I was surprised to hear someone suggest that a baby girl born to affluent American parents today has a 50-50 chance of celebrating her 100th birthday. The idea was that today's life expectancy figure, in the 80's, is calculated by combining the mortality rates observed at all ages from all causes. But of course today's baby will not be driving today's cars when she is 20, nor will she rely on today's medicine if she falls ill at age 50. Almost every factor relevant to longevity has been improving, and it is reasonable to hope that this positive trend will continue.Last suggests life expectancy could increase to 120 as early as 2050
I can't find the number "120" in the source paper; perhaps that was an embellishment. But that age was reached by Madame Calment, so it is plausible that improvements in health and safety could make such an age more attainable to the masses.
I don't actually predict 120 by 2050. I am more interested in how our life history should change given radical life extension, whenever it happens to occur. I state this at the end of the paper:I can't find the number "120" in the source paper
This analysis should prove useful for the impor- tant reason that you can make a fairly reliable prediction for biological reproduction given radical life extension (RLE). If RLE is not achieved before 2050, but instead at some later date, 100, 150, or 500 years from now, this will likely coincide with the indefinite postponement of current biological reproduction in favour of current cultural repro- duction. Therefore, any popular or political opposition to the practical application of RLE breakthroughs on the basis that they would lead to catastrophic overpopulation issues, are almost definitely unfounded. Also, any scientists cur- rently involved in research related to RLE should not fear that their breakthroughs will lead to major population prob- lems that will need to be solved at some future period of time.
The article ecib shared about How Americans Die was pretty interesting.as the average population ages we run up against more and more cancer
That's true, but something is going to get you in the end. As more people survive childhood diseases and accidents, age-related illness like cancer will claim a larger share of the 100% of people who (at least for now) succumb to death.
Right. In the past, though, the things that "got us" were mostly exogenous. A hypothetical hermit won't get the flu or tuberculosis but if male has a 50 percent chance of getting cancer. Now, obviously, in 1800 or whenever people probably never thought we'd deal with deadly infections, and we largely have. So you never know. But cancer strikes me as a lot more insidious than previous rampant causes of death. I'm also not sure I agree with Cadell that "the biological clock won't last forever" -- based on various things I've read lately, that seems pretty optimistic.
I don't know exactly when it will happen, but our choices about biological reproduction will change dramatically before 2050.the biological clock won't last forever" -- based on various things I've read lately, that seems pretty optimistic.