4 ms·

> Most of the average lifespan increases we've seen have come from reduced infant and childbirth mortality, not from making the elderly live to be even more eld

> Most of the average lifespan increases we've seen have come from reduced infant and childbirth mortality, not from making the elderly live to be even more elderly. You're missing my point. Lifespans are increasing. The reason why is irrelevant. Regardless, the result is that you have more time to accumulate irreversible damage than your ancestors did, so their habits re: the sources of that damage are not necessarily prescriptive. There's probably a hard limit on radiation exposure, and that means you'll have to spread it out more than your ancestors did to enjoy the same risk of cancer - ex: same number of hours in the sun but over a longer lifespan = shorter individual trips under the sun, but (inevitably) more of them.

darkpuma 8y ago
You've missed my point, the increases in human lifespans have come from greater success at reproduction (surviving childbirth, and surviving being a child long enough to reach sexual maturity), which is rather contrary to what you've suggested. Furthermore: > "As lifespans increase, so should efforts to avoid cumulative, damaging radiation." The elderly are not living much longer than they ever did before, so this is basically nonsense. It makes sense if you assume that 200 years ago men were dropping dead in their 40s like those naive life expectancy statistics would lead to to believe, but that's not what was going on. The life expectancy of a mature male has barely changed at all in the past few thousand years, so the relative importance of avoiding cumulative damage like radiation has not increased either.
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  > naive life expectancy statistics Yes, we all know about that. You're getting too hung up on me saying "lifespans increase." Forget that I said that. Imagine I instead said, "we are optimizing for health in old age more than the ancients did." > the relative importance of avoiding cumulative damage like radiation has not increased either It wasn't important at all back then because they didn't know about it. Do you want to die in agony in your 70s from metastasized skin cancer, or peacefully in your sleep at 80? My point is that propagation of the species, old age, and rampant melanoma can all exist simultaneously - so what people did in the past re: sun exposure isn't necessarily good advice for us today.

darkpuma 8y ago

You've missed my point, the increases in human lifespans have come from greater success at reproduction (surviving childbirth, and surviving being a child long enough to reach sexual maturity), which is rather contrary to what you've suggested. Furthermore: > "As lifespans increase, so should efforts to avoid cumulative, damaging radiation." The elderly are not living much longer than they ever did before, so this is basically nonsense. It makes sense if you assume that 200 years ago men were dropping dead in their 40s like those naive life expectancy statistics would lead to to believe, but that's not what was going on. The life expectancy of a mature male has barely changed at all in the past few thousand years, so the relative importance of avoiding cumulative damage like radiation has not increased either.

brandonmenc 8y ago
> naive life expectancy statistics Yes, we all know about that. You're getting too hung up on me saying "lifespans increase." Forget that I said that. Imagine I instead said, "we are optimizing for health in old age more than the ancients did." > the relative importance of avoiding cumulative damage like radiation has not increased either It wasn't important at all back then because they didn't know about it. Do you want to die in agony in your 70s from metastasized skin cancer, or peacefully in your sleep at 80? My point is that propagation of the species, old age, and rampant melanoma can all exist simultaneously - so what people did in the past re: sun exposure isn't necessarily good advice for us today.