Die Gewinne der Lebenserwartung von Ländern mit hohem Einkommen in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhundert
https://lafollette.wisc.edu/news/new-research-reveals-longevity-gains-slowing-life-expectancy-of-100-unlikely/
Die Gewinne der Lebenserwartung von Ländern mit hohem Einkommen in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhundert
https://lafollette.wisc.edu/news/new-research-reveals-longevity-gains-slowing-life-expectancy-of-100-unlikely/
6 Kommentare
>From 1900 to 1938, life expectancy rose by about five and a half months with each new generation. The life expectancy for an individual born in a high-income country in 1900 was an average of 62 years. For someone born just 38 years later in similar conditions, life expectancy had jumped to 80 years on average.
>
>For those born between 1939 and 2000, the increase slowed to roughly two and a half to three and a half months per generation, depending on the forecasting method. Mortality forecasting methods are statistical techniques that make informed predictions about future lifespans based on past and current mortality information. These models enabled the research team to estimate how life expectancy will develop under a variety of plausible future scenarios.
> At the beginning of the 20th century, infant mortality fell rapidly due to medical advances and other improvements in quality of life for high-income countries. This contributed significantly to the rapid increase in life expectancy. However, infant and child mortality are now so low that the forecasted improvements in mortality in older age groups will not be enough to sustain the previous pace of longevity gains.
[Cohort mortality forecasts indicate signs of deceleration in life expectancy gains | PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2519179122)
Capitalism sows the the seeds of its own destruction
It’s just saying we’re hitting a limit with current technology I think? As in we’re not just going on towards 150 or 200. Not sure I’d want to unless age reversal was part of it rather than just age extension.
The assertion that life expectancy has plateaued is a misinterpretation of trends.
While it’s true that the truly rapid gains in life expectancy observed in the early 20th century have slowed, this deceleration is not indicative of a *crisis* but rather the intrinsic diminishing returns *caused* by the *improvements* (especially in early life mortality) themselves.
The significant reductions in infant and child mortality during the 1900s were pivotal in extending life expectancy, and as these rates approach their natural biological limits, further increases necessitate more intricate interventions.
Achieving substantial life extension now requires advancements in understanding the human genome, mitigating environmental pollutants, and addressing age-related diseases.
These challenges are far, far more complex than those faced in the past and demand sophisticated scientific approaches.
Therefore, the notion that life expectancy is *stagnating* should be viewed through the lens of scientific progress, where the next frontier of longevity lies in tackling these far more complex and intricate challenges.
The way this is written is just brain dead doomerism.
None of the generations born before 1939 reached 100 years of age on average.
shocking too, that people in the future aren’t going to be able 100meters is 0seconds.
Any lamentation of this results from a fundamental misunderstanding that the natural world is better modeled through calculus and limits then algebra.