6 ms·

Is Organic Better? Ask a Fruit Fly

51 points by mjfern 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago
Having your paper published in PLOSone at age 14 is pretty impressive. Good on her, and good on Dr. Bauer at SMU who took her into his lab and treated her ideas with respect.
t0 13y ago
Is it possible to tell if something's organic by looking at it?
- itry 13y ago
  And is it possible to tell if somebody eats organic by looking at him?
  - olivier1664 13y ago
    There is maybe some good corelation between what we wear and what we eat.
- diroussel 13y ago
  no it's not, in general. But if you want to train a computer vision system on 10M apples and try to look for statistical differences, then I'm sure we'd all be interested in the results.
visarga 13y ago
I read yesterday that GM food is better because it does not need to be covered with pesticides so much. GM plants have built in protection, on purpose, to lower the need for dumping chemicals in the earth. Now they can make GM fruit and vegetables taste great and look great, they don't have to taste like plastic.
- Mordor 13y ago
  You're assuming companies like Monsanto haven't made some other undisclosed alterations which are detrimental to health.
  - leoedin 13y ago
    Is there any evidence that this has ever been the case? I completely understand that people would be hesitant to embrace GM crops, but I've never really understood the "health" argument. Has anyone actually demonstrated that any GM crops contain chemicals harmful to humans?
    - BrokenPipe 13y ago
      no but i guess it takes time to find out, and the studies are often financed by the companies like monsanto them selves. Which is not to say that they publish ALL these studies, they are not legally bound to. Shame.
    - Mordor 13y ago
      I'm not saying Monsanto has done anything at all, but it would be odd if they didn't tweak their product a little.
      - leoedin 13y ago
        The meaning of your comment isn't particularly clear. Monsanto (and other GM crop developers) have tweaked their product. They've played with the genetics to make it roundup resistant or give it other desirable characteristics. They're pretty open about that. To argue that GM crops have health implications for humans is to argue that GM crops contain harmful chemicals at levels higher than their natural counterparts. As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence pointing towards this. Genetic modifications made to crops are done with a particular purpose in mind, and normally only involve very slight modifications to the existing crop's genetic makup. Given how widely distributed GM crops are and the level of scrutiny applied to the process, any harmful chemicals introduced as a result of the GM process would be noticed.
blaabjerg 13y ago
Not to poop on her accomplishments, but isn't conventionally grown fruit sprayed with pesticides specifically to kill and deter pests like fruit flies?
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  She was working carefully with a fruit-fly lab, and it's been published by a real journal. I imagine that there would be a preparation step (the same for the organic fruit of course) to wash the fruit and so on to remove this kind of systematic error.
  - arjn 13y ago
    Would washing them get rid of all the pesticides ? I doubt it. Wouldn't there be some absorption of pesticides into the fruit ?
    - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      Assuming there is absorption, would you really want to eat the non-organic fruit?
      - arjn 13y ago
        No I wouldn't, but that's not the question being discussed in this thread.
        gejjaxxita 13y ago
        I would. I only eat "non-organic" food, crop yields are much higher with artificial fertilizers and pesticides. I think it is extremely irresponsible not to do this given how much land is used for agriculture and how many people in the world do not have enough good food to eat.
        phryk 13y ago
Luyt 13y ago
Some organic food myths: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019 Myth #1: Buying organic food benefits small farmers, and represents a blow to the big food corporations. Myth #2: Organic foods are healthier to eat. Myth #3: Organic growing methods are better for the environment. Re 1) "...organic food is big, big business. The days when the organic produce section of the supermarket represented the product of a small local farmer are long gone. California alone produces over $600 million in organic produce, most of it coming from just five farms, who are also the same producers of most non-organic food in the state...." Re 2) "When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture." Re 3) "Organic methods require about twice the acreage to produce the same crop, thus directly resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land."
- nodata 13y ago
  > Re 2) "When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. whoosh Wow, they skeptoid completely missed the point there. Ever tasted two "identical" apples? One organic, and one not? They don't taste anything like the same. > Re 3) "Organic methods require about twice the acreage to produce the same crop, thus directly resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land." Erm, yeah. Pesticides are way better than non-pesticide alternatives. Riiiight...
  - eridius 13y ago
    > Ever tasted two "identical" apples? One organic, and one not? They don't taste anything like the same. Yeah, according to a Bullshi*t! (e.g. the Penn & Teller show) science experiment, the conventionally-grown fruit was often declared better-tasting by tasters who didn't know which was which. Obviously this is wildly unscientific, but the point is still valid.
    - 13y ago
arjn 13y ago
I dont really care about the anti-corporation aspect of it. In the past, I preferred to buy organic foods in the hope that my overall intake of pesticides would decrease. I was recently dismayed to find that organic foods have known to be contaminated with synthetic pesticides - i assume due to proximity to conventional crops. Also, it seems that plenty of pesticides are used in growing organic foods so my original reason for preferring them is gone.
- Luyt 13y ago
  Indeed. Organic foods are also treated by pesticides. From the skeptoid article: "Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not. Supporters of organics claim that the much larger amounts of chemicals they use is OK because those chemicals are all-natural. But just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's safe or healthy — consider the examples of hemlock, mercury, lead, toadstools, box jellyfish neurotoxin, asbestos — not to mention a nearly infinite number of toxic bacteria and viruses (E. coli, salmonella, bubonic plague, smallpox). When you hear any product claim to be healthy because its ingredients are all natural, be skeptical. By no definition can "all natural" mean that a product is healthful."
kokey 13y ago
In other news, someone proves that earworms, ladybirds and mites fare better on a diet of organic non-GM corn than on conventionally grown and sprayed pest resistant corn.
zoul 13y ago
I think it’s a shame that the organic farming is being reduced to the quality of the results. For me, a big part of the deal is producing stuff in a sensible way, preferably without loads of chemicals and without torture. Not everything that’s labeled as organic was produced in a sensible way, not everything organic has to be better than the “conventional” stuff and yes, organic is a huge marketing force right now, which is a pity. But I take the organic approach as a great way to think and talk about the way we produce our food, and that’s the main advantage of organic food for me.
- dizzystar 13y ago
  >> * it’s a shame that the organic farming is being reduced to the quality of the results* So, you'd rather eat something that tastes like poo that is "healthy" for you instead? I never understood the people who eat horrid tasting food. >> without torture What torture are we giving to plants exactly? If anything, you would be offering up more torture by buying from organic farms. You have to use more land and use more people humping around under the hot sun for 12 hours to keep up. Farming in many cases is essentially legalized slavery. Asking for "better" food creates a demand for more people to do the work. >> * organic is a huge marketing force right now* Not only is it a huge force, it is a huge farce. What you'd consider organic probably doesn't align with the legal definitions of organic, much less what is marketed as organic. >> a great way to think and talk about the way we produce our food Yes, and the arguments against organic farming are logical, while the arguments for organic farming tend to be emotional. Feed people in Africa on the cheap? So-called inorganic wins. Food that last longer so I don't have to pick through rotten food at the grocery store? Score another for not organic. Buying something that reflects your expectations? Not organic wins again. Tastes better and more healthy? Doesn't seem to be a clear winner.
  - pyre 13y ago
    | So, you'd rather eat something that tastes like poo | that is "healthy" for you instead? I never understood | the people who eat horrid tasting food. You're not exactly responding to the most stellar post, but you can at least keep things civil. For instance, you're going off on taste here, when nothing in the parent post, or the article is talking about taste, so why are you? | >> without torture | | What torture are we giving to plants exactly? Do you really think that the parent poster was referring to plants being tortured. I'm not exactly sure what was being referenced, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't plant torture. Again, let's be civil/reasonable here. | Farming in many cases is essentially | legalized slavery. Asking for "better" food | creates a demand for more people to do the | work. Isn't what complaining about food tasting like 'poo' above implicitly demanding better food? | >> * organic is a huge marketing force right | now* | | Not only is it a huge force, it is a huge | farce. What you'd consider organic probably | doesn't align with the legal definitions of | organic, much less what is marketed as | organic. Then let's change the legal guidelines? | >> a great way to think and talk about the way | we produce our food | | Yes, and the arguments against organic farming | are logical, while the arguments for organic | farming tend to be emotional. Right. Run-off and ocean dead-zones are just 'emotional' arguments. | Feed people in Africa on the cheap? So-called | inorganic wins. If you want to feed people in Africa, we need to improve their political situation. You're ignoring all of the food that is destroyed (or not created) in order to manipulate prices. | Food that last longer so I don't have to pick | through rotten food at the grocery store? | Score another for not organic. If your grocery store has rotten food on the shelves, then I suggest a new grocery store. (Note: exagerating your point here comes across as an appeal to emotion that you disapproved of above)
lmm 13y ago
Did she match the fruit for price? Organic food tends to be high end and I can well believe it would be grown more carefully than the mass-market product independently of the organic aspect.
carlob 13y ago
My main gripe with organic food is the following: if there is evidence that chemical A or fertilizer B are dangerous for humans and/or the environment, shouldn't we ban them altogether? Why make it a luxury to eat healthy? Why should we allow some affluent vegan live to 110, while girls in inner city districts have their first period 2-3 earlier than 50 years ago because of growth hormones in cheap meat?
- loxs 13y ago
  Because some people can only afford cheap products. It's much better to eat "unhealthy" food than to not eat at all.
  - carlob 13y ago
    If this were true, why then the obesity epidemic that we currently see in the poorer parts of the US?
    - dagw 13y ago
      Because it's the cheapest foods that are the ones that cause obesity.
      - loxs 13y ago
        Who's talking about America? I'm talking about "third world". That's poor. Fat people in America are wealthy.
- markdown 13y ago
  Your gripe isn't with organic food, it's with the FDA, which is headed and controlled by captains of the agriculture industry.
  - carlob 13y ago
    I currently live in Italy, where there is no such thing as FDA and where GM food is banned, still many prefer to buy organic.
goggles99 13y ago
Poison is not good for you????? I am glad that years of research was spent to suggest this......
gejjaxxita 13y ago
Result of study: "Pesticdes harm the health of insects".
tokenadult 13y ago
Better for what? Or better for whom? Human beings have been doing the thing that all heterotrophs do for a long time: eating other things in their environment. Uniquely among living things, as it appears so far, human beings have been systematically trying to understand their environment so that they enjoy more safe, tasty things to eat. In my lifetime, this human enterprise (manifested as empirical trying things out, that is tinkering, and usually given the label "science") has massively increased human well-being all around the world. Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel, http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day." http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... A comparison of period life expectancy tables and cohort life expectancy tables for men and women in Britain http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/period-and-cohort-life-expectancy-tables/2010-based/p-and-c-le.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/period-and-cohort-l... helps make the picture more clear. ("Period life expectancy" is what is usually reported for a whole country. But cohort life expectancy provides a better estimate of future lifespans of young people today, http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1963392_1963367,00.html http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1... and is still steadily on the rise around the world.) Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-why-we-die-global-life-expectancy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w... Bearing in mind the distinction between period life expectancy and cohort life expectancy, a person at any given age can look up period life tables to see what can be correctly described as a MINIMUM life expectancy at that person's current age. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html (The links shown are for United States data, but data like these are available for most developed countries.)

51 points by mjfern 13y ago

Having your paper published in PLOSone at age 14 is pretty impressive. Good on her, and good on Dr. Bauer at SMU who took her into his lab and treated her ideas with respect.

t0 13y ago

Is it possible to tell if something's organic by looking at it?

itry 13y ago
And is it possible to tell if somebody eats organic by looking at him?
- olivier1664 13y ago
  There is maybe some good corelation between what we wear and what we eat.
diroussel 13y ago
no it's not, in general. But if you want to train a computer vision system on 10M apples and try to look for statistical differences, then I'm sure we'd all be interested in the results.

visarga 13y ago

I read yesterday that GM food is better because it does not need to be covered with pesticides so much. GM plants have built in protection, on purpose, to lower the need for dumping chemicals in the earth. Now they can make GM fruit and vegetables taste great and look great, they don't have to taste like plastic.

Mordor 13y ago
You're assuming companies like Monsanto haven't made some other undisclosed alterations which are detrimental to health.
- leoedin 13y ago
  Is there any evidence that this has ever been the case? I completely understand that people would be hesitant to embrace GM crops, but I've never really understood the "health" argument. Has anyone actually demonstrated that any GM crops contain chemicals harmful to humans?
  - BrokenPipe 13y ago
    no but i guess it takes time to find out, and the studies are often financed by the companies like monsanto them selves. Which is not to say that they publish ALL these studies, they are not legally bound to. Shame.
  - Mordor 13y ago
    I'm not saying Monsanto has done anything at all, but it would be odd if they didn't tweak their product a little.
    - leoedin 13y ago
      The meaning of your comment isn't particularly clear. Monsanto (and other GM crop developers) have tweaked their product. They've played with the genetics to make it roundup resistant or give it other desirable characteristics. They're pretty open about that. To argue that GM crops have health implications for humans is to argue that GM crops contain harmful chemicals at levels higher than their natural counterparts. As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence pointing towards this. Genetic modifications made to crops are done with a particular purpose in mind, and normally only involve very slight modifications to the existing crop's genetic makup. Given how widely distributed GM crops are and the level of scrutiny applied to the process, any harmful chemicals introduced as a result of the GM process would be noticed.

blaabjerg 13y ago

Not to poop on her accomplishments, but isn't conventionally grown fruit sprayed with pesticides specifically to kill and deter pests like fruit flies?

tehwalrus 13y ago
She was working carefully with a fruit-fly lab, and it's been published by a real journal. I imagine that there would be a preparation step (the same for the organic fruit of course) to wash the fruit and so on to remove this kind of systematic error.
- arjn 13y ago
  Would washing them get rid of all the pesticides ? I doubt it. Wouldn't there be some absorption of pesticides into the fruit ?
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    Assuming there is absorption, would you really want to eat the non-organic fruit?
    - arjn 13y ago
      No I wouldn't, but that's not the question being discussed in this thread.
      - gejjaxxita 13y ago
        I would. I only eat "non-organic" food, crop yields are much higher with artificial fertilizers and pesticides. I think it is extremely irresponsible not to do this given how much land is used for agriculture and how many people in the world do not have enough good food to eat.
        phryk 13y ago

Luyt 13y ago

Some organic food myths: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019 Myth #1: Buying organic food benefits small farmers, and represents a blow to the big food corporations. Myth #2: Organic foods are healthier to eat. Myth #3: Organic growing methods are better for the environment. Re 1) "...organic food is big, big business. The days when the organic produce section of the supermarket represented the product of a small local farmer are long gone. California alone produces over $600 million in organic produce, most of it coming from just five farms, who are also the same producers of most non-organic food in the state...." Re 2) "When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture." Re 3) "Organic methods require about twice the acreage to produce the same crop, thus directly resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land."

nodata 13y ago
> Re 2) "When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. whoosh Wow, they skeptoid completely missed the point there. Ever tasted two "identical" apples? One organic, and one not? They don't taste anything like the same. > Re 3) "Organic methods require about twice the acreage to produce the same crop, thus directly resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land." Erm, yeah. Pesticides are way better than non-pesticide alternatives. Riiiight...
- eridius 13y ago
  > Ever tasted two "identical" apples? One organic, and one not? They don't taste anything like the same. Yeah, according to a Bullshi*t! (e.g. the Penn & Teller show) science experiment, the conventionally-grown fruit was often declared better-tasting by tasters who didn't know which was which. Obviously this is wildly unscientific, but the point is still valid.
  - 13y ago

arjn 13y ago

I dont really care about the anti-corporation aspect of it. In the past, I preferred to buy organic foods in the hope that my overall intake of pesticides would decrease. I was recently dismayed to find that organic foods have known to be contaminated with synthetic pesticides - i assume due to proximity to conventional crops. Also, it seems that plenty of pesticides are used in growing organic foods so my original reason for preferring them is gone.

Luyt 13y ago
Indeed. Organic foods are also treated by pesticides. From the skeptoid article: "Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not. Supporters of organics claim that the much larger amounts of chemicals they use is OK because those chemicals are all-natural. But just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's safe or healthy — consider the examples of hemlock, mercury, lead, toadstools, box jellyfish neurotoxin, asbestos — not to mention a nearly infinite number of toxic bacteria and viruses (E. coli, salmonella, bubonic plague, smallpox). When you hear any product claim to be healthy because its ingredients are all natural, be skeptical. By no definition can "all natural" mean that a product is healthful."

kokey 13y ago

In other news, someone proves that earworms, ladybirds and mites fare better on a diet of organic non-GM corn than on conventionally grown and sprayed pest resistant corn.

zoul 13y ago

I think it’s a shame that the organic farming is being reduced to the quality of the results. For me, a big part of the deal is producing stuff in a sensible way, preferably without loads of chemicals and without torture. Not everything that’s labeled as organic was produced in a sensible way, not everything organic has to be better than the “conventional” stuff and yes, organic is a huge marketing force right now, which is a pity. But I take the organic approach as a great way to think and talk about the way we produce our food, and that’s the main advantage of organic food for me.

dizzystar 13y ago
>> * it’s a shame that the organic farming is being reduced to the quality of the results* So, you'd rather eat something that tastes like poo that is "healthy" for you instead? I never understood the people who eat horrid tasting food. >> without torture What torture are we giving to plants exactly? If anything, you would be offering up more torture by buying from organic farms. You have to use more land and use more people humping around under the hot sun for 12 hours to keep up. Farming in many cases is essentially legalized slavery. Asking for "better" food creates a demand for more people to do the work. >> * organic is a huge marketing force right now* Not only is it a huge force, it is a huge farce. What you'd consider organic probably doesn't align with the legal definitions of organic, much less what is marketed as organic. >> a great way to think and talk about the way we produce our food Yes, and the arguments against organic farming are logical, while the arguments for organic farming tend to be emotional. Feed people in Africa on the cheap? So-called inorganic wins. Food that last longer so I don't have to pick through rotten food at the grocery store? Score another for not organic. Buying something that reflects your expectations? Not organic wins again. Tastes better and more healthy? Doesn't seem to be a clear winner.
- pyre 13y ago
  | So, you'd rather eat something that tastes like poo | that is "healthy" for you instead? I never understood | the people who eat horrid tasting food. You're not exactly responding to the most stellar post, but you can at least keep things civil. For instance, you're going off on taste here, when nothing in the parent post, or the article is talking about taste, so why are you? | >> without torture | | What torture are we giving to plants exactly? Do you really think that the parent poster was referring to plants being tortured. I'm not exactly sure what was being referenced, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't plant torture. Again, let's be civil/reasonable here. | Farming in many cases is essentially | legalized slavery. Asking for "better" food | creates a demand for more people to do the | work. Isn't what complaining about food tasting like 'poo' above implicitly demanding better food? | >> * organic is a huge marketing force right | now* | | Not only is it a huge force, it is a huge | farce. What you'd consider organic probably | doesn't align with the legal definitions of | organic, much less what is marketed as | organic. Then let's change the legal guidelines? | >> a great way to think and talk about the way | we produce our food | | Yes, and the arguments against organic farming | are logical, while the arguments for organic | farming tend to be emotional. Right. Run-off and ocean dead-zones are just 'emotional' arguments. | Feed people in Africa on the cheap? So-called | inorganic wins. If you want to feed people in Africa, we need to improve their political situation. You're ignoring all of the food that is destroyed (or not created) in order to manipulate prices. | Food that last longer so I don't have to pick | through rotten food at the grocery store? | Score another for not organic. If your grocery store has rotten food on the shelves, then I suggest a new grocery store. (Note: exagerating your point here comes across as an appeal to emotion that you disapproved of above)

lmm 13y ago

Did she match the fruit for price? Organic food tends to be high end and I can well believe it would be grown more carefully than the mass-market product independently of the organic aspect.

carlob 13y ago

My main gripe with organic food is the following: if there is evidence that chemical A or fertilizer B are dangerous for humans and/or the environment, shouldn't we ban them altogether? Why make it a luxury to eat healthy? Why should we allow some affluent vegan live to 110, while girls in inner city districts have their first period 2-3 earlier than 50 years ago because of growth hormones in cheap meat?

loxs 13y ago
Because some people can only afford cheap products. It's much better to eat "unhealthy" food than to not eat at all.
- carlob 13y ago
  If this were true, why then the obesity epidemic that we currently see in the poorer parts of the US?
  - dagw 13y ago
    Because it's the cheapest foods that are the ones that cause obesity.
    - loxs 13y ago
      Who's talking about America? I'm talking about "third world". That's poor. Fat people in America are wealthy.
markdown 13y ago
Your gripe isn't with organic food, it's with the FDA, which is headed and controlled by captains of the agriculture industry.
- carlob 13y ago
  I currently live in Italy, where there is no such thing as FDA and where GM food is banned, still many prefer to buy organic.

goggles99 13y ago

Poison is not good for you????? I am glad that years of research was spent to suggest this......

gejjaxxita 13y ago

Result of study: "Pesticdes harm the health of insects".

tokenadult 13y ago

Better for what? Or better for whom? Human beings have been doing the thing that all heterotrophs do for a long time: eating other things in their environment. Uniquely among living things, as it appears so far, human beings have been systematically trying to understand their environment so that they enjoy more safe, tasty things to eat. In my lifetime, this human enterprise (manifested as empirical trying things out, that is tinkering, and usually given the label "science") has massively increased human well-being all around the world. Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel, http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day." http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... A comparison of period life expectancy tables and cohort life expectancy tables for men and women in Britain http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/period-and-cohort-life-expectancy-tables/2010-based/p-and-c-le.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/period-and-cohort-l... helps make the picture more clear. ("Period life expectancy" is what is usually reported for a whole country. But cohort life expectancy provides a better estimate of future lifespans of young people today, http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1963392_1963367,00.html http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1... and is still steadily on the rise around the world.) Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-why-we-die-global-life-expectancy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w... Bearing in mind the distinction between period life expectancy and cohort life expectancy, a person at any given age can look up period life tables to see what can be correctly described as a MINIMUM life expectancy at that person's current age. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html (The links shown are for United States data, but data like these are available for most developed countries.)