<i>Our maximum lifespan may not have changed much, if at all. But that’s not to delegitimise the extraordinary advances of the last few decades which have helped so many more people reach that maximum lifespan, and live healthier lives overall.</i><p>The benefits of some of those advances are questionable at best. Those who have visited a nursing home may know what I'm talking about.<p>Spending the last decade of your life commuting to doctor's offices (or bedridden) ain't no picnic, nor is rotting away in a forgotten corner of a human warehouse.<p>The quality of life position has always intrigued me for this reason. Sometimes what technology giveth with one hand, society taketh away with the other.
Be careful when reading about the age "40" and "80" in some ancient cultures. "40" used to be a term for "many", as we might say "millions" when we really mean "a great many". Mohammed was 40 when he received god's message. Ali Baba had his 40 thieves. Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years. The Noah suffered 40 days and nights of rain. There is a famous story in Islam of a woman being stung by a scorpion 40 times while at prayer. So a tale of a woman being 80 years old, a suspicious doubling of 40, should probably be read to say that she was very very old rather than literally eighty.
I've always been frustrated by these figures because life expectancy has gone up due to reducing infant mortality. It doesn't mean our lifestyle has made humans live longer.<p>It would appear that a more useful metric is number of centenarians per million. On the 1.1.1960, England & Wales had 11.6 centenarians per million. On the 1.1.1990 this increased to 76.3 centenarians per million.[1]<p>Another way to look at it is the risk of death for a given age tracked over time.[2] If you were 60 years old in 1900, would you have a higher risk of death compared to 2000?<p>[1] <a href="https://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/search.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/search.htm</a>
[2] <a href="http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html</a>
Anecdata: I can trace my maternal family tree back approximately 600 years, with records also available for a number of siblings, cousins, etc - so pretty robust data. It's obvious when a flu or similar came through, because you'll notice a number of clustered, young deaths. Meanwhile, those that survive into adulthood were living 70-90 years, and in my direct line generally on the long end of that. This would appear to line up with our genetic markers as well (thanks 23andMe). In my ex's family, genetically there is a clear propensity for cancer, so many deaths in the 50-60 range.<p>So, what's my point on all this? My own anecdata tells me:<p>1) Eat real food, like those long-lived ancestors.
2) Move / exercise. Most of them were physically active farmers, while I sit here coding away at a desk.
3) Hope you don't have any obvious genetic markers for cancer, heart disease, etc.
4) Be thankful for modern sanitation and immunization! Get your shots, including flu shots!
People who didn't die of violence, hunger, infectious diseases, accidents, or complications of child bearing could expect roughly as much remaining life span as adults as adults expect today. When you strike those caveats and look at every human born on Earth: yes, people really do live significantly longer now. Whether or not you find this surprising depends on how much you already knew about leading causes of death in centuries past.
This article is a bit presumptuous.<p>I don't think I ever equated lifespan with life expectancy, I never ever thought you would just randomly die of old age at age 30 or even somehow reach old age at age 30. I merely presumed sickness and war would wipe you out and you would die of something like that than somehow superhumanly jumping into your old age as soon as you hit 30.
> Our maximum lifespan may not have changed much, if at all. But that’s not to delegitimise the extraordinary advances of the last few decades which have helped so many more people reach that maximum lifespan, and live healthier lives overall.<p>Sure, maximum might not be changing much, but the fact that the average has changed so drastically means there has been unfathomably less death and suffering than otherwise would have been. Also, the advances have not been just over the last few decades, but more likely one or two hundred years (i.e. since the industrial revolution).<p>There are also serious thinkers (e.g. Kurzweil) who think that biotechnology will increase maximum lifespan pretty soon. I found it strange for an article tagged with 'Biology' to not talk about biotechnology potential related to longevity.
Is there any interesting research happening on what's limiting our lifespan?<p>Is this super interesting and important question being given enought attention in the research-community? Or is it super-niche?
Civilization has the cure of which civilization is the cause.<p>If you select people who avoid the ills of modern diet and inactivity, while enjoying modern medicine, you may get a different curve.