Could humans live longer?

120 is still too damn old. I mean, hell even if you live that long, it means you live half your life above the senior-citizen discount mark!

Egads!

 

Adam lived to be 930, actually.

Actually, the recording of time is not as different as you may think. A year may not have been exactly 365 days, but there isn't such a big discrepancy. The Hebrew calendar was unique in the sense that they measured their months based on the revolution of the moon, and their years around the orbit of the Sun. Their years varied from 355-385 days, which on average doesn't make for much discrepancy. Indeed, it could arguably be considered more accurate than the Roman calendar, for the very fact that they were constrained to a calendar and had to follow whatever it said.

 

That's just stupid. Do you mean to tel me that the age of retirement is still 25, from when we all used to die at 30? Of course not. As the average life expectancy increases, so does the age of retirement.

And I said you'll die at 120, no matter how perfect you are. For all we know, we might find some fantastic medicine that stops the aging effect, and keeps us in fantastic shape until we're 120, when we'll age and die within a couple of years.

 

Bah. Believe in something i've never seen? Like buying a car i've never seen? Ya, clever :roll:

God could prove me and everyone else wrong by showing himself, but the gutless faggot is probably hiding in his parents' basement, creating planets for fun and begging his mom and dad for money. I bet God's parents are called Frank and Jane, those are nice names for God's parents. I bet they created that galaxy where Star Wars happens. Cause there's alot of planets and they probably made them from paper maché cause they look like they were made from paper maché. Funny story, i once made a pig out of paper maché, but it turned out really bad, and i got so pissed, i kicked the damn thing across the street and left it there. Next day, i ran to the street, and the pig was gone, good riddance i thought. But to this day, i sorely regret kicking that paper maché pig out, and i cry myself to sleep at night wondering where it is now. However, i find comfort in knowing that it was a strong pig, and as such, it should be able to do well on it's own. Maybe it found a paper maché farm and had sex with a bunch of other good-looking paper maché pigs, so it's genes will live on, who knows? It has a better life now, of that i'm sure.

My point is, that paper maché pig didn't believe in God, and who's gonna argue with a god damn paper maché pig. Who i ask you, who?


Once again, science beats religion. Score 1 for the paper maché pigs.


!uoy sevol nataS
!uoy sevol nataS
!uoy sevol nataS



As for something on topic:

Yes, humans could live longer. They could also live shorter. And that's the end of that chapter!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but back when people died at 30, I doubt that there was any such thing as "retirement". Feudal societies don't go in much for support of the elderly.

 

Do the math. Half of 120 is 60. 60 is roughly (depending on area you live in) the age of senior citizen discounts So a 120 year old would have lived half their life above that mark.

 

Currently, the average life expectancy is about 75, and retirement is 60. When the average life expectancy is 110, then it would be logical to have the retirement age set to about 95.

My point is, as the life expectancy increases, so does the retirement age, as governments take advantage of the longer working life. It won't stay fixed at 60, and this is backed up by the gradual increase in retirement age since the victorian times, as life expectancy has indeed increased¹.



¹OK, so my previous example was a little stretched, but I was simply trying to illustrate my point. However, as Luchaire has indicated, he seems to have entirely missed the point and is stubborn in his belief that everyone will retire at 60 no matter how long they live. :-o

 

That's assuming that the quality of life increases at the same rate as life expectancy. Or is it?

My point is that even if the life expectancy were to increase to 110+ years, if we're all still getting decrepit at 65, then having these people working til 95 would be a sad comment on our economy.

 

The only way our life expectancy is going to increase that much, is if our quality of life DOES increase. I wouldn't really call being hooked up to a life support machine for an extra 40 years an increase in life expectancy...

 

Both Milo and Ferret are also correct. (And that rhymes, I know the "also" shouldn't have been there, but then it wouldn't have rhymed.)

Life expectancy, esp. in the US, has been steadily rising as the standard of living and the quality of healthcare improves. Frankly, I doubt that average life expectancy will ever reach even 100 due to genetic limitations, but Ferret has a point. If the retirement age is overly disproportionate to the life expectancy, we will have too many retirees around for the economy to sustain. The retirement age has to increase.

Quality of life is also a big issue, as gerontology studies have proven. Here most people (most insensitive young people anyway) point to studies that prove that a 90-year old who has exercised regularly and maintains a good diet will essentially have the same functional health as a 65-year-old whose only exercise is reaching for the remote control. In the end, the people will have a part to play in the government policy.

 

I think that a major question that should be asked before everyone says, "Yeah! More time to live!" is will increasing your life really make your life better? If I was in a coma at age 60, and my family had the choice of unhooking me and letting me die after a good life, or keeping me on for another forty years, I would hope that they did unhook me. There's no point in living if you can't do anything. If I was 120 and could barely walk, and all I ever talked about were "the good old days," what point would there be to keep living? I think that it should be quality of life, not how long you live.

 

Actually, I was just joking around. I didn't realize you were taking this so seriously. That being the case: I agree with former comments that if quality of life can be improved in addition to length then positive changes might be in order.

The whole "senior citizen discount" thing is not the same as "retirement age" - or maybe they don't have senior citizen discounts in England? Anyway, the comment was meant as a joke - since I continually tease my mother about approaching "discount" age, I find it amusing to think what it would be like to qualify for that discount for half of one's life.

None of this does anything for the overpopulation issue, however... and sooner or later, humanity is gonna have to deal with this. Whether it be by some sci-fi colonization project or by making the Sahara more habitable, I dunno... I'm not a sociologist, so I don't know how these issues will unfold.

 

Consider yourself corrected

Actually, in times before the modern nuclear or conjugal families (or in current societies where these are not the norm) the elders are generally well provided for by their family (it's the children's responsibility) moreso than in our own society. "Feudal society" (quotes because that term is a misnomer, but I won't get into that here) actually strongly followed that principle - the aged were EXPECTED to be taken care of...

 

Sure, the Romans and Hebrews may have kept somewhat accurate calendars, but you are not going to convince me that Noah, who reputedly lived to 900 years old, lived 900 365 day years, or anything like that. Ditto for anyone else in the Bible. Most books had different authors, from different areas, who kept time in different ways.

 

I was just thinking that...

Oops!

 

I wasn't being clear enough. I meant that the elderly were expected to continue being productive, unlike today when it's possible to reitre and do nothing but consume.

 

Gosh, in the face of such profound , proven wisdom, who am I to say anything?

 

You just said something...

Jar, the bible says "A man's days will be three score and ten years", that has to be correct, right? The calendar was made by Jewlious (I don't know how to spell it) Ceazer around when Jesus was born. He skipped a year to righten everything and put everything in line. Don't you think that God could have seen that comming and put it in words for us? They didn't even keep track of time until then.

 

nbrosz, you have a singular knack of butting in and making things worse.