I’ve read the study your article is based on. It doesn’t really state it in the way your article does in the title.
We found that, since 1990, improvements overall in life expectancy have decelerated. Our analysis also revealed that resistance to improvements in life expectancy increased while lifespan inequality declined and mortality compression occurred. Our analysis suggests that survival to age 100 years is unlikely to exceed 15% for females and 5% for males, altogether suggesting that, unless the processes of biological aging can be markedly slowed, radical human life extension is implausible in this century
Here you’ll have to note that societal issues like income inequality have increased massively. Expected lifespan is still continuing to grow, despite the growth having slowed some. Medical technology and the growth of technology and novel medical technologies keep growing at an ever growing rate, really. Well, the speed of growth of technology in general is exponential. Perhaps it’s not in the area of medicine, because there might be diminishing returns.
My point is that I’m definitely not arguing that someone from the 1900’s will be alive in 2123, I’m just saying that for the first time in history, entertaining the idea that it might be possible for a person who has already been born to live practically as long as they want isn’t totally ridiculous. That’s all.
It’s most definitely an argument that actual scientists on the subject will debate over, and have differing opinions. Remember that like in the 70’s, a few people in the lead in computer engineering made comments like “there’s never going to be a time in history where people would want personal computers. where would you put it anyway, you’d have to have a whole room” or the like.
I am not sure what relevance ‘pop-science’ has unless pop science means non science.
I get that you are saying ‘maybe, possibly, not completely ridiculous to think’, etc., however until it has been demonstrated to be a possibility, the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
Something which is evidenced to be not possible does not suddenly become ‘possible’ just because one can imagine it.
It’s just really low quality sciences journalism, so it often distorts facts and whatnot, but there usually is some article making some point.
Just as there is with your article. They’re essentially reporting on what they’re opinion of the implications of rhe study is.
the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
No it isn’t. Show a single study saying that.
You can’t, because scientists don’t make sweeping conclusions about futures that haven’t happened.
Something which is evidenced to be not possible
Again, you’re pulling this out of your arse, because you feel like emphasising a thing online. Not good, man.
Do you know how proving negatives even works?
What your originally said is basically a claim that human medicine, society and thus life expectancy will have literally zero advancement in a century, and only supporting it with an article about a study which says that the rate of increase for life expectancy is slowing down. That still means there is an increase in life expectancy. That means that most probably, in 2125, someone from the 1900s will be alive.
You know, because you took the longest life of today and then added 100 years.
It would be preposterous to think there will be no increase or advancement for a hundreds years.
It has been proposed that no fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent today. Studies in the biodemography of human longevity indicate a late-life mortality deceleration law: that death rates level off at advanced ages to a late-life mortality plateau. That is, there is no fixed upper limit to human longevity, or fixed maximal human lifespan.
Wikipedia has really fucked it up on this one — given his certain you are that science is certain that there is a fixed human maximum life span… unless… unless… I was correct in assuming that you were talking out of your arse? Yes. That would explain it.
The increase in average lifespan in the modern era has come almost entirely from a reduction of people dying during child birth and childhood. The life expectancy for people who’ve already reached adulthood (and for women, who’ve stopped having children) hasn’t really changed much since prehistory. Maybe we are “on the cusp” of that changing, but it hasn’t actually done so yet.
No, yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying for a few comments now. That maybe it is so. I’m not saying it is so. I’m saying it’s a possibility.
Like I don’t believe I can read minds, but if I asked you to think of a number between one and ten and just guessed, I’d still have ~10% hitrate if we did it long enough. Perhaps even more.
Had you been a doctor in the 1920’s and talked about people some day perhaps living forever, you’d have been ridiculed in any decent science circles. Now it’s a novel thought that might even become reality. Might
The life expectancy for people who’ve already reached adulthood (and for women, who’ve stopped having children) hasn’t really changed much since prehistory.
You’re referring to the “two score ten” and yeah, if you reached adulthood, you’d probably make it well into your fifties, with high probability that you’d actually manage to around 70.
My dad made it to 70. Insanely bad living habits. Like genuinely can’t remember when he ever did a single thing like taking a walk or eating moderately or not drinking and smoking while doing that all. His mom (my grandmother) is now 93. She too has lived an exceedingly sedentary life and is obese.
If someone actually lives healthily, cares for themselves and has access to healthcare, 70 is extremely low for a life-expectancy. More like 100 for people who are now 30-40, and that’s just a guess because I used to drive a taxi and would see a lot of very healthy 90-year olds. Like not even health-nut healthy, just “do my own chores and don’t smoke and drink only rarely”.
I think the biggest problem is solving things like dementia more than keeping people physically alive.
I imagine a more realistic compromise here would be to assume that when my gen is at the very end of it’s life, it’s gonna be closer to 130-150 years. Am I being overly optimistic? Probably. Can we know before we get there? Not really. Is there any point in arguing what will happen? No, I don’t think so. Were I doing that? I was not. Was I pointing out that it’s not totally insane to suggest that one perhaps remote possibility is that we might actually develop crazy medicine. However we’d also need radical social reform to get that to everyone prolly but still.
That article is bunk clickbait.
Here is an article from a better source saying the opposite.
It’s pop-science, which I explicitly mentioned.
I’ve read the study your article is based on. It doesn’t really state it in the way your article does in the title.
Here you’ll have to note that societal issues like income inequality have increased massively. Expected lifespan is still continuing to grow, despite the growth having slowed some. Medical technology and the growth of technology and novel medical technologies keep growing at an ever growing rate, really. Well, the speed of growth of technology in general is exponential. Perhaps it’s not in the area of medicine, because there might be diminishing returns.
My point is that I’m definitely not arguing that someone from the 1900’s will be alive in 2123, I’m just saying that for the first time in history, entertaining the idea that it might be possible for a person who has already been born to live practically as long as they want isn’t totally ridiculous. That’s all.
It’s most definitely an argument that actual scientists on the subject will debate over, and have differing opinions. Remember that like in the 70’s, a few people in the lead in computer engineering made comments like “there’s never going to be a time in history where people would want personal computers. where would you put it anyway, you’d have to have a whole room” or the like.
Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.
I am not sure what relevance ‘pop-science’ has unless pop science means non science.
I get that you are saying ‘maybe, possibly, not completely ridiculous to think’, etc., however until it has been demonstrated to be a possibility, the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
Something which is evidenced to be not possible does not suddenly become ‘possible’ just because one can imagine it.
“Popularised” “popular”.
Sort of like how tabloids aren’t news.
It’s just really low quality sciences journalism, so it often distorts facts and whatnot, but there usually is some article making some point.
Just as there is with your article. They’re essentially reporting on what they’re opinion of the implications of rhe study is.
No it isn’t. Show a single study saying that.
You can’t, because scientists don’t make sweeping conclusions about futures that haven’t happened.
Again, you’re pulling this out of your arse, because you feel like emphasising a thing online. Not good, man.
Do you know how proving negatives even works?
What your originally said is basically a claim that human medicine, society and thus life expectancy will have literally zero advancement in a century, and only supporting it with an article about a study which says that the rate of increase for life expectancy is slowing down. That still means there is an increase in life expectancy. That means that most probably, in 2125, someone from the 1900s will be alive.
You know, because you took the longest life of today and then added 100 years.
It would be preposterous to think there will be no increase or advancement for a hundreds years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span
Wikipedia has really fucked it up on this one — given his certain you are that science is certain that there is a fixed human maximum life span… unless… unless… I was correct in assuming that you were talking out of your arse? Yes. That would explain it.
The increase in average lifespan in the modern era has come almost entirely from a reduction of people dying during child birth and childhood. The life expectancy for people who’ve already reached adulthood (and for women, who’ve stopped having children) hasn’t really changed much since prehistory. Maybe we are “on the cusp” of that changing, but it hasn’t actually done so yet.
No, yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying for a few comments now. That maybe it is so. I’m not saying it is so. I’m saying it’s a possibility.
Like I don’t believe I can read minds, but if I asked you to think of a number between one and ten and just guessed, I’d still have ~10% hitrate if we did it long enough. Perhaps even more.
Had you been a doctor in the 1920’s and talked about people some day perhaps living forever, you’d have been ridiculed in any decent science circles. Now it’s a novel thought that might even become reality. Might
You’re referring to the “two score ten” and yeah, if you reached adulthood, you’d probably make it well into your fifties, with high probability that you’d actually manage to around 70.
My dad made it to 70. Insanely bad living habits. Like genuinely can’t remember when he ever did a single thing like taking a walk or eating moderately or not drinking and smoking while doing that all. His mom (my grandmother) is now 93. She too has lived an exceedingly sedentary life and is obese.
If someone actually lives healthily, cares for themselves and has access to healthcare, 70 is extremely low for a life-expectancy. More like 100 for people who are now 30-40, and that’s just a guess because I used to drive a taxi and would see a lot of very healthy 90-year olds. Like not even health-nut healthy, just “do my own chores and don’t smoke and drink only rarely”.
I think the biggest problem is solving things like dementia more than keeping people physically alive.
I imagine a more realistic compromise here would be to assume that when my gen is at the very end of it’s life, it’s gonna be closer to 130-150 years. Am I being overly optimistic? Probably. Can we know before we get there? Not really. Is there any point in arguing what will happen? No, I don’t think so. Were I doing that? I was not. Was I pointing out that it’s not totally insane to suggest that one perhaps remote possibility is that we might actually develop crazy medicine. However we’d also need radical social reform to get that to everyone prolly but still.