Life Expectancy

[Yianni]

Life Expectancy has rocketed - relatively speaking - in the past 500 or so years.

Around 1300, the average life expectancy was about 19 years old. This figure is lowered a lot by a very high infant mortality rate, but is still representative of the fact that we are living a LOT longer than our ancestors did.

My question is, how long do people think that humans COULD live? Also, what do you think the life expectancy will be by the time a lot of us are older, in say about 2050-2060.

Will humans ever live forever? Should we?

Will science ever discover a way to stop the genetic process of aging? To reverse it?

Will I stop posting strange questions whilst I'm at work? Who knows! But for now, occupy yourselves with the question above...

 

[Stevo]

Interesting questions.

I think medical science will be given a huge boost during the next fifty years or so due to developments in nanotechnology.

I don't know much at all about biology, but I would imagine that the techniques developed in nanotechnology would allow for very functionally specific drugs to be developed, which could have some big consequences in regard to cellular mechanism and life.

 

[bacon buster]

i read an article the other day that said it might be possible for humans to live for 500 years.
scientists had conducted some research on worms i think it was, where they removed their genitalia and fed them only certain types of food. extended their life-span 5-fold.

i can't imagine what a human body, at 500 years of age, would like like though

 

[Bomber Spirit]

I plan to live forever. So far so good.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Originally posted by bacon buster
i read an article the other day that said it might be possible for humans to live for 500 years.

No point science allowing humans to 'live' for much longer unless they first find a way to prevent or cure dementia and other neurological disorders.

'Living' an extra 20 years with dementia is not living.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by bacon buster
i read an article the other day that said it might be possible for humans to live for 500 years.
scientists had conducted some research on worms i think it was, where they removed their genitalia and fed them only certain types of food. extended their life-span 5-fold.

i can't imagine what a human body, at 500 years of age, would like like though

If I had to choose between my schlong + eating whatever I liked, or living to be 500, book me a spot in the cemetery already.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by Stevo
Interesting questions.

I think medical science will be given a huge boost during the next fifty years or so due to developments in nanotechnology.

I don't know much at all about biology, but I would imagine that the techniques developed in nanotechnology would allow for very functionally specific drugs to be developed, which could have some big consequences in regard to cellular mechanism and life.

I think I saw that on a movie once.

 

[Stevo]

Originally posted by skipper kelly
I think I saw that on a movie once.

Nanotechnology is also the latest catch-phrase in science fiction literature.

But it's fast becoming the biggest scientific and technological revolution since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

 

[KiNgCliVe26]

Interesting Link

http://test3.thespark.com/deathtest/death.cgi

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by Eagle_Fan
'Living' an extra 20 years with dementia is not living.

There is living to be had, even among dementia sufferers, with the right stimulus. My wife teaches/enables/facilitates art to dementia-suffering residents of nursing homes and has triggered improved recall and awareness.

Education and/or attitude enhancement of their guardians is the first step. It's possible.

 

[lioness]

Originally posted by Eagle_Fan
No point science allowing humans to 'live' for much longer unless they first find a way to prevent or cure dementia and other neurological disorders.

'Living' an extra 20 years with dementia is not living.

I agree with that, my grandmother is slipping away fast........she doesn't remember who I am anymore which is a little weird. We've been trying to get her back to familiar places which is actually helping her a lot, but she slips back and forth and it's hard for her and everyone around her. And I definitely agree it's no way to live.

 

[Yianni]

Originally posted by lioness22
I agree with that, my grandmother is slipping away fast........she doesn't remember who I am anymore which is a little weird. We've been trying to get her back to familiar places which is actually helping her a lot, but she slips back and forth and it's hard for her and everyone around her. And I definitely agree it's no way to live.

I've always wondered about this. I think the people most affected by dementia are probably not the people who have it, but the people who have to watch the person who has it.

Same with people who go "insane". What's to say that they aren't perfectly happy within their dream world inside their own head? There are millions of people who are "normal" but miserable. What's to say that "crazy" people aren't happy?

I'm not saying that they are, but I think it's certainly a possibility. We know so little about it...

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by Yianni
I've always wondered about this. I think the people most affected by dementia are probably not the people who have it, but the people who have to watch the person who has it.

Yeah its easy to think that way, and of course there's good with bad, eg one lady my wife visited thought that she was at a restaurant when mealtime came around, and thought my wife was shouting her dinner, and thought it was really sweet, because of course (the meals are just served up).

But folks at this age may not be aware of everything that goes on around them, but they tend to be aware that they are meant to have a better awareness, and they become totally embarassed, and feel that they are perpetually humiliated. Couple this with other decline faults such as incontinence, and any awareness at all that they require nurses to be around them, and they believe that they are the ultimate essence of 'burden'. Its not pretty.

Yianni you have a point, that the people who have to deal with people with dementia can actually suffer as greatly from the repercussions, but it must never be forgotten that those are the same people that can make a difference. The poor sufferer cannot make a difference. That's what's been taken away from them. Their ability to make a difference. The difference that would be made in the world between whether they existed, or whether they didn't.

Therefore they need their life, however much in a state of delusion, to have events in it. Believe me, there is always some recognition and cognition. Its not that they can't recognise things, its only that they can't run the full process of deciphering it. All events still affect them.

They need events, and its highly beneficial to give them events of a regular and recurring nature. Obviously, I'm plugging art therapy. But regular music afternoons, weekly parties, or even regular visits by either friends/family or someone through the 'Friends For Older People' (run by the MS Society) or equivalent.

They also need to be listened to, even if they are hard to understand or make no sense, even if they are only communicating with hand gestures or the sound of their breath. Sometimes their guardians need to have a guess at what they want or need. Having a guess might be frustrating for them if its the wrong guess, but if its right, its a big win. Sometimes they just need to be noticed. Sometimes they are just struggling, and want someone to place a hand on their shoulder.

At risk of repetition; they need events. Events are what make you feel that sometime before, and sometime in future, might possibly have been or will be a different point in time to right now.

They need to feel that they exist.

 

[Portia]

Nursing homes are like dementia acceleration clinics. I know my grandfather was constantly frustrated at his own lack of awareness - I can't think of much worse than that.

 

[lioness]

Originally posted by Yianni
I've always wondered about this. I think the people most affected by dementia are probably not the people who have it, but the people who have to watch the person who has it.

Same with people who go "insane". What's to say that they aren't perfectly happy within their dream world inside their own head? There are millions of people who are "normal" but miserable. What's to say that "crazy" people aren't happy?

I'm not saying that they are, but I think it's certainly a possibility. We know so little about it...

I think it's definitely hard on those watching the person go through it, I know that the first time I greeted my grandmother and she just stared at me blankly and asked me who I was, it was a very strange thing. And even when she has a moment of awareness, she still doesn't know who I am. And I don't know if she ever will, which is a difficult thing to deal with.

In her case, she believes she's 8 years old, and her parents have sent her to live with this person (her daughter) and will be round to pick her up any time. She's happy I guess, but she's still waiting for her parents and gets distressed sometimes when her parents don't show up. Also, her dog died recently and it was very traumatic for my Aunt, yet Nana didn't understand it was dead and kept picking it up and holding it and trying to wake it up and she got extremely distressed when she learned it was dead, and she had to be told maybe a dozen times so she went through that feeling many times. So I don't know..........is she really happy that way?

My feeling on the whole issue is that we should just live our lives normally, not strive to live for hundreds of years longer than we're supposed to. No matter what we do, our body ages. You can slow it down to a point, but really, I wouldn't want to live to be 500. I can't imagine I'd learn or do any more than I could in a normal lifetime.

 

[SonOfScray]

I would rather live 60 years in good, stable health than live 150 taking all sorts of drugs to keep me going.

If the popualtion starts to live heaps longer, we might end up with a situation like in 'soylent green' or 'logan's run'!

 

[Yianni]

Originally posted by SonOfScray
I would rather live 60 years in good, stable health than live 150 taking all sorts of drugs to keep me going.

If the popualtion starts to live heaps longer, we might end up with a situation like in 'soylent green' or 'logan's run'!

Logan's run. Gee, I haven't thought of that in ages!

How old were people when they got rid of them? 30 wasn't it?

 

[Yianni]

Originally posted by SonOfScray
I would rather live 60 years in good, stable health than live 150 taking all sorts of drugs to keep me going.

Yes, but in a way that's what we do now, allowing us to live to 70 rather than to 40 as we used to.

For example, before penicillin was discovered you would be liable to die from something that these days would be considered very minor. Penicillin is used to manufacture drugs to treat us.

Your perception of "drugs to keep you going" is merely you thinking about "drugs" that they haven't invented yet. You only reject these because they are new, and you're comfortable with things as they are at the moment. But for a new generation of people, these things will be as normal as taking a Panadol.

Also, I question it when people say that they don't want to live longer than we are "supposed" to.

Says who? Current science? If we all thought that, we'd all be dying at 30. I'm sure there's some upper limit to our life spans, but I'm pretty sure it isn't 75-80.

 

[BrownDog2]

if you want to live longer sit back and let John W Howard and George W Bush fix the world.

 

[ViperV10]

There would be no use in living for 500 years...your body would effectively die before you actually die. Gee that would be worth it

 

[Yianni]

Originally posted by ViperV10
There would be no use in living for 500 years...your body would effectively die before you actually die. Gee that would be worth it

Thanks for the rolleyes. Appreciate it...

I think we are making the assumption here that your life would be of a reasonable quality.

Otherwise I would have called the thread "Eternity as a vegetable? Have your say!"

 

[SonOfScray]

Yeah I am pretty sure it was when you turn 30.

Originally posted by Yianni
Logan's run. Gee, I haven't thought of that in ages!

How old were people when they got rid of them? 30 wasn't it?

Provided quality of life was maintained and I was able to be fit and healthy for longer ie able to play competitive, contact sport without breaking a hip then a longer life expectancy would be good.

 

[red+black]

CIA World Factbook:

Rank Order - Life expectancy at birth
- 1st Andorra (83.49)
- 2nd Macau (81.87)
- 3rd San Marino (81.43)
- 4th Japan (80.93)
- 5th Singapore (80.42)
- 6th Australia (80.13)
- 36th United Kingdom (78.16)
- 48th United States (77.14)
- 159th World (63.95)
- 225th (last) Mozambique (31.30) - ouch

#1 by sex : Andorra female: 86.58 years

World Average:
male: 62 years
female: 70.23 years

 

[Mooster7]

I agree with Dennis Miller's take on the issue. Allow me to paraphrase:

Doctors say if you stop doing some things and start doing others, you can add ten years to your life. But you're not adding 10 years to your 20's and 30's, you're adding 10 years to your 70's and 80's.

I'll do what I want. You can keep your extra years.

Peace,

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by red+black
- 1st Andorra (83.49)
- 2nd Macau (81.87)
- 3rd San Marino (81.43)

Aren't they sheep and birds?