My understanding is that the doubling in life expectancy over the last 150-200 years was primarily due to the drastic reduction in infant mortality and elimination of most infectious diseases. If you only look at life expectancy from the point of reaching adulthood, the change hasn't been nearly as dramatic.
And they are falling a bit into that trap:
"In 1850, the combined life expectancies of men and women stood at around 40 years in the United States, Canada, Japan and much of Europe."
But if you eliminate life expectancy at birth, you'll notice that there hasn't been a drastic improvement. It's been discussed on HN previously, and I think adult life expectancy has only improved by less than 20 years over the last several hundred.
Yes. When most people say "life expectancy" they mean "life expectancy at birth." Even in the depths of the middle ages when life expectancy at birth was around 30 years, most people who lived to adulthood lived into their 60s and 70s.
As an example, in the 20th Century, life expectancy at birth rose from about 40 to 77 years. But for 20 year olds, it also went from 34 to 59 additional years.
I remember seeing the horrible decline in life expectancy when the Soviet Union collapsed.
At the same time, the Soviet client state of Cuba saw a dramatic reduction in economic activity and caloric restriction. Cuban dietary belt tightening led to a massive reduction in cardio vascular disease with a correlated massive reduction in obesity.
I’m not a doctor, nor a data scientist or economist.
But I suspect we will see bifurcated life expectancy moving forward.
In the distant past when there was great wealth divide, one common denominator was similar life expectancy.
Moving forward, that same wealth divide can now be leveraged by those who can afford it to exploit the entire spectrum of longevity incremental opportunities:
Nutrition
Clean water
Clean air
Mitigating physical wear & tear
Sleep
Stress
Well being
Microbiome
Supplements
Pharmacology
Stem cell therapy
Gene therapy
CRISPR
I predict a continued flattening of average life expectancy as developing world life expectancy slowly improves and some developed countries possibly see some attrition from systemic obesity, economic disruption, and continued wealth divide.
But I see the top few % of most wealthy begin to see enhanced quality of life in their later years, as well as incrementally more years.
Longevity tech is the ultimate market.
How much will people pay for a Tesla Model Y(assuming it makes it to market)?
> How much will people pay for an extra 5-10 years?
> Everything.
Yeah as long as it doesn't require any effort.
Exercise every day, stop alcohol, stop smoking, start eating well. You might not live longer but you'll live in good health longer, which is all that matter in the end.
I'd take living until 60 in full physical and mental shape over slowly rotting in a retirement home until 90.
If we truly cared about health we wouldn't accept ICE cars inside our cities, fast food, sodas, fat acceptance movements, &c. We're not killed by diseases anymore, we're killed by sloth and gluttony.
>How much will people pay for an extra 5-10 years? Everything.
I doubt it, most people aren't even willing to pay the small price of feeling lactic acid when exercising. Or not consuming excess calories.
Quality of life matters too. If you have children, I would be surprised if most people would want to spend their personal wealth for an extra 5 to 10 geriatric bed ridden years. It only happens now because the taxpayers pay for it. I'd rather pass those resources onto my kids if it had to come out of my pocket.
So you're saying we should expect something like the immortal plutocrat 'Meths' in Altered Carbon? I don't doubt it. The old adage of 'you can't take it with you' will be amended to 'but if you're rich enough you don't have to go.'
This makes some sense in theory but in actuality people frequently avoid making decisions that would very easily allow them to live years longer.
On a deeper level, the notion that humans put “the will to live” above everything else is itself problematic. See Schopenhauer’s concept of the will to live and Nietzsche’s commentary on it.
- lived through World War 1 (granted in the United States)
- survived the "Spanish Flu" (although as someone under 10 whereas hardest hit were adults)
- lived through the Depression
- started having children post World War 2 (now with antibiotics available).
I've often thought, just making it to age 10 showed that she had a strong immune system. When she started having children, she benefited from having access to antibiotics at a time when there was no drug resistance.
Looking at my parents generation (the baby boomers) and suddenly you have a generation of children where infant mortality etc goes way down (again thanks to antibiotics). In other words, children that wouldn't have survived in 1912 are now living into adulthood. We applied selection pressure to have children (and then in turn adults) with weaker immune systems. (Not saying this is a bad thing).
Because of the above, I wonder how much of the life expectancy increase has to do with a kind of winning the demographic lottery of: "When I was little, my immune system kept me alive. When I was an adult, medicine took care of what my immune system couldn't."
This doesn’t make much sense because life expectancy cohorts are grouped by the year they are born, not the year they died.
The concept of a “strong” vs “weak” immune system also doesn’t correspond to reality: for the flu, it’s hypothesized that it’s too strong an immune reaction that kills you. Many of today’s leading causes of death also don’t have much to do with the immune system, from the opioid epidemic to heart attacks, strokes, and cancer. Autoimmune disease is far ahead as a public health issue compared to infectious disease, from MS to (probably) vascular disease (edit: see this other story currently on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19742188)
I haven't come across any information that would indicate that we can generalize a person's immune system to be better than another's, outside of specified immune system disorders that have been defined. The immune system and the body in general are such a complex mechanism that it's impossible to claim one or a few persons surviving in one or a few instances and environments indicates they will have greater odds of future survival.
Another example is the life expectancy of holocaust survivors. Holocaust survivors in israel have longer life expectancy than other israelis. That's because you had to have the best immune system and psychological will to live in order to survive the disease and starvation ridden concentration camps.
> and suddenly you have a generation of children where infant mortality etc goes way down (again thanks to antibiotics)
Infant mortality went down in white communities, there is still a disparity between infant mortality in white communities and urban/african-american communities. Some communities have the infant mortality rate equal to a third-world country.
Never mind the decline in improvement, I think we're going to see a sudden sharp drop very soon. It may be hidden by the long-lived generation before, but the baby boomers have eaten, drunk, and medicated themselves into oblivion compared to their parents.
And who knows what's to come for the next generation, with an increasing wealth divide and heck knows what else.
My parents, baby boomers themselves, are starting to see the effects of this. Funeral after funeral of friends and family dying in their early to late 60's - almost always due to heart disease, liver failure or some sort of cancer.
Every time I join them it's the same "he seemed so healthy/ it was so unexpected/ she was gone so quickly".
In my head I can't help but think "he ate nothing but meat/ she drank a bottle of wine a night/ they haven't broken a sweat in years".
Being poor in the United States is so hazardous to your health, a new study shows, that the average life expectancy of the lowest-income classes in America is now equal to that in Sudan or Pakistan.
I don't doubt that we're approaching the max life expectancy that you can get from natural means... By that, I mean curing diseases and maintaining the right balance of nutrition.
But I think we'll start to see improvements that aren't about just staying healthy, but instead are about actually reversing "the aging process" and the things we barely understand about what makes us change as we get older.
[+] [-] DebtDeflation|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nottorp|7 years ago|reply
But if you eliminate life expectancy at birth, you'll notice that there hasn't been a drastic improvement. It's been discussed on HN previously, and I think adult life expectancy has only improved by less than 20 years over the last several hundred.
(Someone with sources feel free to correct me).
[+] [-] bregma|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Conjoiner|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
As an example, in the 20th Century, life expectancy at birth rose from about 40 to 77 years. But for 20 year olds, it also went from 34 to 59 additional years.
[+] [-] chriselles|7 years ago|reply
At the same time, the Soviet client state of Cuba saw a dramatic reduction in economic activity and caloric restriction. Cuban dietary belt tightening led to a massive reduction in cardio vascular disease with a correlated massive reduction in obesity.
I’m not a doctor, nor a data scientist or economist.
But I suspect we will see bifurcated life expectancy moving forward.
In the distant past when there was great wealth divide, one common denominator was similar life expectancy.
Moving forward, that same wealth divide can now be leveraged by those who can afford it to exploit the entire spectrum of longevity incremental opportunities:
Nutrition Clean water Clean air Mitigating physical wear & tear Sleep Stress Well being Microbiome Supplements Pharmacology Stem cell therapy Gene therapy CRISPR
I predict a continued flattening of average life expectancy as developing world life expectancy slowly improves and some developed countries possibly see some attrition from systemic obesity, economic disruption, and continued wealth divide.
But I see the top few % of most wealthy begin to see enhanced quality of life in their later years, as well as incrementally more years.
Longevity tech is the ultimate market.
How much will people pay for a Tesla Model Y(assuming it makes it to market)?
Something.
How much will people pay for an extra 5-10 years?
Everything.
Apologies, social “scientist” talking fiction!
[+] [-] lm28469|7 years ago|reply
> Everything.
Yeah as long as it doesn't require any effort.
Exercise every day, stop alcohol, stop smoking, start eating well. You might not live longer but you'll live in good health longer, which is all that matter in the end. I'd take living until 60 in full physical and mental shape over slowly rotting in a retirement home until 90.
If we truly cared about health we wouldn't accept ICE cars inside our cities, fast food, sodas, fat acceptance movements, &c. We're not killed by diseases anymore, we're killed by sloth and gluttony.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|7 years ago|reply
I doubt it, most people aren't even willing to pay the small price of feeling lactic acid when exercising. Or not consuming excess calories.
Quality of life matters too. If you have children, I would be surprised if most people would want to spend their personal wealth for an extra 5 to 10 geriatric bed ridden years. It only happens now because the taxpayers pay for it. I'd rather pass those resources onto my kids if it had to come out of my pocket.
[+] [-] taneq|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xorfish|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keiferski|7 years ago|reply
On a deeper level, the notion that humans put “the will to live” above everything else is itself problematic. See Schopenhauer’s concept of the will to live and Nietzsche’s commentary on it.
[+] [-] alexpotato|7 years ago|reply
She:
- was born in a time with no antibiotics
- lived on a farm with all of it's inherent risks
- lived through World War 1 (granted in the United States)
- survived the "Spanish Flu" (although as someone under 10 whereas hardest hit were adults)
- lived through the Depression
- started having children post World War 2 (now with antibiotics available).
I've often thought, just making it to age 10 showed that she had a strong immune system. When she started having children, she benefited from having access to antibiotics at a time when there was no drug resistance.
Looking at my parents generation (the baby boomers) and suddenly you have a generation of children where infant mortality etc goes way down (again thanks to antibiotics). In other words, children that wouldn't have survived in 1912 are now living into adulthood. We applied selection pressure to have children (and then in turn adults) with weaker immune systems. (Not saying this is a bad thing).
Because of the above, I wonder how much of the life expectancy increase has to do with a kind of winning the demographic lottery of: "When I was little, my immune system kept me alive. When I was an adult, medicine took care of what my immune system couldn't."
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
The concept of a “strong” vs “weak” immune system also doesn’t correspond to reality: for the flu, it’s hypothesized that it’s too strong an immune reaction that kills you. Many of today’s leading causes of death also don’t have much to do with the immune system, from the opioid epidemic to heart attacks, strokes, and cancer. Autoimmune disease is far ahead as a public health issue compared to infectious disease, from MS to (probably) vascular disease (edit: see this other story currently on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19742188)
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] basetop|7 years ago|reply
https://www.timesofisrael.com/surviving-holocaust-contribute...
I agree with your point about demographic lottery. Your genetics and where you are born probably contributes significantly to your life expectancy.
[+] [-] sodosopa|7 years ago|reply
Infant mortality went down in white communities, there is still a disparity between infant mortality in white communities and urban/african-american communities. Some communities have the infant mortality rate equal to a third-world country.
[+] [-] phlegmatic|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] midgetjones|7 years ago|reply
And who knows what's to come for the next generation, with an increasing wealth divide and heck knows what else.
[+] [-] Aromasin|7 years ago|reply
Every time I join them it's the same "he seemed so healthy/ it was so unexpected/ she was gone so quickly".
In my head I can't help but think "he ate nothing but meat/ she drank a bottle of wine a night/ they haven't broken a sweat in years".
[+] [-] saint_abroad|7 years ago|reply
Trends in outliers cannot be used to extrapolate trends in mean, unless for very small populations (such that outliers are unreliable).
The article just seems to be an opinion piece to explain away falling improvements in average life-expectancy rather than tackle rising inequality.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/for-life-expe...
Being poor in the United States is so hazardous to your health, a new study shows, that the average life expectancy of the lowest-income classes in America is now equal to that in Sudan or Pakistan.
[+] [-] AstralStorm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmod775|7 years ago|reply
After development, the age of a human body is just an accumulation of many many different kinds of failures over time.
[+] [-] wccrawford|7 years ago|reply
But I think we'll start to see improvements that aren't about just staying healthy, but instead are about actually reversing "the aging process" and the things we barely understand about what makes us change as we get older.
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SlipperySlope|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]