3 ms·

Those stats are faulty - the infant mortality rate 2 centuries ago was massive, which dragged the life expectancy down massively. Also, I don't think extending

Those stats are faulty - the infant mortality rate 2 centuries ago was massive, which dragged the life expectancy down massively. Also, I don't think extending our life past 80 or so is a good idea. Quality of life is far more important than quantity. Define "overcrowded"... First world countries are more crowded than they were 30 years ago, and (IMHO) the quality of life has gone down. And as for your "increase food production"... We're force feeding chickens to be morbidly obese, pumping them full of anti-biotics so they don't get ill from living in squalid conditions. We're killing off the bee population with pesticides everywhere. These things are not good, and will only get worse as there are more people to feed.

eanzenberg 12y ago
Sure it is.. if me at 40 is like today's 30, and me at 80 is like today's 50, then keep pushing the envelope.
- reasonish 12y ago
  The way people live today is extremely unhealthy. Cooped up in cities like factory farms, eating mass produced "food" and becoming morbidly obese. The best way to improve your quality of life is not to look to science (Unless you're actually ill), it's to look to nature.
  - eanzenberg 12y ago
    Nah. People living in cities are healthier and less obese than their counterparts living in the suburbs, rural areas, and small towns. The best way to improve your life is to look to science. Please stop spreading ignorance around. You're actively working to hold society's progress back.
    - reasonish 12y ago
      Well, lets agree to disagree :) Have a fun life in the human factory farm.
  - eivarv 12y ago
    Some might argue that one should avoid appeals to nature [0] (not to mention sweeping generalizations), and rather look to what can be demonstrated to be effective. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
lewisl9029 12y ago
And what, exactly, do you attribute the drop in infant mortality rates to, if not scientific/technological progress?
- reasonish 12y ago
  > you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago. Is what the OP said, and it's false. I will not. The average may be 30 years longer, but that's a fairly meaningless statistic.
  - lewisl9029 12y ago
    It seems quite correct to me. The fact that you were born today means that you will be shielded, either fully or partially, from many of the factors that made the average lifespan 30 years shorter 2 centuries ago, infant mortality included. The lack of these factors would then lead to you "probably" having a 30 year longer lifespan ("probably" in the statistical sense). You could argue that a more robust statistic like a median would provide a better representation of the expected lifespan less drastically affected by outliers, but calling the 30 year difference in average lifespan "meaningless" is disingenuous at best and could represent a fundamental denial of basic empirical evidence at worst (the latter of which seems more likely to me judging from some of your other replies so far on this subject).

eanzenberg 12y ago

Sure it is.. if me at 40 is like today's 30, and me at 80 is like today's 50, then keep pushing the envelope.

reasonish 12y ago
The way people live today is extremely unhealthy. Cooped up in cities like factory farms, eating mass produced "food" and becoming morbidly obese. The best way to improve your quality of life is not to look to science (Unless you're actually ill), it's to look to nature.
- eanzenberg 12y ago
  Nah. People living in cities are healthier and less obese than their counterparts living in the suburbs, rural areas, and small towns. The best way to improve your life is to look to science. Please stop spreading ignorance around. You're actively working to hold society's progress back.
  - reasonish 12y ago
    Well, lets agree to disagree :) Have a fun life in the human factory farm.
- eivarv 12y ago
  Some might argue that one should avoid appeals to nature [0] (not to mention sweeping generalizations), and rather look to what can be demonstrated to be effective. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

lewisl9029 12y ago

And what, exactly, do you attribute the drop in infant mortality rates to, if not scientific/technological progress?

reasonish 12y ago
> you will probably live 30 years longer than if you were born 2 centuries ago. Is what the OP said, and it's false. I will not. The average may be 30 years longer, but that's a fairly meaningless statistic.
- lewisl9029 12y ago
  It seems quite correct to me. The fact that you were born today means that you will be shielded, either fully or partially, from many of the factors that made the average lifespan 30 years shorter 2 centuries ago, infant mortality included. The lack of these factors would then lead to you "probably" having a 30 year longer lifespan ("probably" in the statistical sense). You could argue that a more robust statistic like a median would provide a better representation of the expected lifespan less drastically affected by outliers, but calling the 30 year difference in average lifespan "meaningless" is disingenuous at best and could represent a fundamental denial of basic empirical evidence at worst (the latter of which seems more likely to me judging from some of your other replies so far on this subject).