3 ms·

Absent progress in medical science, your odds of achieving that end are very remote. 75% of everyone, including most of those with the best diet and lifestyle c

Absent progress in medical science, your odds of achieving that end are very remote. 75% of everyone, including most of those with the best diet and lifestyle choices behind them, are dead by 90 at the present time. The winnowing is precipitous over the next ten years following that: 1% make it to 100. Few of those lack serious health issues that greatly impact their ability to enjoy life. Unless something changes these odds are improving only very slowly, with less than a year added to life expectancy at 60 every decade. This is an incidental trend, brought about despite the fact that no-one has really tried to seriously address the root causes of aging and age-related disease in the past. If you really want to live to be old, and do so in good health, then the way to increase the odds is to get out there and make a difference: contribute to research funds, advocate for more longevity science, ways to treat the root causes of aging rather than patching over the late stage consequences. The whole field of medicine as it pertains to aging and age-related frailty and disease must be disrupted and change greatly from where it stands today.

tomjen3 12y ago
I don't really have the kind of money it takes to move research like that, but I don't look at it as negatively as you do. At 27 there is a long time for me to grow old, and predicting the future over that kind of timeline is darn near impossible.
- w4 12y ago
  Every young person thinks science will solve mortality before they grow old; thus far, every young person has been wrong. (I'm 27 and pulling for science as well, but let's not delude ourselves either here.)
  - tarr11 12y ago
    Life expectancy has increased from 59.7 in 1930 to 78.7 in 2010 in the US. No one is solving mortality, but it certainly will continue to get delayed!
    - fractalsea 12y ago
      Bear in mind that this increase has come about because of improved treatment of particular diseases, not because of progress in tackling the root causes of ageing. The point is, it seems to be very hard to push the human body above 100, and that is all we will be able to do by curing diseases, while not stopping the ageing process itself.
    - slavik81 12y ago
      Most of the increases in life expectancy came from getting more people who might have otherwise died young to live full lives. It's worth looking at life expectancy charts for your age, rather than the ones for newborns. They'll give you a more realistic view of what you can expect.
shadytrees 12y ago
Please cheer up.

tomjen3 12y ago

I don't really have the kind of money it takes to move research like that, but I don't look at it as negatively as you do. At 27 there is a long time for me to grow old, and predicting the future over that kind of timeline is darn near impossible.

w4 12y ago
Every young person thinks science will solve mortality before they grow old; thus far, every young person has been wrong. (I'm 27 and pulling for science as well, but let's not delude ourselves either here.)
- tarr11 12y ago
  Life expectancy has increased from 59.7 in 1930 to 78.7 in 2010 in the US. No one is solving mortality, but it certainly will continue to get delayed!
  - fractalsea 12y ago
    Bear in mind that this increase has come about because of improved treatment of particular diseases, not because of progress in tackling the root causes of ageing. The point is, it seems to be very hard to push the human body above 100, and that is all we will be able to do by curing diseases, while not stopping the ageing process itself.
  - slavik81 12y ago
    Most of the increases in life expectancy came from getting more people who might have otherwise died young to live full lives. It's worth looking at life expectancy charts for your age, rather than the ones for newborns. They'll give you a more realistic view of what you can expect.

shadytrees 12y ago

Please cheer up.