel, gains in life expectancy over the last decade (30 years) are worth over $1.2 million to the current population. They also found that “from 1970 to 2000, gains in life expectancy added about $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth.” While these numbers are staggering, what might be more important is the issue of longevity gains as a competitive advantage.

In a paper titled “The Health and Wealth of Nations,” Harvard economist David Bloom and Queen’s University economist David Canning explain that, based on the available research, if there are “two countries that are identical in all respects, except that one has a five-year advantage in life expectancy,” then the “real income per capita in the healthier country will grow 0.3–0.5% per year faster than in its less healthy counterpart.” These percentages might look small, but they are actually quite significant, since it is known that between 1965 and 1990 countries experienced an average per capita income growth of 2% per year, and Bloom and Canning’s numbers are based on only a five-year longevity advantage. If a country had a 30 or 50-year advantage then having a longer-lived population could generate enormous differences in economic prosperity.

Sharing The End Times

Tatiana Danger spotlights “the world’s largest doomsday timeshare,” an underground complex with room for 5,000 that bills itself as “an attraction for the entire family, both above and below ground”:

It’s a modern-day Noah’s ark for the nuclear generation. It will house thousands of DNA samples and withstand a 20-megaton nuclear blast. … The shelter is located 50 to 150 feet below the Missouri River bluffs in part of a former limestone mine known as the Atchison Storage Facility. This facility served as a secure bunker complex for the U.S. government since World War II up until 2013, when the company behind the Vivos Survival Shelter and Resort acquired a large portion of the 2.7-million-square-foot underground storage facility. The Vivos shelters will also come with their very own “Cryovaults” that will house “reproductive gamete cells and DNA of humans and animals for a potential re-population of the Earth.”

Of course, cryovaults and underground volleyball courts don’t come cheap. A spot at the Kansas-based facility will set you back $25,000.

A Tale Of Two YA Novels

Jaya Saxena calls Mildred Taylor’s novel Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry “a perfect response to To Kill A Mockingbird.” Below is her lesson from juxtaposing the two books – both narrated by young girls, one black and one white:

The main difference is that To Kill A Mockingbird is a book written for adults with a childishly simple moral, and Roll of Thunder is a book written for children that is powerfully adult. … To Kill A Mockingbird is a story about learning the difference between right and wrong, and then doing what’s right. It’s an important lesson, and one that everyone should definitely start thinking about as a kid. But it’s also simple.

Roll of Thunder takes that idea to the next level, showing the deep personal calculus necessary to weigh “doing what’s right” against public expectation, personal safety, and what kind of privilege is necessary to even be able to make that choice. Atticus Finch can do the right thing, have it not work, but still say “hey, at least I tried.” His children can be attacked and it’s considered a crime punishable by the full extent of the law. If the Logans do the “right thing,” everything they hold dear will be destroyed. If a Logan is attacked, no one in power cares.

A Pre-Tenderized Meal, Ctd

A reader in Alaska writes:

An average moose yields about 700 pounds of lean meat when recovered from a crash. Even if the crash is bloody and causes clotting, about 300-400 pounds of burger meat can be salvaged. Many churches, food banks and non-profits are on a call list. When a moose fatality is reported, they call folks on the list and are given an hour or so to harvest the meat. Folks consider it a privilege when it’s their turn on the list.

Another tells a story:

Early eighties and I’m at a small, rural college in Vermont.  A friend and I were bombing along the desolate road to campus and a little deer, spots and all, leapt over a snow bank and directly into my path.  The impact launched the fawn onto an icy patch on the road and it slid to a stop.  We got out, and to our surprise and horror the poor thing was still alive and making an awful whining sound.  We realized we had to put the animal out of its misery; the question was how.  My friend suggested I drive over it, an idea that I quickly rejected. A rock to the head? A tire iron? We settled on suffocation – not terribly appealing but the best of a host of bad ideas.

So there I was, in the middle of the road, strangling a baby deer.  As if on cue, another car came along, filled with fellow students coming back from – and you can’t make this shit up – a Greenpeace meeting.  So I was a deer in the headlights strangling a baby deer. Quick explanations from my friend averted a beat-down (or at least the Greenpeace version of a beat-down).  The deer let out one last breath, went limp, and all was quiet.  There were a few tears.

Meanwhile, the town game warden – an old Vermont character named Donny – had been alerted and showed up post-strangulation.  He made his way to the center of the drum circle, picked up the deer by the neck, looked at all of us and said: “Sunday Dinner.”

Another:

Great thread. I don’t have any roadkill stories to add, but I just had to write in because I’d never heard the term “car-harvested” used to describe take-home roadkill before. I laughed out loud when I read it. It’s perfect. Car-harvested! That’s why the Dish is the best.

Update from a reader:

Come on guys this is too easy – it clearly should be Carvested!

Armed With Lobbyists

Adam Ciralsky reports at length on Lockheed Martin’s troubled F-35 Lightning II program. How the project has survived:

The political process that keeps the Joint Strike Fighter airborne has never stalled. The program was designed to spread money so far and F-35 Lightning II instructor pilots conduct aerial refuelingso wide—at last count, among some 1,400 separate subcontractors, strategically dispersed among key congressional districts—that no matter how many cost overruns, blown deadlines, or serious design flaws, it would be immune to termination. It was, as bureaucrats say, “politically engineered.” …

[Lockheed Martin] employs a stable of in-house and outside lobbyists and spends some $15 million on lobbying each year. When it comes to the F-35, which accounts for one of its largest revenue streams, Lockheed takes every opportunity to remind politicians that the airplane is manufactured in 46 states and is responsible for more than 125,000 jobs and $16.8 billion in “economic impact” to the U.S. economy. Signing up eight allied countries as partners provides additional insurance. “It’s quite frankly a brilliant strategy,” said General Bogdan, acknowledging that it is effective even if it is not admirable. Political engineering has foiled any meaningful opposition on Capitol Hill, in the White House, or in the defense establishment.

(Photo: A U.S. Air Force pilot navigates an F-35A Lightning II aircraft into position to refuel with a KC-135 Stratotanker over the coast of Florida on May 16, 2013. By MSgt John Nimmo Sr via Wikimedia Commons)

Don’t Hate On “Likes”

They’re covered by the Constitution now:

“Liking” something on Facebook is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, reviving a closely watched case over the extent to which the Constitution shields what we do online. In doing so, the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a former deputy sheriff in Hampton, Va., who said he was sacked for “liking” the Facebook page of a man running against his boss for city sheriff. “Liking” the campaign page, the court said, was the “Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech.”

The Best Of The Dish Today

Pet Shop Boys Perform In Beijing

First off, check out Colbert later tonight. It was a blast. And I’ll be on AC360 Later in an hour with Bill Kristol. Good times.

Today, we aired various indications that Rouhani is serious about opening a dialogue with the West. Today, in an interview with Ann Curry, he has gone even further. Money quote:

“In its nuclear program, this government enters with full power and has complete authority,” Rouhani told Ann Curry, NBC News national and international correspondent and anchor at large, in his first interview with a U.S. news outlet since his election. “The problem won’t be from our side,” he said at the presidential compound in Tehran. “We have sufficient political latitude to solve this problem.” Asked whether Iran would ever build a nuclear weapon, Rouhani noted that the country has repeatedly pledged that “under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever.”

Syria was a dress rehearsal for the real deal: a normalization of relations with Iran in return for clear and open international inspections of all its suspect sites. That would transform the current global dynamic, and lead us away from the threat of war to the possibility of a real peace between then people of America and the largely pro-American people of Iran.

We covered the developments here and here, while airing a fascinating video about Iran’s Revolutionary Guards fighting for their God in Syria – while regarding all Arabs as sub-human.

We raised Mike Allen’s publication of a press release by Fox under his own byline; we noted how bro culture keeps evolving; and how blogging has made me a better writer. Plus: the moment the US almost nuked itself.

The most popular post of the day remained Meep Meep, Motherfuckers from Sunday night. Second was this super cool political ad.

See you in the morning.

(Photo: Neil Tennant  and Chris Lowe of Pet Shop Boys perform on the stage in concert at MasterCard Center on August 22, 2013 in Beijing, China. By ChinaFotoPress via Getty Images. I’ll be posting a review soon.)

America’s Irrational Relationship To Guns

Families Of Gun Violence Join CT Congressional Reps To Call For Gun Background Checks

Gopnik urges the country to support sensible gun control laws:

Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse” is a fine study of why societies persist in obviously irrational, sometimes suicidal, behavior, even when the reality of just how suicidal it is stares them in the face. Why do they continue to deforest in the face of floods, refuse to eat fish even at the price of starvation? Most of the time, he points out, the simple sunk cost of the irrationality helps it persist: we have always believed this, and to un-believe it is to lose our faith in ourselves.

Yet sometimes things change. Diamond cites the success story of the Tikopia chiefs who presided over the decision to eliminate pigs from their tiny island, despite an ancient chieftain’s attachment to the destructive animals, and to turn instead to eating shellfish. Passionately held irrational values, even when they are hugely destructive, deserve empathy from all of us, since we all have values that are just as irrational, and just as passionately held. But it’s our job as grownups, not to mention as citizens, to learn the price of our pet irrationality and, like the Tikopians, to undo the animal forces, on our island and in our head, before they finish undoing us.

(Photo: During a press conference at the U.S. Capitol calling for gun reform legislation, Kyra Murray holds a photo of victims of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. With the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard earlier this week, gun reform activists are renewing their call for gun control laws. By Win McNamee/Getty Images)

What Wright Got Wrong

James Seaton unravels what Richard Wright was up to in Native Son:

[He] did not want his readers, certainly not his white readers, to sympathize or identify with Bigger Thomas. He did not want bankers’ daughters or anybody else to “weep over” his protagonist. He was determined to shock, frighten, and disturb. He wanted his readers to fear the possibility that they might someday run into a Bigger Thomas, whose “every thought” is “potential murder.” Wright wanted to scare his audience into considering what they otherwise would not accept, that they could never consider themselves truly safe until the United States underwent a radical transformation, specifically a revolution led by the Communist party.

In retrospect, it seems clear that the Richard Wright who wrote Native Son was wrong about many things.

In “How ‘Bigger’ Was Born,” he condemned almost all aspects of black culture and achievement as irrelevant to the reality of undeclared war. He rejected the black church as escapist,  disparaged those who, like the NAACP, “employed a thousand ruses and stratagems of struggle to win their rights,” and dismissed black singers and musicians who “projected their hurts and longings into more naïve and mundane forms—blues, jazz, swing—and, without intellectual guidance, tried to build up a compensatory nourishment for themselves.”

Those first readers of Native Son who accepted the novel as an accurate portrayal of the black experience would have been unprepared for the legal triumph of the NAACP in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and other such cases, and entirely surprised by the leadership role of the black church in the struggle for civil rights, demonstrated most strikingly, but by no means exclusively, in the career of Martin Luther King Jr. And from the perspective of the 21st century, the folly of Wright’s denigration of the art of composers like Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn, musicians like Coleman Hawkins and Louis Armstrong, and singers like Bessie Smith and Billie Holiday as “naïve and mundane” is even more obvious than it was in 1940.