At the loss of a year per year https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32661789 and the current average age of death being 76, a 5 year old American today will be dead on average at 41.
Retirement for physical, strenuous work is different from retirement from knowledge work. Most 70/80/90 year olds would like to keep their brain sharp and no better way than creating artifacts (that has potential value that can be exchanged). There will be a marketplace for 70+ year gig work, especially as Gen X, Millennial hit that age
Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,…
The body can last well into the late 90’s. It’s probably just a matter of treating people who get heart disease, cancer(s), etc that will get more people there.
You need to ignore dips and look at long term trends when reading graphs. If the end of your graph ends in a dip, that in no way implies the start of a downward trend.
Living in the U.S., though, there are some real problems with the healthcare system that came to a head at the same time as (and partly due to) the pandemic.
I just find it interesting that an someone would make predictions about drastically higher life expectancy during a period where the trend isn't even directionally accurate.
70 years of trend vs 2 years below the trend. Hmmmm....
I suppose the downturns in 1967-69, 1992-1995, or, historically, the Spanish Flu period were also indicative of a massive break with the historical trend?
It's clear that COVID and overdoses are the overwhelming contributors[1].
“Life expectancy is dropping in the US” is a great clickbait headline. Life expectancy has been rising steadily for decades, with a tiny blip downwards the last two years. You think maybe that big pandemic that killed a million people in the US had anything to do it?
The handwringing about lifestyle changes is exhausting.
Well yeah, but the long tail of shitty health policy is coming home to roost. What kind of a health care impact do you think the recent criminalization of routine women's medical health procedures will have? (Hint - there are already women who are dying or having significant health impacts due to doctors delaying or outright refusing treatment out of fear of legal action in several states).
Those are all individuals who had access to the finest health care on the planet, and teams of folks at various periods of their lives to focus on them and their health. Access to health care, and personalized health care on top of that is just one other aspect of the degree of luck it took them to reach those ages.
Whether it's a car accident, an earthquake, or an aggressive oncogene that gets activated by a cosmic ray or cup of diet pop, there are way too many things that will straight up kill us despite our otherwise healthy or privileged lifestyles.
Treating diseases does have an impact on extending the average lifespan, but early health interventions (that is, vaccinations, fewer babies dying from preventable illness or malnutrition, and women's pre- and peri-natal health care) has been far more impactful. Stretching that long-tail out in the future is going to require significant advances in treating and remediating aging and it's related indignities.
You are picking the wealthiest people in the world as an example. Most of the population to even wealthy do not have access to this kind of health care, which is going to be exacerbated by health care rationing as populations explode due to international immigration.
> 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. People, on average, don't. People with the right generics (and ideally good medical access) may.
> Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,…
Nixon, Reagan, and HW died at 81, 93 and 94, Ossie Davis died at 87, David Tomlinson at 83, Sally Ann Howes at 91, Lionel Jeffries at 83, ...
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.
> 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".
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.
Ok, but for 100 to be the average life expectancy, we’d have to either shift the curve so that half of people live much longer than 100, and really tighten the distribution, so that deaths at 60 and 70 don’t happen anymore. Something like 85-115.
There's also no science ruling it out. The closer you look at ecosystem complexity the clearer it becomes that we understand it well enough to make accurate predictions.
Nobody can prove that we're one keystone-species extinction away from calamity, but nobody can prove that we're not, and the rate at which species are going extinct due to our involvement is such that it's not crazy to be expect big changes over small timescales.
Not strictly true, there is science that states there are many unknowns. The latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly and starkly lays out the risk around positive feedback loops[1]. There is also some recent research out of University of Oregon stating similar[2].
Phoenix being unlivable is such a fearmongered point. Much of Arizona is already out of extreme drought, and is set up to be extremely livable due to solar & nuclear power plus innovations made in air conditioning and pulling water out of the air.
"much of the planet", whatever "much" means exactly and whether or not the claim is true, should refer to the number of people affected. Essentially, how much do we care about people in poor countries dying of thirst, starving and attempting to migrate while stey still can? A lot of people live in the places you "can understand writing off". What happens to them?
Ah, but only 22 years left until Kurzweil had estimated that the singularity would begin, which prediction is looking increasingly prescient. So. You might just be able to upload yourself and live indefinitely.
The statement above could be wrong. You could also be wrong. (Certainly very few people are acting as though they believe that CO2 emissions are going to turn the Earth into an uninhabitable flooded fireball.) But techno-optimism beats pessimism, easy. If nothing else, it makes it easier to live with yourself.
We will make a deal, then. 10 years from now, I will give you 100k units of currency from a country. 15 years from now, you will give me 10 million units of that currency. The country must have steady state inflation of the preceding 5 years of under 10%. The country must be one of the ones you believe will become uninhabitable.
Easy money for you since you can convert to a safe currency and then pay out in the worthless currency later.
If no country meets the requirements, we just fold and there's no deal. But if one does, you've got yourself free money. If you think you'll have trouble with obtaining units, we can run it like a swap in what you believe to be safer currency.
I'll need a written contract so I'll send someone to you if you're in San Francisco.
I think that climate scientists are making accurate, reliable predictions when it comes to climate change- however, I have not heard any climate scientist saying things this extreme. It's important to not distort the situation in either direction. The earth will likely heat by 3 degrees C or thereabouts but it will take 50 years or more to get there, from what I understand.
The issue is not "what percentage of landmass is uninhabitable" but rather how many will no longer be able to afford food and water, be admitted to refugee camps and if the rich will be willing to share these things with the poor. War is another potential factor.
*If you are lucky enough to be able to afford preventative healthcare, something which couldn't possibly be offered to said person unless they can afford it
Unless of course there's a another global scale war fought by rival superpowers on multiple fronts. But the odds of that happening in the next decade are pretty low, right? Right?...
China and the US depend too much on eachother to fight a large scale war.
Russia's geopolitical ambitions has currently been limited to forcefully annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Odessa from Ukraine. They will most likely get Donetsk and Luhansk and fail at permanently annexing the other regions.
if we know how to save our consciousness (the program runs inside our brain) into quantum entanglement device, all can live forever in matrix, and we probably don't even need a body device anymore.
134 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 195 ms ] threadI think we at least can say we have them... :D
Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,…
The body can last well into the late 90’s. It’s probably just a matter of treating people who get heart disease, cancer(s), etc that will get more people there.
The fact that some individuals survive longer than the average isn't an indication of the average outcome.
I sincerely hope that the trend does change direction, but I am currently skeptical.
Living in the U.S., though, there are some real problems with the healthcare system that came to a head at the same time as (and partly due to) the pandemic.
I just find it interesting that an someone would make predictions about drastically higher life expectancy during a period where the trend isn't even directionally accurate.
I suppose the downturns in 1967-69, 1992-1995, or, historically, the Spanish Flu period were also indicative of a massive break with the historical trend?
It's clear that COVID and overdoses are the overwhelming contributors[1].
1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...
Not some individuals - really wealthy individuals.
> Today's 5-year-olds will likely live to 100
Notably missing from the sentence: "born in rich families" and "who don't fall into the trap of lifelong substance abuse".
The handwringing about lifestyle changes is exhausting.
I'm not making judgements, just stating the fact. You obviously seem to have it all figured out though.
In other words, I'm not too worried about accidentally committing suicide or overdosing on heroin.
Whether it's a car accident, an earthquake, or an aggressive oncogene that gets activated by a cosmic ray or cup of diet pop, there are way too many things that will straight up kill us despite our otherwise healthy or privileged lifestyles.
Treating diseases does have an impact on extending the average lifespan, but early health interventions (that is, vaccinations, fewer babies dying from preventable illness or malnutrition, and women's pre- and peri-natal health care) has been far more impactful. Stretching that long-tail out in the future is going to require significant advances in treating and remediating aging and it's related indignities.
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. People, on average, don't. People with the right generics (and ideally good medical access) may.
> Jimmy Carter is 98. Kissinger is 100. Munger is 99. Buffett is 92, Dick Van Dyke is 97, Mel Brooks is 96,…
Nixon, Reagan, and HW died at 81, 93 and 94, Ossie Davis died at 87, David Tomlinson at 83, Sally Ann Howes at 91, Lionel Jeffries at 83, ...
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
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo
(Not a dig on Canada; Canada's lovely - from May to October)
Nobody can prove that we're one keystone-species extinction away from calamity, but nobody can prove that we're not, and the rate at which species are going extinct due to our involvement is such that it's not crazy to be expect big changes over small timescales.
1: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
2: https://phys.org/news/2023-02-scientists-dangerous-feedback-...
Sources: AZ drought monitor: https://www.drought.gov/states/arizona
The most powerful nuclear plant is in AZ: https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/gen...
Innovations on pulling water from the hot, dry air: https://worldwaterreserve.com/source-hydropanels/
Solar adoption in AZ: https://azbigmedia.com/business/arizona-energy-industry/ariz...
The statement above could be wrong. You could also be wrong. (Certainly very few people are acting as though they believe that CO2 emissions are going to turn the Earth into an uninhabitable flooded fireball.) But techno-optimism beats pessimism, easy. If nothing else, it makes it easier to live with yourself.
Easy money for you since you can convert to a safe currency and then pay out in the worthless currency later.
If no country meets the requirements, we just fold and there's no deal. But if one does, you've got yourself free money. If you think you'll have trouble with obtaining units, we can run it like a swap in what you believe to be safer currency.
I'll need a written contract so I'll send someone to you if you're in San Francisco.
Most of the problems are pretty much self-inflicted (addiction, homelessness) than any fundamental wealth issue.
“What is/will be the quality of life for most centenarians?”
Russia's geopolitical ambitions has currently been limited to forcefully annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Odessa from Ukraine. They will most likely get Donetsk and Luhansk and fail at permanently annexing the other regions.
Neither will lead to a large scale global war.
They also said that in 1914.
Nothing fills you with guilt like having a person 30 years older than you deliver your Starbucks and groceries.
and boy, Natgeo is just ignoring that 800 lb climate change gorilla.