3 ms·

This is the main problem I've always had with the evidence-based scientific approach. Just because all of your data points show the same thing, doesn't make tha

by jd115 5y ago

This is the main problem I've always had with the evidence-based scientific approach. Just because all of your data points show the same thing, doesn't make that thing true. This just goes counter to all logic. How is 122 ANYTHING other than a random number? Oh, your set is all human lives ever recorded? Meh... Doesn't mean a thing. Your set is too small. To me, it is self-evident that there is no natural limit to human lifespan. If anything, the existence of a natural limit should require proof, not the lack of it. But more importantly, spending time on proving something so random seems utterly useless to me, especially compared to the alternative of embracing the (far more natural) assumption that no such limit exists and working from there. (But yea, with all this said, the article is a bit of a dud.)

maxlamb 5y ago
122 is not a number they picked at random, it is the age of the oldest human ever with a verifiable birth certificate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
- coldtea 5y ago
  What parent means is that it's still random, as that person could just as well have lived 121 or 123 or 125 years. But that's a trivial observation that doesn't really change anything. 122 wasn't never supposed to be "non-random" as in some kind of physical law. The natural law concerns the increased certainty of death observed as ages > 100 approach, not a hard and fixed 122 number encoded in our DNA.
ReaLNero 5y ago
So since a 10-sigma event could result in a 200-yr old person, there is no real limit? There is no hard limit, but clearly the age distribution drops suddenly (for developed countries) at 70. There are a bunch of single points of failure in our body -- the heart, the liver, the spine, the major blood vessels, the trachea, etc. There's only so many 9's that those components are built to last for, and they ALL have to work! FYI: I agree that "Leading demographers ... 122 years" is an incorrect statement.
coldtea 5y ago
>How is 122 ANYTHING other than a random number? It is a random number. They could have lived to 122. But 0 have been shown to live to 150, and we're most certain 0 lived to 200 or 500. There being a natural limit doesn't mean that "largest age found" is the limit. It just means that there's a natural (e.g. cell based) process that kills people with increasing certainty as they age, with a measured cap around 120 years or so. Whether that can tomorrow or historically been found to be 130 or 150 in some random human that gets/got to be ultra-old doesn't mean it's not statistically more than appplicable to the 99.99% percentile of humans, or that there's no "increasing natural death certainty" with a limit towards 100% as people age. >Just because all of your data points show the same thing, doesn't make that thing true. It surely makes the thing statistically true (this is what happens most commonly), and points to processes and factors making it so. >Oh, your set is all human lives ever recorded? Meh... Doesn't mean a thing. Your set is too small. Huh? "Too small" compared to what? One that would include humans in prehistory or pre-modern-registries that might have lived more? (And we do know that they lived less too, even if they're not recorded, from the bodies/bones/etc. records we have). Rather, the dataset is huge, and (after 20th century or so, where globally registry records are kept) close to exhaustive. Statistically if anything it's much more than required. >To me, it is self-evident that there is no natural limit to human lifespan. Sounds more like a wish than a self-evident truth. >If anything, the existence of a natural limit should require proof, not the lack of it. People die, lifetimes of billions have been shown to be capped, both in nature (pre-historical living) and civilization (modern life, diet, etc). That points to a natural limit. And there are similar numbers/caps for all primates and mammals anyway. That's the very definition to a natural limit. That doesn't mean an absolute limit, or a specific hard number (like "122") just a limit based on current evolution. E.g. if we modify humans genetically or whatever we might be able to overcome it. But as it is, there absolutely are natural processes towards limiting life span at play and there is a clear cap measured. That's not even contestable.

by jd115 5y ago

maxlamb 5y ago

122 is not a number they picked at random, it is the age of the oldest human ever with a verifiable birth certificate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

coldtea 5y ago
What parent means is that it's still random, as that person could just as well have lived 121 or 123 or 125 years. But that's a trivial observation that doesn't really change anything. 122 wasn't never supposed to be "non-random" as in some kind of physical law. The natural law concerns the increased certainty of death observed as ages > 100 approach, not a hard and fixed 122 number encoded in our DNA.

ReaLNero 5y ago

So since a 10-sigma event could result in a 200-yr old person, there is no real limit? There is no hard limit, but clearly the age distribution drops suddenly (for developed countries) at 70. There are a bunch of single points of failure in our body -- the heart, the liver, the spine, the major blood vessels, the trachea, etc. There's only so many 9's that those components are built to last for, and they ALL have to work! FYI: I agree that "Leading demographers ... 122 years" is an incorrect statement.

coldtea 5y ago

>How is 122 ANYTHING other than a random number? It is a random number. They could have lived to 122. But 0 have been shown to live to 150, and we're most certain 0 lived to 200 or 500. There being a natural limit doesn't mean that "largest age found" is the limit. It just means that there's a natural (e.g. cell based) process that kills people with increasing certainty as they age, with a measured cap around 120 years or so. Whether that can tomorrow or historically been found to be 130 or 150 in some random human that gets/got to be ultra-old doesn't mean it's not statistically more than appplicable to the 99.99% percentile of humans, or that there's no "increasing natural death certainty" with a limit towards 100% as people age. >Just because all of your data points show the same thing, doesn't make that thing true. It surely makes the thing statistically true (this is what happens most commonly), and points to processes and factors making it so. >Oh, your set is all human lives ever recorded? Meh... Doesn't mean a thing. Your set is too small. Huh? "Too small" compared to what? One that would include humans in prehistory or pre-modern-registries that might have lived more? (And we do know that they lived less too, even if they're not recorded, from the bodies/bones/etc. records we have). Rather, the dataset is huge, and (after 20th century or so, where globally registry records are kept) close to exhaustive. Statistically if anything it's much more than required. >To me, it is self-evident that there is no natural limit to human lifespan. Sounds more like a wish than a self-evident truth. >If anything, the existence of a natural limit should require proof, not the lack of it. People die, lifetimes of billions have been shown to be capped, both in nature (pre-historical living) and civilization (modern life, diet, etc). That points to a natural limit. And there are similar numbers/caps for all primates and mammals anyway. That's the very definition to a natural limit. That doesn't mean an absolute limit, or a specific hard number (like "122") just a limit based on current evolution. E.g. if we modify humans genetically or whatever we might be able to overcome it. But as it is, there absolutely are natural processes towards limiting life span at play and there is a clear cap measured. That's not even contestable.