No Cap On Life Expectancy? 64
Samarkind writes "An article over at Science Daily (no registration req'd) talks about the average life expectancy for people going up all over the world by an average of 3 months per year. They also say that the somewhat pervasive idea that people can only live so long just isn't true. The kicker that I got from the article was that the average life expectancy for men is 65... isn't that about when I'll retire?" Remember the life expectancy includes all the people who die at age 2 or 15 or 21. If you make it past 25 or so, you've got good odds to make it to 80.
we need to get that up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:we need to get that up... (Score:1)
He also thinks that due to technological progress being a double-exponential curve, we'll get something like 200 centuries of technical progress (at the current rate of progress) over the next 100 years. So, take it or leave it I guess. Would be nice.
Maximum Life Expectancy = 600 yrs + (Score:2)
No evidence at hand, but I suppose you could figure it out from the actuarial tables, etc.
In the US, given the current accident rates [infoplease.com] in the US, the average death life expectancy (based on accidents alone) would probably be about 1500 years. (based on the idea it would take 3000 plus years to kill off a population of 100,000)
Outside the US your milage may vary.
Re:Maximum Life Expectancy = 600 yrs + (Score:1)
Cause not stated (Score:3, Interesting)
Another way of looking at it would be: The life expectancy for people born today is higher than for people born twenty years ago. That doesn't mean that the life expectancy for people who are 60 today is any better than the life expectancy for people who were 60 twenty years ago.
Re:Cause not stated (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cause not stated (Score:2, Informative)
This is due to demographics more than life expectancy. That is, there are more 60+ year olds because 60 years ago people were having more children. Indeed, the number of seniors is bound to increase because of demographics. The boomers are aging, and this is going to create a population such that the majority of people will be older folks.
Re:Cause not stated (Score:2)
This page [efmoody.com] shows life expectancy at ages 65 and 85 increasing from 11.9 to 17.7 and 4.0 to 6.3 years in 1900 and 1997 respectively.
One reason to look forward to an aging population: World Peace, Thanks To Old Men? [gmu.edu]
Like I've always said... (Score:3, Funny)
So far, so good.
-Adam
Oldest living human? (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago, the oldest person in modern history died in France at an age something like 122. Will that record be 150 in a hundred years?
Unfortunately, accurate age information was not available for the general population until the previous century, so we don't really know what the change in that record has been for a statistically-valid period of time. (Besides, when looking at one in billions, it's hard to say you're being statistically valid.)
Re:Oldest living human? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the average life expectancy number is increasing mostly because of the drop in infant mortality rates. So the oldest people aren't necessarily going to get older. Instead, you will see more people making it to adulthood and therefore getting old.
What would cause increase in the age of the oldest people would be things like gene therapy, cleaner living conditions, less diseases and less stress. All these factors increase the likelyhood of dying younger.
Re:Oldest living human? (Score:2)
or you could always take steps to keep people under 40 from reproducing
Isn't that the whole point of the high tech industry? At least, it worked on me.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Oldest living human? (Score:2)
What I have really found interesting about the research has been that in lab animals who live to almost double thier lifespans on a CR diet (versus the adlib control groups who die half way through the experiments) is that they are functionally 'younger' at their advanced ages than their control counterparts at the same ages. This would be like 'feeling' like your in your 50's or 60's and actually being a centenarian. That is encouraging information because what good is it to be 120 if you have the quality of life of someone who lived 120 very hard and tiring years?
There are a few out there who belive that the envelope could be pushed to 400 years. I don't want to get your hopes up on those people because the bulk of their ideas have been rejected in the gerontology field.
The actual practice of CR is very difficult(trust me on this, my wife and I have been trying to get it down for two years and still find it to be a tremendous amount of work..). Not for the average person. Check out their stuff.
Something seems off here... (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that our life expectancy continues to increase may simply indicate our lifespans haven't yet hit their "terminal velocity" (as determined by biological/environmental factors).
In other words, they ain't dropping us from high enough yet. =)
Re:Something seems off here... (Score:3, Informative)
In other words we're a long way from reaching the limit to life span - which is important for policy makers and actuaries. But, this does not mean that there is no limit to life span, in the absence of other interventions. In fact, life span has a significant genetic component which has been studied in a lot of different organsms, like fruit files and worms where lifespan is controlled by the daf gene family [missouri.edu].
In the worm case, it's not the accumulated insults of living that cause death, instead it's like throwing a switch. Alter the switch and you alter life span without changing quality of life. What causes the daf genes to get activated is still not well understood, but it might relate to the timing of having progeny ... after the worms reproduce they tend to die off, while mutant long lived worms tend to put off reproduction. Here are some labs working in aging research [ucl.ac.uk])
The old problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The old problem (Score:2)
We can boil down what you said to... (Score:2)
Great ... (Score:1)
... just what this planet needs to help out with the overpopulation problems.
Re:Great ... (Score:1)
Overpopulation is a problem that solves itself. The problem isn't that we'll end up running out of food/water/air and all dying, it's that we'll "die off" in huge numbers to get back to equilibrium.
The four horsemen will take care of overpopulation as it happens...
Re:Great ... (Score:1)
While what you say is true, the problem is the number of resources we'll consume and thereby deny to a number of (currently) ecologically diverse systems.
Yeah, I agree humans will take themselves out in a big way at some point, I'm just worried about how much they'll take out with them.
Re:Great ... (Score:2)
... just what this planet needs to help out with the overpopulation problems.
Nuts. We already know of the location of enough energy, raw materials, space, etc. to suport the current population growth trends and indefinite longevity for many centuries, while at the same time cleaning up the environment and working on the solutions we will need beyond that.
All we have to do is grow up, go up, leave the nest, and get on with it.
-- MarkusQ
Growing up responsibly (Score:2)
It will take more than an expanding shell of von Neumann probes [angelfire.com] to achieve the organisational complexity the biosphere has achieved on this planet, so we still need techno sapiens to leave this nest (for cyberspace and/or outerspace as quickly as possible) returning the evolution of terrestrial systems in non technological hands.
Re:Great ... (Score:1)
The problem with this is that you're making the same mistaken assumptions about the solar system/galaxy/universe that most humans are making about the earth
That there are infinite resources, and that they exist for the sole purpose of being consumed by humans. This is the kind of philosophy that has put us (and overpopulation) where we are...
Re:Great ... (Score:2)
The problem with this is that you're making the same mistaken assumptions about the solar system/galaxy/universe that most humans are making about the earth
First off, "enough for many centuries" does not equal "infinite". So you either didn't get my point, or you are intentionally misrepresenting it to make yours.
Second, what put us where we are is not some phylosophy about resources. What has "put us where we are" has been the development of better and better health care, agriculture, etc., coupled with the belief that the results should be shared with as many people as possible. I would rather go to space to continue this trend than say, "No, sorry, gotta stop. Food and health care are only for the nobel/rich again, and we're going to drop the quality for them until enough people die off that we can sustain everybody on just what we have here."
If you want to kill yourself to make room for someone else, I support your right to do so. But if you intend to bump of someone else, I will fight you. But rather than either, I'd invite you to consider how easy it would be for us to raise the world standard of living to something above the present US average, while at the same time reducing the load on the earth. Not a permanent solution, no, but neither is throwing someone a life vest. That isn't a reason not to do it.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Great ... (Score:2)
>
> That there are infinite resources, and that they exist for the sole purpose of being consumed by humans. This is the kind of philosophy that has put us (and overpopulation) where we are...
You mean, like "with Joe Sixpack having a higher standard of living today than any aristocrat on the planet 500 years ago?"
You mean, like "with doubled lifespans over the past 100 years"?
The meek will inherit the earth. After the rest of us are done with it, having left to take the stars.
For Discover subscribers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, apparantly some species of turtle do not age. The only apparent change in their physiology is that the lay more eggs as they grow older. They apparently get smarter, as well. The enzyme that prevents cancer cells from dying of old age seem to give the turtle cells a boost when they are young, but they still don't get cancer, or other age-related diseases. We might break the 1-year/year barrier, yet! :)
I for one... (Score:2)
Then maybe I'd quit this filthy habit that I've grown to love called smoking....
I wonder what the average lifespan is doing for those of us in the cancer-stick habit?
Longevity is all well and good... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have several friends who are caring for parents with Alzheimers and other diseases that don't kill right away but that destroy life in the most fundamental way. I know other elderly people who have suffered heart attacks and strokes and are all there mentally, but are in constant pain and have to severely restrict their activities. A few decades ago these diseases would have killed their victims. Now they wound them and often leave them in a state like poor Tithonus, lover of Eos.
I certainly wouldn't wish an earlier death on any of these people, rather I hope that the medical establishment can come up with ways to help people stay active, lucid, and happy as their bodies age beyond the point that most people reached in the past. This is as important as, perhaps more important than, extending life.
Re:Longevity is all well and good... (Score:2)
Re:Longevity is all well and good... (Score:1)
There's also evidence that engaging in mentally challenging activities helps stave off dementia. Another reason to remain a programmer rather than going back into management!
Re:Longevity is all well and good... (Score:1)
I am sore most of the time from the amount of exercise I get every day (exercise soreness is the only soreness that feels good). I am determined to keep old age at bay as long as I can.
You realize that 'old age' isn't really a disease - old people die of something. Usually that something is an indirect result of your cells just wearing out (either evolved or just a side-effect). Your cells burn oxygen. The more they burn the quicker they die. Hence, if you over excercise too much you'll shorten your life!
Of course the effect is probably outweighed by the many benefits of excercise. The point is, there is no magic bullet for health - not even excercise.
Re:Longevity is all well and good... (Score:1)
If I am reasonably sure I'll still be around in 20-30 years after I retire, I'll surely put off doing a lot of things I'd like to do until later, and just waste a lot of time in between.
Re:Longevity is all well and good... (Score:2)
And ended up being turned into a grasshopper.
http://www.loggia.com/myth/tithonus
Re:Longevity is all well and good... (Score:1)
average age of death (Score:1)
What about braincells then? (Score:1)
Re:120 is the limit... (Score:1)
Fame (Score:1)
my experience (Score:2, Informative)
First off, some background information. If you take a normal cell, it won't live forever. However, a cancer cell will, provided it is fed. Cancer cells are mutated so they don't respond to feedback mechanisms from other cells, but their most important feature is in their replication.
Does anyone remember early versions of napster? Due to bugs, it wouldn't transmit the last few bytes of every file. For an mp3 file, that meant the mp3 info tag might be missing, or the last few seconds. But what if the copies kept getting resent? Every time, the file would get progresively shorter, and eventually, you'd notice it.
The same thing happens in cells. Due to the DNA replication method, the last few base pairs at the end of the strand aren't duplicated. That's ok, since the ends are basically unused spare buffers. Eventually, the buffer will be used up, and the DNA will get fucked up, and the cell won't be able to duplicate anymore.
Cancer cells have an enzyme called telomerase that adds back to the buffer, allowing it to divide forever.
Of course, there are also other factors that contribute to a finite life span on the cellular level.
There are non-cellular factors to aging as well. For example, collagen (skin) has the cystene amino acid. Cystene contains sulfer, and as you age, the dulfer forms cross links. The result is obvious if you compare geristric skin to newborn skin.
Additionally, the human body is designed for a limited life span. The thymus (important for the immune system) starts atrophying in the late teens, and is useless as your appendix by age 30 or so.
So, while cellular life can be extended, for a complex organism like us, I'd say there is a cap on life expectancy.
Re:my experience (Score:1)
I find it somewhat odd that whoever did this study didn't take into account the buffer on the end of a strand of DNA. As I understand from a paper I read some time ago, this is the main factor which caps life expectancy, and has been a known fact for years.
How did a study like the one this article describes overlook such information, which I found in a few minutes on Google (pretending I had no prior knowledge)? Seems like there was a lack of research into the biology of this issue, and that they concentrated primarily on statistics. Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily work; like someone else said in another post, this is similar to ignoring terminal velocity when collecting data about falling objects.
Telomerase: the key to long life (Score:1)
Perhaps a simple way to de-age is to get telomerase to only work on good, healthy cells.
Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
Life Expectancy for Immortals (Score:1)
doesn't really follow from those studies (Score:1)