Comments | andrewducker: So this is it...we're going to die

andrewducker

So this is it...we're going to die

Feb 22, 2012 14:50

I was reading the Hacker News discussion of yesterday's link on death and doctors' views on it, and came across this comment which highlighted how small the gains in lifespan over the last hundred years are ( Read more... )

Comments 39

ciphergoth February 22 2012, 14:59:35 UTC

AFAIK very little research effort has gone into attacking ageing itself. It's fair enough to consider someone like Aubrey de Grey as fringe, but where are the non-fringe researchers? How come it's not worthy of mainstream attention?

andrewducker February 22 2012, 15:02:06 UTC

And violate God's will? Insanity!

randomchris February 22 2012, 15:23:18 UTC

I think the pensions crisis that would result from a cure for aging is of rather more concern :)

ciphergoth February 22 2012, 15:32:12 UTC

Apply the reversal test to that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test

Thread 11

drdoug February 22 2012, 16:18:12 UTC

The motherlode for this information for the UK is the very-excellent Office of National Statistics ( ... )

danieldwilliam February 22 2012, 16:33:14 UTC

So, the key thing in the OP is that in 1900 once you had reached 65 you were probably good for about the same number of years as you are now if you reach 65

but

your chances of seeing 65 in 1900 were very much lower.

steer February 23 2012, 00:49:16 UTC

While commonly believed this is not true. Since 1970 changes in life expectancy in industrialised nations have been pretty largely driven by extensions in life for older people.

When we reach 65 we now go on for longer and it is this rather than anything pre 65 which is now driving increases in life expectency.

J.R. Wilmoth / Experimental Gerontology 35 (2000) 1111±1129

danieldwilliam February 23 2012, 09:15:44 UTC

It's not true that in 1900 your chances of living to 65 were significantly lower than they are in 2011?

Thread 22

drdoug February 22 2012, 16:21:28 UTC

Oh, meant to mention the huge disparities and injustices these data throw up. Places like Afghanistan have infant mortalities now that are up where UK rates were in 1900. And even within the UK things vary - (period) life expectancy for a newborn boy in Glasgow City is 71.6, but for a newborn girl in Kensington & Chelsea it's 89.8.

joexnz February 22 2012, 17:49:45 UTC

Yeah all that stuff about infant mortality and social class!

undeadbydawn February 22 2012, 19:13:50 UTC

*entirely* off topic:

of all the advances that have increased life expectancy, 80% have been in civil engineering. Most particularly, sanitation and water treatment.

20% are medical.

that's an estimation by - if I remember rightly - a previous head of the Royal College of Physicians. Who was not a civil engineer.

[figures pulled from my unreliable memory]