Comment

Comment on The 1900s

That’s a verifiable old age people have lived to. Seeing how medicine and our understanding is constantly evolving, you don’t think it even possible that someone would live even as long to 123?

This is no science, if even pop-sci, but: the first person to live as long as they want may have already been born is an idea that’s been floated around. The remarkable thing is that while people have believed in living forever, well, forever, this is the first time in history that it’s actually possible. Not perhaps even probably, but definitely possible that medicine will develop so far.

source

Sort:hotnew top

UmeU@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
That article is bunk clickbait.

Here is an article from a better source saying the opposite.

source
- Dasus@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  It’s pop-science, which I explicitly mentioned.
  
  I’ve read the study your article is based on. It doesn’t really state it in the way your article does in the title.
  
  We found that, since 1990, improvements overall in life expectancy have decelerated. Our analysis also revealed that resistance to improvements in life expectancy increased while lifespan inequality declined and mortality compression occurred. Our analysis suggests that survival to age 100 years is unlikely to exceed 15% for females and 5% for males, altogether suggesting that, unless the processes of biological aging can be markedly slowed, radical human life extension is implausible in this century
  
  Here you’ll have to note that societal issues like income inequality have increased massively. Expected lifespan is still continuing to grow, despite the growth having slowed some. Medical technology and the growth of technology and novel medical technologies keep growing at an ever growing rate, really. Well, the speed of growth of technology in general is exponential. Perhaps it’s not in the area of medicine, because there might be diminishing returns.
  
  My point is that I’m definitely not arguing that someone from the 1900’s will be alive in 2123, I’m just saying that for the first time in history, entertaining the idea that it might be possible for a person who has already been born to live practically as long as they want isn’t totally ridiculous. That’s all.
  
  It’s most definitely an argument that actual scientists on the subject will debate over, and have differing opinions. Remember that like in the 70’s, a few people in the lead in computer engineering made comments like “there’s never going to be a time in history where people would want personal computers. where would you put it anyway, you’d have to have a whole room” or the like.
  
  source
  - UmeU@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.
    
    I am not sure what relevance ‘pop-science’ has unless pop science means non science.
    
    I get that you are saying ‘maybe, possibly, not completely ridiculous to think’, etc., however until it has been demonstrated to be a possibility, the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
    
    Something which is evidenced to be not possible does not suddenly become ‘possible’ just because one can imagine it.
    
    source
    Dasus@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    “Popularised” “popular”.
    
    Sort of like how tabloids aren’t news.
    
    It’s just really low quality sciences journalism, so it often distorts facts and whatnot, but there usually is some article making some point.
    
    Just as there is with your article. They’re essentially reporting on what they’re opinion of the implications of rhe study is.
    
    the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
    
    No it isn’t. Show a single study saying that.
    
    You can’t, because scientists don’t make sweeping conclusions about futures that haven’t happened.
    
    Something which is evidenced to be not possible
    
    Again, you’re pulling this out of your arse, because you feel like emphasising a thing online. Not good, man.
    
    Do you know how proving negatives even works?
    
    What your originally said is basically a claim that human medicine, society and thus life expectancy will have literally zero advancement in a century, and only supporting it with an article about a study which says that the rate of increase for life expectancy is slowing down. That still means there is an increase in life expectancy. That means that most probably, in 2125, someone from the 1900s will be alive.
    
    You know, because you took the longest life of today and then added 100 years.
    
    It would be preposterous to think there will be no increase or advancement for a hundreds years.
    
    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span
    
    It has been proposed that no fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent today. Studies in the biodemography of human longevity indicate a late-life mortality deceleration law: that death rates level off at advanced ages to a late-life mortality plateau. That is, there is no fixed upper limit to human longevity, or fixed maximal human lifespan.
    
    Wikipedia has really fucked it up on this one — given his certain you are that science is certain that there is a fixed human maximum life span… unless… unless… I was correct in assuming that you were talking out of your arse? Yes. That would explain it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments