Live data from Hacker News

Today's 5-year-olds will likely live to 100

nationalgeographic.com

131–135 of 135 posts

Re: Today's 5-year-olds will likely live to 100

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, people aren't taking care of themselves so that they don't get the chronic diseases that reduce their lifespans. The majority don't realize that what they do in their middle-age years has a profound impact on their life expectancy.

I'm 29 and healthy to my knowledge. I see a doctor every year. Is there anything in particular I should be doing?

Most of the good advice I would summarize as "do what athletes do to achieve higher performance, minus the stuff with known downsides." So, periodized training, quality sleep, managing gut health with a mix of probiotics and fasts, occasional tests to homeostasis to help your body recalibrate. But not the extreme diets, performance-enhancing pharma, heroic training sessions.

The way in which I've noticed most people get themselves in trouble when they didn't start from a position of impoverishment is simply because their response to problems is to, instead of noticing and addressing them, to normalize them and spend their energy making arguments to change nothing. Which is basically baby behavior: "no sleep, no food, no potty, wait why am I crying". Everyone does end up being in "poor health" someday, but it's often a case of how long you want to continue to struggle and preserve what you have, and some people seem to give up when they're, like, 17 years old.

Re: Today's 5-year-olds will likely live to 100

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, people aren't taking care of themselves so that they don't get the chronic diseases that reduce their lifespans. The majority don't realize that what they do in their middle-age years has a profound impact on their life expectancy.

I'm 29 and healthy to my knowledge. I see a doctor every year. Is there anything in particular I should be doing?

Stop drinking. Build strong exercise habits.

Re: Today's 5-year-olds will likely live to 100

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 100 doesn’t sound extremely optimistic. It does. > Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,… The average life expectancy at birth in the US is 77.28 (men 74.5, women 80.20), and trending down. The country with the highest life expectancy at birth is Japan with 84.62 / 81.64 / 87.74. That some people live to 100 doesn't mean people, on average, do. Peo…

Life expectancy at birth isn't the best metric, since child mortality depresses the aggregate. If you make it to adulthood, odds are you'll beat the life expectancy at birth. As a quick example: in the US in 2020 and 2021, the life expectancy at birth was 76–77, but the life expectancy for 65 year-olds was 83–84: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm

> Life expectancy at birth isn't the best metric, since child mortality depresses the aggregate.

Child mortality in developed countries has become very low, in the US it's around 5.5 / 1000. As a result, total life expectancy doesn't differ much between birth and 5: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

For men, LEB is 76.22, LE5 is 71.77 (so TLE5 of 76.77). For women, it's 81.28 and 76.76 (81.76).

That's a 6 month difference in TLE, probably not what'll make or break the nonsense that is "today's 5 years olds will reach 100".

> As a quick example: in the US in 2020 and 2021, the life expectancy at birth was 76–77, but the life expectancy for 65 year-olds was 83–84: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db456.htm

The article is about 5 years old, not 65 years old. Those are basically worlds apart: for obvious reasons, the older you get the more chances you have to keep living, because you've yet to die.

Per the above actuarial tables, men's TLE65 is 83, TLE83 is 89.91. But between the two the cohort drops from 80000 to 42000.

TLE89 is 93.45 but the cohort is down to 22000. TLE93 is 96.29, but 10500 remain. And you can keep going, the actuarial table's life expectancy never reaches 0. Yet the probability of a survivor (out of 100000) does, quite a long way before the end of the table.

Post reply on HN