4 ms·
The article is poorly written, but the actual abstract is pretty clear: "Here, by analysing global demographic data, we show that improvements in survival with
by dahdum 10y ago
The article is poorly written, but the actual abstract is pretty clear:
"Here, by analysing global demographic data, we show that improvements in survival with age tend to decline after age 100, and that the age at death of the world’s oldest person has not increased since the 1990s. Our results strongly suggest that the maximum lifespan of humans is fixed and subject to natural constraints."
I don't think this isn't a real surprise, but it shows that you can't link the rise in life expectancy to maximum life spans.
For example, fewer infants dying doesn't mean that humans can live longer, but the overall average goes up.
- ianai 10y agoWithout considering it much, this feels like an abuse of data and statistical methods. It's like they've got 20 years of data and are extrapolating out to infinity. It's like modeling real estate prices on 20 years of data and saying whatever happened in those 20 years is all that can happen in all time frames. Forecasting 101 tells you the folly of that idea. If you have 20 years of data then you have 20 years of data. Maybe what they've uncovered is something like "max human age without treatment". Surely they can't rule out the effects of future medical advancements.
- dahdum 10y agoI think it's just sensationalist science journalism like usual. The research is well done, the reporting stinks. Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/