Before modification by Joel at 26/02/2013 04:32:26 AM
February 25, 2013 12:04 pm
Scientists claim 72 is the new 30
By Norma Cohen, Demography Correspondent
<a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/16f44f3e-7d24-11e2-adb6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2LxxPKKN7">Read Article at Finacial Times</a>
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.
The article cites the relevant consideration: Sustainability. I thought about this the other day when I saw you reference global population projections in that thread on the new coal tech (to which I meant to respond, though it is a bit late now.) I am not endorsing some sort of extremist Zero Population Growth approach (for one thing, current projections show global human populations leveling off about midway through this century,) but finite resources put an upper bound on how high human population can rise before quality of life begins to fall. We can nudge that a bit with new energy sources and improved efficiency, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is ultimately inescapable, hence it lies at the root of virtually not only all intra- but interspecies conflicts.
If extraterrestrial colonies become practical in the near future that might change (though only if those colonies rapidly become self-sufficient; otherwise they will only exacerbate rather than resolve the fundamental problem.) Until/unless that happens though anything and everything that permanently increases the human population, or any animal population, without proportionately increasing our energy supply must reducte overall living standards. Soylent Green was not just about plankton following animals into extinction; it was every bit as much about the food and energy demands of a New York City with twice its current population. It is no coincidence sustainabilitys widespread relevance emerged at the same time the longevity of postwar wealth and medicine became the Western norm.
Fortunately or not, I doubt we need fear continuing longevity increases overpopulating the planet to the point of social collapse. The increase in life expectancy since the Industrial Revolution looks more dramatic than it is because it continued so long, but there is real reason to question whether that pace is itself sustainable. It is considered an axiom that few Bronze Age humans lived past 30, but it is just as in/valid to say few Medieval ones lived past 50, and that few pre-atomic ones lived past 60. That is probably a net positive, but we may be at the point of marginal returns, because, having eliminated most deaths from wild animals, exposure, deprivation, injury and illness, Western deaths are increasingly due to the the human body simply grinding to a halt from wear.
Carefully and consistently maintained diet and exercise could well push the longevity envelope higher, but a world where most people live past 90 or 100 is not very plausible. As our bodies degrade from wear, making activity more limited and less rewarding, there is a real question whether anyone would WANT to live longer than that. Regardless, we are unlikely to find a way to replace/regenerate telomeres or reverse cellular free radical damage. It is hard to believe our life expectancy could nearly double, as during the 10,000 years between the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, or even rise ~25% as in the succeeding 200 years. An increase of a "mere" 15% over the next 50 years, comparable to that over the last 50, is plausible, but, in my unprofessional opinion, anything more is dubious.
Perhaps the better question, one directly bearing on sustainability but that many of its fiercest advocates resolutely avoid, is what longer healthier lives combined with the Second Law of Thermodynamics mean for the welfare state. Western social security and retirement medical insurance set retirement age at the current life expectancy, ~65, but retirement age has remained flat ever since, despite Western life expectancy increasing a full decade. Paired with falling birth rates that, is an actuarial disaster.
Maintaining retirement insurance when only 10-20% survive to use it and birth rates exceed replacement level is much easier than when 50% of people live long enough to earn benefits and population growth becomes static. Public retiree benefits were established for people who beat the odds, because surviving beyond life expectancy was unlikely enough retaining the abilty to work AS WELL was quite rare. Ironically though, few enjoying todays greater life expectancies are old enough to remember the basis of public retirement insurance. Most of us take retiring at 65 for granted (even when retirement benefits are inadequate for that,) but the programs were created in the days before bypass surgeries and artificial hips, when most were UNABLE to work past 65, if they even lived that long.
Sooner or later we must adjust to the new numerical reality, and rising life expectancies and overall health bring that day ever closer.