Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jim__

(14,089 posts)
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 02:04 PM Oct 2016

Maximum human lifespan has already been reached, researchers conclude

From MedicalXpress:

[center][/center]

A study published online today in Nature by Albert Einstein College of Medicine scientists suggests that it may not be possible to extend the human life span beyond the ages already attained by the oldest people on record.

Since the 19th century, average life expectancy has risen almost continuously thanks to improvements in public health, diet, the environment and other areas. On average, for example, U.S. babies born today can expect to live nearly until age 79 compared with an average life expectancy of only 47 for Americans born in 1900. Since the 1970s, the maximum duration of life—the age to which the oldest people live—has also risen. But according to the Einstein researchers, this upward arc for maximal lifespan has a ceiling—and we've already touched it.

"Demographers as well as biologists have contended there is no reason to think that the ongoing increase in maximum lifespan will end soon," said senior author Jan Vijg, Ph.D., professor and chair of genetics, the Lola and Saul Kramer Chair in Molecular Genetics, and professor of ophthalmology & visual sciences at Einstein. "But our data strongly suggest that it has already been attained and that this happened in the 1990s."

Dr. Vijg and his colleagues analyzed data from the Human Mortality Database, which compiles mortality and population data from more than 40 countries. Since 1900, those countries generally show a decline in late-life mortality: The fraction of each birth cohort (i.e., people born in a particular year) who survive to old age (defined as 70 and up) increased with their calendar year of birth, pointing toward a continuing increase in average life expectancy.

more ...
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

tonyt53

(5,737 posts)
2. I read about this study earlier today. If I get to even 100, would somebody please shoot me?
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 02:11 PM
Oct 2016

Hell, even at 90 for most people, the quality of life sucks. There are some that do very well at 90, but for most is isn't so pleasant. Not saying this to be mean or cruel, just facing reality. Hell, I'm 63 and pretty sure I don't want to live another 25 years. A nice thought when you are healthy, but a body just wears out, especially when you've had excessive fun living when younger, and to that, I will raise my hand. If I ever became anything close to a burden for a loved one, I wouldn't want to live.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
4. To each their own
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 02:31 PM
Oct 2016

I am 57 and getting to 100 sounds like a walk in park. A thought or a truism that i like to come back to when this kind of thinking comes up in some of Bob Dylan's music lyrics "He not busy being born is busy dying"


Though, my guess would be to classify this as ancient wisdom, probably found in many a book

Warpy

(111,383 posts)
3. I've always seen immortality as a curse
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 02:29 PM
Oct 2016

and now that I'm old, I see that old age isn't far behind.

I'd rather see them focus on health extension rather than life extension. That three score and ten is an ample lifetime and anything over it should be pure gravy. It would be lovely if we were all healthy enough to enjoy those years.

It would also be nice to ensure old folks aren't ground to dust by extreme poverty, something I escaped but I know a lot of my friends and neighbors are terrified will happen to them and with good reason.

To be old, ill, and poor in a culture that prizes youth and ignorance and sees age and experience as burdens is the very definition of hell.

cstanleytech

(26,334 posts)
9. Immortality isnt the curse its our physical bodies and its limitations that are.
Thu Oct 6, 2016, 01:03 AM
Oct 2016

We have a finite memory, lousy cell repair and we are susceptible to a host of diseases and are easily injured.

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
5. The "Average Life Expectancy" lie
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 02:36 PM
Oct 2016

An awful lot of people seem to believe that lie that the "average life expectancy" for people born in the early 1900s meant that everyone started dropping dead around age 47. The reality is, if a couple had two children, and one of them died in infancy, and the other lived to be 94 then the average life expectancy would be 47.

The truth is that people who lived past the childhood diseases, and survived wars and accidents could expect to live into their 80s and 90s, just like today. The average life expectancy is rising not because older people are living longer, but because fewer infants and children are dying very young.

It's true that medical advances like bypass surgery and chemotherapy have had a big impact on a few older people's lives, but I know several people in their 90s who have never required any medical intervention to last that long, and I'm in my 70s and have never been hospitalized, never needed prescription drugs, or required "modern high-tech medicine" to keep me alive. All that really means is that I'm damn lucky. But the fact is, there were a lot people back 100 or 200 years ago that were damn lucky too. No, the people born in 1900 did not all drop dead at 47.

kysrsoze

(6,023 posts)
7. Ha! That's exactly the quote that entered my mind.
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 04:16 PM
Oct 2016

Given the advances in genetic decoding and subsequent engineering, it seems to me to be a ridiculous notion. I've read a few articles about attempts to thwart the cell destruction mechanism. On the scale of the body, that would be a huge feat. But I have high hopes for further research. I'd love to live to 120 or more as long as I have a good quality of life... and friends/family aged with me.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
8. George Church, contender for Nobel for CRSPR9, says he will soon dial back aging
Wed Oct 5, 2016, 04:19 PM
Oct 2016

Genetic editing in living creatures has a decent chance to bump up life spans. The awesome George Church recently said he may be able to do it in 5 or 6 years. Many expected Church to get Nobel chemistry this year, maybe with that really really smart Feng Zhang kid at MIT, and why not Jennifer Doudina too I ask, but maybe next year. Homo Sapien will soon give way to Homo Crisprcas9. Really.

qazplm

(3,626 posts)
11. it seems a rather silly proclamation to make
Sun Oct 9, 2016, 01:05 AM
Oct 2016

could be true, could not, but we don't begin to have the full understanding of how aging works to be able to say there is a maximum lifespan that can't be broken.

IF we understood aging well enough, maybe that turns out to be the reality, but right now, we don't know enough to know either way, all we know is, right now, something happens to establish an upper limit.

Orrex

(63,233 posts)
12. You're older than you've ever been and now you're even older
Mon Oct 10, 2016, 11:20 AM
Oct 2016

And now you're even older,
And now you're even older.

You're older than you've ever been and now you're even older,
And now you're older still.

SCantiGOP

(13,874 posts)
13. I intend to live forever
Mon Oct 10, 2016, 07:56 PM
Oct 2016

So far, my plan is working out fine.

(Not original, heard it from some hipster comedian)

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Maximum human lifespan ha...