3 ms·

Hi Jess -- good on you for being skeptical. Honestly curious about two things: 1. Why do you think OP's wrong? You don't really state, in either this thread or

Hi Jess -- good on you for being skeptical. Honestly curious about two things: 1. Why do you think OP's wrong? You don't really state, in either this thread or that one. 2. What our your sources for OP being incorrect? Semi-anonymous internet posters can keep trashing each other ad infinitum, and without any sources (that I saw, maybe I am wrong) you don't present a convincing argument against. Thank you!

jessriedel 12y ago
I wasn't citing a source that conflicts with tokenadult's claims, I was just pointing out that if you actually track down his citations you find that none of them point to actual data supporting his broad claim. Rather, he takes a speculative statement based on a hypothetical scenario that is very unlikely to hold, and then presents it as fact. That's all I should really need to do to convince a reader that they can't trust him to represent his sources fairly, but for completeness you can just read that the World Bank's life expectancy predictions for a child born today in the US is 79 and in the UK 82. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN Indeeed, this news article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10511865/Two-thirds-of-todays-babies-could-live-to-100.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10511865/Two-th... explicitly describes where the funny business arises: The most commonly quoted life expectancy figures for the UK say that the current generation of baby girls will live on average until they are just 82.7 while boys will survive just 79 years. But using the ONS’s alternative “cohort life expectancy” method – which assumes that survival rates will continue to improve at the current rate – today’s baby girls are already expected to live to 93.9 years while boys would reach 90.6 years, taking them well into the 22nd Century The only way to get this ridiculous claim about people routinely living to 100 is by assuming that the historic rise in life expectancies will continue, but this is extremely unlikely to happen as confirmed by any official source or actuary table you care to consult. > Semi-anonymous internet posters I know what you mean, but I think I'm about as non-anonymous as you can get on the internet. My HN user page contains a link to my personal website, which has my legal name, photographs of me, my place of employment, email address, and mailing address. (And my personal webpage links back to my HN account.)
- maxpupmax 12y ago
  Hey, that's really helpful. Thank you for the well thought out answer.

jessriedel 12y ago

I wasn't citing a source that conflicts with tokenadult's claims, I was just pointing out that if you actually track down his citations you find that none of them point to actual data supporting his broad claim. Rather, he takes a speculative statement based on a hypothetical scenario that is very unlikely to hold, and then presents it as fact. That's all I should really need to do to convince a reader that they can't trust him to represent his sources fairly, but for completeness you can just read that the World Bank's life expectancy predictions for a child born today in the US is 79 and in the UK 82. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN Indeeed, this news article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10511865/Two-thirds-of-todays-babies-could-live-to-100.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10511865/Two-th... explicitly describes where the funny business arises: The most commonly quoted life expectancy figures for the UK say that the current generation of baby girls will live on average until they are just 82.7 while boys will survive just 79 years. But using the ONS’s alternative “cohort life expectancy” method – which assumes that survival rates will continue to improve at the current rate – today’s baby girls are already expected to live to 93.9 years while boys would reach 90.6 years, taking them well into the 22nd Century The only way to get this ridiculous claim about people routinely living to 100 is by assuming that the historic rise in life expectancies will continue, but this is extremely unlikely to happen as confirmed by any official source or actuary table you care to consult. > Semi-anonymous internet posters I know what you mean, but I think I'm about as non-anonymous as you can get on the internet. My HN user page contains a link to my personal website, which has my legal name, photographs of me, my place of employment, email address, and mailing address. (And my personal webpage links back to my HN account.)

maxpupmax 12y ago
Hey, that's really helpful. Thank you for the well thought out answer.