gds said:Peder said:Quoted message said:Because science's ability to protect us from the world has increased
our
Quoted message said:lifespan artificially, far exceeding the engineering provided by
evolution.
Quoted message said:That's why joints, eyes and other organs, and the mind wear out
halfway
Quoted message said:through. We should be dead at 45 like our ancestors of a century
ago,
Quoted message said:victims of disease, conflict, and broken bones, then recycled by
scavengers. Count your blessings, it could be worse! 🙂--
Peder (Please reply to group only, email invalid)Actually there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Almost all of the
major improvements of life expectancy have come from large reductions
in infant mortality and reductions in infectious desease among
children. If you correct for that you would be surprised how little age
specific life expectancy has increased for those making it to the age
of 20 or so.
Yes there has been improvement and this will likely continue, but
surprisingly folks who made it to 20 hundreds of years ago made it to
60+ as well.
There is an old testament phrase that references man's life span as
three score and ten. So, some 5000+ years ago life span was looked at
being 70.
We have a statistical problem in the way deaths and life spans are
recorded. It would seem more logic to break it into age groups like
45-55 and you have a life expectancy of 55-100 with the appropriate bell
curve for that group. Do it again for 55-65, and each ten year group up
to 85-95 and count out accidental death. I bet the stats would change a lot.
Bill Baka