Comment on The 1900s

• Dasus@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

      • UmeU@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That’s a long and boring response.

        The evidence that no one can live past 123 is that no one has ever lived past 123. We have a sample size of billions on that statistic.

        Some low quality science journal says that ‘maybe we could live forever, or like, 150 or something’ and I say ‘cool story bro’.

        I can imagine that it might be true, but that does not make it possible.

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        People like you are why Iemmy is almost as bad as Reddit… talking in circles, saying nothing.

        source