71–80 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Antediluvian lifespans were order of magnitude greater. Methuselah was, I think, over 900 years. After the flood the lifespans became significantly shorter.
or maybe they used lunar calendar, 900 years are actually months...
If we consider the average lifespan as say 80 years old, I find it quite interesting that no single human ever has achieved even close to twice that age.
There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…
- average person who dies at 80. Middle point in his life at 40. At 20 the person has already lived a 1/4 of his life.
- imagine a supercentenarian who dies at, for the sake of examples, 120. This person at his 60s is like the average person at his 40s! If we consider that for the average person his “sweet years” end at 35, a supercentenarian’s sweet years end at 51!
If we consider the average lifespan as say 80 years old, I find it quite interesting that no single human ever has achieved even close to twice that age.
Well, we already have a lot of medical interventions that skew our species' "normal", pre-civilizational population tree towards something never seen in nature. In a Stone Age society you would definitely find people twice as old as their group's average lifespan. But that average lifespan would be rather low.
If we consider the average lifespan as say 80 years old, I find it quite interesting that no single human ever has achieved even close to twice that age.
If we consider the average height as say 160 cm tall, I find it quite interesting that no single human has achieved even close to twice that height.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the GP just means that the tail of the age bell curve seems (surprisingly) short to them. The implication being that when doing statistics with a large number of data points, you often see several outliers that are way outside the curve. In the case of age, the tail of the curve falls to 0 very quickly.
We've done a lot to shift this away from a normalized curve, which feels very unfair to us as humans, to one where more people have a chance to live to a longer age. We've spent much less effort trying to extend the longest lifespans. This seems totally rational to me.
The average speed for an F1 race might be 250Km/h. This doesn't mean any of the cars can ever hit close to 500Km/h. Just that we eliminated most of the reasons cars were slowing down and were left with the fundamental limits of the car's speed as dictated by it's engine, grip, aerodynamics, or weight.
There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…
I don’t think the point of living beyond 100 years old is the years that come after you are 90 (pretty bad years), but that one has more “nice” years to live. Example: - average person who dies at 80. Middle point in his life at 40. At 20 the person has already lived a 1/4 of his life. - imagine a supercentenarian who dies at, for the sake of examples, 120. This person at his 60s is like the average person at his 40s…
Then the real fun starts.
I just turned 40, and feel like I’m finally hitting my stride.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we already have a lot of medical interventions that skew our species' "normal", pre-civilizational population tree towards something never seen in nature. In a Stone Age society you would definitely find people twice as old as their group's average lifespan. But that average lifespan would be rather low.
Didn't most people live to their 60s if they survived childhood and pregnancies?
Whenever this topic comes up, I’m always reminded of the fact that the bible knew of this long before any statistician. 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3). As a non Christian this always baffles me.
How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?