4 ms·
I wonder if the author would have picked 47 as his number had he lived in 1900. It seems he's content with the advances that have increased life expectancy sinc
by zdean 12y ago
I wonder if the author would have picked 47 as his number had he lived in 1900. It seems he's content with the advances that have increased life expectancy since then but feels it somehow inappropriate to shoot past 75.
As a counter-example, Frank Lloyd Wright was productive up to his final year at 92:
http://www.planetclaire.org/fllw/works.html http://www.planetclaire.org/fllw/works.html
- rayiner 12y agoIn 1900, a 60-year old white male, like the author, could expect to live to about 75, versus about 80 today. Medical advances over the last century have largely addressed death in childhood or middle age. Vaccinations and antibiotics are probably responsible for most of the increase in life expectancy. I don't think technologies that prevent early death are at odds with the author's argument.
- mathgeek 12y agoI would say that scientific advances would definitely play into the argument. Suppose that modern investments into "reversing aging" pay off to the tune of adding twenty years to the average healthy lifespan, regardless of how many years it takes until we get there (i.e. 20 more years of healthy life, on average). A like-minded author in 21XX would almost certainly say he/she wishes to die at 95.
- rayiner 12y agoSure, but that's a different argument than the one 'zdean made about life expectancy in 1900.