this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
1491 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

11217 readers
3471 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1491
The 1900s (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One day, there will only be a handful of people from the 19 hundreds left

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The oldest person who ever lived so far made it to 122, so by 2123 they'll almost certainly all be gone.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a verifiable old age people have lived to. Seeing how medicine and our understanding is constantly evolving, you don't think it even possible that someone would live even as long to 123?

This is no science, if even pop-sci, but: the first person to live as long as they want may have already been born is an idea that's been floated around. The remarkable thing is that while people have believed in living forever, well, forever, this is the first time in history that it's actually possible. Not perhaps even probably, but definitely possible that medicine will develop so far.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That article is bunk clickbait.

Here is an article from a better source saying the opposite.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Maybe we are “on the cusp”

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"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.

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s a long and boring response.

The evidence that no one can live past 123 is that no one has ever lived past 123. We have a sample size of billions on that statistic.

Some low quality science journal says that ‘maybe we could live forever, or like, 150 or something’ and I say ‘cool story bro’.

I can imagine that it might be true, but that does not make it possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

People like you are why Iemmy is almost as bad as Reddit… talking in circles, saying nothing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The evidence that no one can live past 123 is that no one has ever lived past 123. We have a sample size of billions on that statistic.

So you're saying there's an absence of evidence?

We also have science showing that life expectancy is constantly increasing. Even you linked an article which relied on a study that noted that as a fact. They showed that the increase is now slower than it used to be — but it is still there. Thus, it would be preposterous to hypothesise that the current record for longest lives won't be broken constantly as life expectancy increases.

Observed maximum life span isn't synonymous with life expectancy.

Some low quality science journal says that ‘maybe we could live forever, or like, 150 or something’ and I say ‘cool story bro’.

You have no science showing that, the only science you even indirectly linked support exactly what I am saying, and I just quoted Wikipedia, which uses sources.

People like you are why Iemmy is almost as bad as Reddit… talking in circles, saying nothing.

I literally laughed out loud. You're speaking out of your arse, just like I said.

It has been proposed that no fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent today.[8][9] 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.[10]

8: The Biology of Life Span: A Quantitative Approach. New York City: Starwood Academic Publishers.

9: "Book Reviews: Validation of Exceptional Longevity" (PDF). Population Dev Rev. 26 (2): 403–04.

10: "Biodemography of Human Longevity". International Conference on Longevity.