6 ms·

The optimism reminds me of all of the "In the year 2000, cars will fly!" of yore.

by dnsco 4y ago

taf2 4y ago
I don't own one of them but... https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/xpeng-flying-car-gitex-dubai-spc-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/xpeng-flying-car-gitex-du... I think we at least can say we have them... :D
- clmay 4y ago
  So... You don't have one? And don't personally know anyone who does? Sounds like "we" don't really have them, then.
melling 4y ago
100 doesn’t sound extremely optimistic. Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,… The body can last well into the late 90’s. It’s probably just a matter of treating people who get heart disease, cancer(s), etc that will get more people there.
- gorjusborg 4y ago
  Right now, life expectancy in U.S. is dropping, not rising: https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA The fact that some individuals survive longer than the average isn't an indication of the average outcome. I sincerely hope that the trend does change direction, but I am currently skeptical.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    You need to ignore dips and look at long term trends when reading graphs. If the end of your graph ends in a dip, that in no way implies the start of a downward trend.
    - gorjusborg 4y ago
      I agree with this in general. Living in the U.S., though, there are some real problems with the healthcare system that came to a head at the same time as (and partly due to) the pandemic. I just find it interesting that an someone would make predictions about drastically higher life expectancy during a period where the trend isn't even directionally accurate.
      - bjtitus 4y ago
        70 years of trend vs 2 years below the trend. Hmmmm.... I suppose the downturns in 1967-69, 1992-1995, or, historically, the Spanish Flu period were also indicative of a massive break with the historical trend? It's clear that COVID and overdoses are the overwhelming contributors[1]. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220831.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...
  - ozim 4y ago
    Minor nitpick. Not some individuals - really wealthy individuals.
    - masklinn 4y ago
      The statement of TFA, which GP defends, is > Today's 5-year-olds will likely live to 100 Notably missing from the sentence: "born in rich families" and "who don't fall into the trap of lifelong substance abuse".
  - valine 4y ago
    “Life expectancy is dropping in the US” is a great clickbait headline. Life expectancy has been rising steadily for decades, with a tiny blip downwards the last two years. You think maybe that big pandemic that killed a million people in the US had anything to do it? The handwringing about lifestyle changes is exhausting.
    - ygjb 4y ago
      Well yeah, but the long tail of shitty health policy is coming home to roost. What kind of a health care impact do you think the recent criminalization of routine women's medical health procedures will have? (Hint - there are already women who are dying or having significant health impacts due to doctors delaying or outright refusing treatment out of fear of legal action in several states).
    - gorjusborg 4y ago
      > You think maybe that big pandemic that killed a million people in the US had anything to do it? I'm not making judgements, just stating the fact. You obviously seem to have it all figured out though.
      - bjtitus 4y ago
        Kind of seems like your eyes are making judgements to assume 2 downward data points indicate a change in the overall trend.
  - ryandvm 4y ago
    Life expectancy dipped due to COVID, opioid overdoses, and suicides. They all count obviously, but the last two are particularly avoidable. In other words, I'm not too worried about accidentally committing suicide or overdosing on heroin.
- ygjb 4y ago
  Those are all individuals who had access to the finest health care on the planet, and teams of folks at various periods of their lives to focus on them and their health. Access to health care, and personalized health care on top of that is just one other aspect of the degree of luck it took them to reach those ages. Whether it's a car accident, an earthquake, or an aggressive oncogene that gets activated by a cosmic ray or cup of diet pop, there are way too many things that will straight up kill us despite our otherwise healthy or privileged lifestyles. Treating diseases does have an impact on extending the average lifespan, but early health interventions (that is, vaccinations, fewer babies dying from preventable illness or malnutrition, and women's pre- and peri-natal health care) has been far more impactful. Stretching that long-tail out in the future is going to require significant advances in treating and remediating aging and it's related indignities.
- guessbest 4y ago
  You are picking the wealthiest people in the world as an example. Most of the population to even wealthy do not have access to this kind of health care, which is going to be exacerbated by health care rationing as populations explode due to international immigration.
  - melling 4y ago
    We have a few friends and family in their 90’s but I thought it better to stick with people everyone knows
- nasseri 4y ago
  Your talking about some of the richest and most well cared for people on the planet, not the average person
- masklinn 4y ago
  > 100 doesn’t sound extremely optimistic. It does. > Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,… The average life expectancy at birth in the US is 77.28 (men 74.5, women 80.20), and trending down. The country with the highest life expectancy at birth is Japan with 84.62 / 81.64 / 87.74. That some people live to 100 doesn't mean people, on average, do. People, on average, don't. People with the right generics (and ideally good medical access) may. > Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,… Nixon, Reagan, and HW died at 81, 93 and 94, Ossie Davis died at 87, David Tomlinson at 83, Sally Ann Howes at 91, Lionel Jeffries at 83, ...
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Life expectancy at birth isn't the best metric, since child mortality depresses the aggregate. If you make it to adulthood, odds are you'll beat the life expectancy at birth. As a quick example: in the US in 2020 and 2021, the life expectancy at birth was 76–77, but the life expectancy for 65 year-olds was 83–84: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm
    - masklinn 4y ago
      > Life expectancy at birth isn't the best metric, since child mortality depresses the aggregate. Child mortality in developed countries has become very low, in the US it's around 5.5 / 1000. As a result, total life expectancy doesn't differ much between birth and 5: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html For men, LEB is 76.22, LE5 is 71.77 (so TLE5 of 76.77). For women, it's 81.28 and 76.76 (81.76). That's a 6 month difference in TLE, probably not what'll make or break the nonsense that is "today's 5 years olds will reach 100". > As a quick example: in the US in 2020 and 2021, the life expectancy at birth was 76–77, but the life expectancy for 65 year-olds was 83–84: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm The article is about 5 years old, not 65 years old. Those are basically worlds apart: for obvious reasons, the older you get the more chances you have to keep living, because you've yet to die. Per the above actuarial tables, men's TLE65 is 83, TLE83 is 89.91. But between the two the cohort drops from 80000 to 42000. TLE89 is 93.45 but the cohort is down to 22000. TLE93 is 96.29, but 10500 remain. And you can keep going, the actuarial table's life expectancy never reaches 0. Yet the probability of a survivor (out of 100000) does, quite a long way before the end of the table.
- twobitshifter 4y ago
  Ok, but for 100 to be the average life expectancy, we’d have to either shift the curve so that half of people live much longer than 100, and really tighten the distribution, so that deaths at 60 and 70 don’t happen anymore. Something like 85-115.
- junon 4y ago
  I honestly had no idea any of those people were still alive.
kloch 4y ago
"It's the year 2000, but where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo

The optimism reminds me of all of the "In the year 2000, cars will fly!" of yore.

by dnsco 4y ago

The optimism reminds me of all of the "In the year 2000, cars will fly!" of yore.

taf2 4y ago

I don't own one of them but... https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/xpeng-flying-car-gitex-dubai-spc-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/xpeng-flying-car-gitex-du... I think we at least can say we have them... :D

clmay 4y ago
So... You don't have one? And don't personally know anyone who does? Sounds like "we" don't really have them, then.

melling 4y ago

100 doesn’t sound extremely optimistic. Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,… The body can last well into the late 90’s. It’s probably just a matter of treating people who get heart disease, cancer(s), etc that will get more people there.

gorjusborg 4y ago
Right now, life expectancy in U.S. is dropping, not rising: https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA The fact that some individuals survive longer than the average isn't an indication of the average outcome. I sincerely hope that the trend does change direction, but I am currently skeptical.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  You need to ignore dips and look at long term trends when reading graphs. If the end of your graph ends in a dip, that in no way implies the start of a downward trend.
  - gorjusborg 4y ago
    I agree with this in general. Living in the U.S., though, there are some real problems with the healthcare system that came to a head at the same time as (and partly due to) the pandemic. I just find it interesting that an someone would make predictions about drastically higher life expectancy during a period where the trend isn't even directionally accurate.
    - bjtitus 4y ago
      70 years of trend vs 2 years below the trend. Hmmmm.... I suppose the downturns in 1967-69, 1992-1995, or, historically, the Spanish Flu period were also indicative of a massive break with the historical trend? It's clear that COVID and overdoses are the overwhelming contributors[1]. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220831.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...
- ozim 4y ago
  Minor nitpick. Not some individuals - really wealthy individuals.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    The statement of TFA, which GP defends, is > Today's 5-year-olds will likely live to 100 Notably missing from the sentence: "born in rich families" and "who don't fall into the trap of lifelong substance abuse".
- valine 4y ago
  “Life expectancy is dropping in the US” is a great clickbait headline. Life expectancy has been rising steadily for decades, with a tiny blip downwards the last two years. You think maybe that big pandemic that killed a million people in the US had anything to do it? The handwringing about lifestyle changes is exhausting.
  - ygjb 4y ago
    Well yeah, but the long tail of shitty health policy is coming home to roost. What kind of a health care impact do you think the recent criminalization of routine women's medical health procedures will have? (Hint - there are already women who are dying or having significant health impacts due to doctors delaying or outright refusing treatment out of fear of legal action in several states).
  - gorjusborg 4y ago
    > You think maybe that big pandemic that killed a million people in the US had anything to do it? I'm not making judgements, just stating the fact. You obviously seem to have it all figured out though.
    - bjtitus 4y ago
      Kind of seems like your eyes are making judgements to assume 2 downward data points indicate a change in the overall trend.
- ryandvm 4y ago
  Life expectancy dipped due to COVID, opioid overdoses, and suicides. They all count obviously, but the last two are particularly avoidable. In other words, I'm not too worried about accidentally committing suicide or overdosing on heroin.
ygjb 4y ago
Those are all individuals who had access to the finest health care on the planet, and teams of folks at various periods of their lives to focus on them and their health. Access to health care, and personalized health care on top of that is just one other aspect of the degree of luck it took them to reach those ages. Whether it's a car accident, an earthquake, or an aggressive oncogene that gets activated by a cosmic ray or cup of diet pop, there are way too many things that will straight up kill us despite our otherwise healthy or privileged lifestyles. Treating diseases does have an impact on extending the average lifespan, but early health interventions (that is, vaccinations, fewer babies dying from preventable illness or malnutrition, and women's pre- and peri-natal health care) has been far more impactful. Stretching that long-tail out in the future is going to require significant advances in treating and remediating aging and it's related indignities.
guessbest 4y ago
You are picking the wealthiest people in the world as an example. Most of the population to even wealthy do not have access to this kind of health care, which is going to be exacerbated by health care rationing as populations explode due to international immigration.
- melling 4y ago
  We have a few friends and family in their 90’s but I thought it better to stick with people everyone knows
nasseri 4y ago
Your talking about some of the richest and most well cared for people on the planet, not the average person
masklinn 4y ago
> 100 doesn’t sound extremely optimistic. It does. > Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,… The average life expectancy at birth in the US is 77.28 (men 74.5, women 80.20), and trending down. The country with the highest life expectancy at birth is Japan with 84.62 / 81.64 / 87.74. That some people live to 100 doesn't mean people, on average, do. People, on average, don't. People with the right generics (and ideally good medical access) may. > Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,… Nixon, Reagan, and HW died at 81, 93 and 94, Ossie Davis died at 87, David Tomlinson at 83, Sally Ann Howes at 91, Lionel Jeffries at 83, ...
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Life expectancy at birth isn't the best metric, since child mortality depresses the aggregate. If you make it to adulthood, odds are you'll beat the life expectancy at birth. As a quick example: in the US in 2020 and 2021, the life expectancy at birth was 76–77, but the life expectancy for 65 year-olds was 83–84: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm
  - masklinn 4y ago
    > Life expectancy at birth isn't the best metric, since child mortality depresses the aggregate. Child mortality in developed countries has become very low, in the US it's around 5.5 / 1000. As a result, total life expectancy doesn't differ much between birth and 5: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html For men, LEB is 76.22, LE5 is 71.77 (so TLE5 of 76.77). For women, it's 81.28 and 76.76 (81.76). That's a 6 month difference in TLE, probably not what'll make or break the nonsense that is "today's 5 years olds will reach 100". > As a quick example: in the US in 2020 and 2021, the life expectancy at birth was 76–77, but the life expectancy for 65 year-olds was 83–84: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm The article is about 5 years old, not 65 years old. Those are basically worlds apart: for obvious reasons, the older you get the more chances you have to keep living, because you've yet to die. Per the above actuarial tables, men's TLE65 is 83, TLE83 is 89.91. But between the two the cohort drops from 80000 to 42000. TLE89 is 93.45 but the cohort is down to 22000. TLE93 is 96.29, but 10500 remain. And you can keep going, the actuarial table's life expectancy never reaches 0. Yet the probability of a survivor (out of 100000) does, quite a long way before the end of the table.
twobitshifter 4y ago
Ok, but for 100 to be the average life expectancy, we’d have to either shift the curve so that half of people live much longer than 100, and really tighten the distribution, so that deaths at 60 and 70 don’t happen anymore. Something like 85-115.
junon 4y ago
I honestly had no idea any of those people were still alive.

kloch 4y ago

"It's the year 2000, but where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo