February 25, 2013 12:04 pm
Scientists claim 72 is the new 30
By Norma Cohen, Demography Correspondent
Read Article at Finacial Times

Human longevity has improved so rapidly over the past century that 72 is the new 30, scientists say.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, said progress in lowering the odds of death at all ages has been so rapid since 1900 that life expectancy has risen faster than it did in the previous 200 millennia since modern man began to evolve from hominid species.

The pace of increase in life expectancy has left industrialised economies unprepared for the cost of providing retirement income to so many for so long.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, looked at Swedish and Japanese men – two countries with the longest life expectancies today. It concluded that their counterparts in 1800 would have had lifespans that were closer to those of the earliest hunter-gatherer humans than they would to adult men in both countries today.

Those primitive hunter gatherers, at age 30, had the same odds of dying as a modern Swedish or Japanese man would face at 72.

Scientists who worked on the study said it was unclear what the possible upper limit for life expectancy would be. “How much longer can we extend life?” said Oskar Burger, lead researcher on the study. “We just don’t know.”

The study did not try to draw conclusions about whether the extension of human life was moral or desirable, or whether it could occur without depleting the faculties needed to enjoy the extra years. [emphasis mine]

Instead, it tried to look at how the odds of dying at specific ages had changed over time. The researchers used longevity data from chimpanzees in captivity to estimate lifespans for pre-humans and data from modern day hunter-gatherer tribes as a benchmark for early human lifespans.

“The recent jumps in mortality reduction are remarkable in the context of mammal diversity because age-specific death rates for hunter-gatherers are already exceptionally low, probably among the lowest of any non-human primate,” the study noted.

In fact, the rate at which human life expectancy is rising is even faster than that achieved by scientists when they tried to breed organisms such as fruit flies to create genetically engineered long-living species. Although these experiments produced sharp rises in longevity, the rise in human longevity over the past century, which is not based on genetic improvements, has been much starker.

Mr Burger noted that the very rapid improvement in lifespans coincided with the invention of antibiotics and vaccines, huge improvements in agricultural efficiency that made food far more available and the widespread development of systems that made clean water more readily accessible.

Human mortality, he added, has shown itself to be far more “plastic” and capable of manipulation than anyone had imagined.

The article is not really saying much new IMO but what bugged me about it was the part I bolded about whether or not it was 'moral or desirable'. One can legitimately raise such points about almost any new trends or pieces of tech but in a relatively short article, rather than lengthy report or book, bringing it up means the author either thinks the answer is no or is very dubious at least. I've encountered that reaction a lot of times from people on the whole human lifespan extension issue and I have to say it has never made sense to me except as some sort of emotional crutch. We lose people, it hurts, we tend to rationalize how it is not only okay but right that it should be so and thus have mental barriers on the subject. Certainly "Death is Natural" is among the more bizarre remarks for anyone to use in this day and age, most 'X is natural' are, especially when seen seen displayed online, what with computers not being natural.

Standard Natural Death: Being savagely killed by a predator who will then eat you, most of the alternatives 'natural deaths' are worse.

Unnatural things: Clothing, shoes, medicine, cooked meat, ice cream, apple pie, and baseball.

Personally I've never heard a reason to limit lifespans that actually made much sense without first make big assumptions about how that extension occurs. There may be issues relating to a specific case and the state of the world around it but those are really best dealt with at that time or when they are near enough at hand that you have a clear picture. I'm never a fan of ignoring apparent problems until they become catastrophes but in an age when technology changes the rules and limits far more frequently then we cycle generations there really is often a case for wise procrastination, 'age brings wisdom' is worth recalling when the perceived problem is people living too long.