Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
If you were wondering what happened to Solid Snake... this is it!
I still do not see many active over 100 year old people.
There is a limit to how well a human can work, now if lifespan does hit a pitential 150, the last fifty years will be servo assisted, plugged in, monitored by medical apps, and being pumped full of whatever is required.
Still there is a limit to how much work one can do, unless pensions eventually become fifty percent products that turn into medical insurance trusts, I fail to see how anyone can be supported in a capitalist society without state or child funding.
There is a fair mess to be untangled and sorted over time.
Now to reiterate, this chap is a fraud, might be his grandparent, best of it is, he might not even realise if he has the same name and a bit of demetia.
Still there is a limit to how much work one can do, unless pensions eventually become fifty percent products that turn into medical insurance trusts, I fail to see how anyone can be supported in a capitalist society without state or child funding.
Your username is pretty ironic to the story.
Also modern medicine and diets are hugely better, allowing people to be in better health for longer. Had they had that centuries ago i'm sure they would be closer to us..
It's entirely possible. Why not? 50-60 yrs old was considered seriously old back in medieval times. I don't see why some fluke could double that today
Actually it wasn't! It's a common misconception but people when not killed by others often lived to ripe old ages! Child mortality massively skews the figures.
~70 years has been considered a normal full lifespan for a very long time, including in medieval England. The reason for the average lifespan being much lower was that a very large number of people died at a young age, very often in infancy. The term "life expectancy" is misleading in this context. When you see a "life expectancy" figure in the 30-40 range, it seems reasonable to assume that 50-60 would be very old in that time and place. In fact, "life expectancy" is really just "average age at death".
An example with plausible numbers for medieval England:
10 people are born.
1 dies at 1 year old (disease)
2 die at 3 years old (disease)
1 dies at 9 years old (disease)
1 dies at 17 years old (war)
1 dies at 22 years old (childbirth)
1 dies at 65 years old (age-related)
1 dies at 67 years old (age-related)
1 dies at 72 years old (age-related)
1 dies at 81 years old (age-related)
"life expectancy" = 34 years, but it would still be ~70 that was considered seriously old. If a person in medieval England survived to 20, they would probably survive to 70 and if they were relatively rich that probability would be very high.
145 today...well, I think a degree of exaggeration is the most likely explanation but I wouldn't say it was impossible. We're not all that sure how aging happens and there are animals that age far more slowly than would usually be expected, so I think it isn't impossible that extremely rare very specific genetic mutations might slow a human's aging enough for them to reach 145, maybe, and I think it isn't impossible that with >7 billion people alive today even very rare variations could happen.
Your username is pretty ironic to the story.
no one over the age of 10 dies of disease in your world?
given the complete lack of antibiotics and really any kind of real medical care?
small cuts, cold/flu, and minor infections where all huge risks with little hope of treatment.
Also no social care means starvation/malnutrition is a big reisk if you cant work as you get older.
no one over the age of 10 dies of disease in your world?
Silly statements masquerading as questions are a reasonable response in your world?
Possible? Probably. Personally I'd be happy to live to 70. Don't want to be depending on people.
thats what the rest of the post was about....
~70 years has been considered a normal full lifespan for a very long time, including in medieval England. The reason for the average lifespan being much lower was that a very large number of people died at a young age, very often in infancy. The term "life expectancy" is misleading in this context. When you see a "life expectancy" figure in the 30-40 range, it seems reasonable to assume that 50-60 would be very old in that time and place. In fact, "life expectancy" is really just "average age at death".
An example with plausible numbers for medieval England:
10 people are born.
1 dies at 1 year old (disease)
2 die at 3 years old (disease)
1 dies at 9 years old (disease)
1 dies at 17 years old (war)
1 dies at 22 years old (childbirth)
1 dies at 65 years old (age-related)
1 dies at 67 years old (age-related)
1 dies at 72 years old (age-related)
1 dies at 81 years old (age-related)
"life expectancy" = 34 years, but it would still be ~70 that was considered seriously old. If a person in medieval England survived to 20, they would probably survive to 70 (EDIT: 60 - the 7 from 7 billion slipped into my head) and if they were relatively rich that probability would be very high.
145 today...well, I think a degree of exaggeration is the most likely explanation but I wouldn't say it was impossible. We're not all that sure how aging happens and there are animals that age far more slowly than would usually be expected, so I think it isn't impossible that extremely rare very specific genetic mutations might slow a human's aging enough for them to reach 145, maybe, and I think it isn't impossible that with >7 billion people alive today even very rare variations could happen.
Not true. The average age of the human race has increased not because the older people are living longer, but because far fewer are dying young. All evidence suggests that the maximum age a human can live is around 130 years, and without some massive medical breakthroughs this is not going to be beaten. This old boy has just stolen his father or grandfather's ID. The Russians did this a lot during WW2 to avoid conscription, which is why we suddenly saw a load of supposedly 120+ Russians a couple of decades ago.