4 ms·

Well, if we take historical trends as any kind of indication, not quite. E.g. according to Google's life expectancy charts, if we take the period 1992 - 2012 (

Well, if we take historical trends as any kind of indication, not quite. E.g. according to Google's life expectancy charts, if we take the period 1992 - 2012 (20 years), and take 3 good, developed countries (USA, UK, Canada), life expectancy has gone from mid 70s to low 80s in that period. On average, about 1.9 years added every decade, and that would lead us to something like 84 years by 2032. The very high numbers we're used to hearing are fairly wild extrapolations of this trend for the next 90 or so years, for newborns today. Of course, the trend could accelerate, but it could also easily plateau (or even reverse in an extreme case, perhaps due to environmental influences). Current trends don't seem to show 100-year average life expectancy before 2100. * Edit: this was combined stats for men and women. For men, you can subtract a few years, and for women, add a few. Also, I realise I'm just linearly extrapolating the data, but it's not like the data shows some kind of exponential growth; if anything, it's flattening out.

davidwees 13y ago
There's one thing missing from your analysis: the life expectancies calculated this way include all deaths; someone who is 58 has managed to avoid some pretty dangerous parts of life, for example: 1. They did not die during their first year of birth. About 6 babies in 1000 die during the first year of birth in the US. 2. They did not die as a youth from depression or driving their car into a tree. That being said, this histogram (logarithmic scale) suggests that one's odds of living to 100 are still somewhat low: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/number.jpg http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/number.jpg
milesskorpen 13y ago
Life expectancy changes with age -- a 60yr old man should live to 81, a 70yr old man should live to 86. This is important because I don't think that life expectancy for a 60yr old has changed dramatically ... it's just infant care is better, so fewer people die <5 yrs old, and that raises the long term average too. This might suggest that your estimate is too liberal — not too exciting. On the other hand, we are working hard, as a society, on some gnarly medical issues, and it's possible we'll make a huge break through and figure out how to deal with obesity, heart disease, or cell aging and totally change the situation over the next few decades.
- dhimes 13y ago
  And Zeno stirred...

davidwees 13y ago

There's one thing missing from your analysis: the life expectancies calculated this way include all deaths; someone who is 58 has managed to avoid some pretty dangerous parts of life, for example: 1. They did not die during their first year of birth. About 6 babies in 1000 die during the first year of birth in the US. 2. They did not die as a youth from depression or driving their car into a tree. That being said, this histogram (logarithmic scale) suggests that one's odds of living to 100 are still somewhat low: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/number.jpg http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/number.jpg

milesskorpen 13y ago

Life expectancy changes with age -- a 60yr old man should live to 81, a 70yr old man should live to 86. This is important because I don't think that life expectancy for a 60yr old has changed dramatically ... it's just infant care is better, so fewer people die <5 yrs old, and that raises the long term average too. This might suggest that your estimate is too liberal — not too exciting. On the other hand, we are working hard, as a society, on some gnarly medical issues, and it's possible we'll make a huge break through and figure out how to deal with obesity, heart disease, or cell aging and totally change the situation over the next few decades.

dhimes 13y ago
And Zeno stirred...