Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,978
5,588
113
Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years .By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience's Bad Science Columnist

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, often the harbinger of bad news about e. coli outbreaks and swine flu, recently had some good news: The life expectancy of Americans is higher than ever, at almost 78.

Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.

But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans were not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.

Yet this myth is widespread, and repeated by both the public and professionals. A few examples:

* An article on Egyptian pyramid builders in the November 2001 issue of "National Geographic" noted, "Despite the availability of medical care the workers' lives were short. On average a man lived 40 to 45 years, a woman 30 to 35."

* In a 2005 press release for the TV show "Nightline," a producer wrote, "I am 42 years old. I live in a comfortable home with my family.... I'm lucky. If I were in Sierra Leone, the poorest country in Africa, chances are I'd be dead at my age. The life expectancy there is 34 years of age."

* A Dec. 18, 2003, Reuters news story on the impact of AIDS in Africa reported that "A baby girl born now in Japan could expect to live 85 years, while one born in Sierra Leone probably would not survive beyond 36."

Such statements are completely wrong; most people in Sierra Leone are not dropping dead at age 34. The problem is that giving an "average age" at which people died tells us almost nothing about the age at which an individual person living at the time might expect to die.

Again, the high infant mortality rate skews the "life expectancy" dramatically downward. If a couple has two children and one of them dies in childbirth while the other lives to be 90, stating that on average the couple's children lived to be 45 is statistically accurate but meaningless. Claiming a low average age of death due to high infant mortality is not the same as claiming that the average person in that population will die at that age.

Of course, infant mortality is only one of many factors that influence life expectancy, including medicine, crime, and workplace safety. But when it is calculated in, it often creates confusion and myths.

When Socrates died at the age of 70 around 399 B.C., he did not die of old age but instead by execution. It is ironic that ancient Greeks lived into their 70s and older, while more than 2,000 years later modern Americans aren't living much longer.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,757
113
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Wait, I thought all you needed was a single payer health care system and you automatically live longer :rolleyes:

OTB
 

fnog9

New member
Nov 13, 2006
123
0
0
Niagara Falls
I think this is great news, and this is what I have already believed. Basically, this means that if "nothing bad" happens to you, you can hope to live to 75 or so. When I say "nothing bad", I mean you survive infancy, don't get in a severe accident, don't get murdered, and don't die of an infectious disease.

So, a big part of life expectancy is social conditions. Safety is a much bigger concern in North America than other parts of the world. Probably less likely to get severely injured on the job here. Greater chance you'll live longer. Less murder in war torn countries. Also vaccinations for deadly diseases. Take all that out of the picture and you have a good chance of living a full life, unless you decide to kill yourself.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,474
12
38
Good grief! Lifespan and life expectancy are quite different concepts. Did no one else's Latin teacher point out that, although they migh have expected that war or disease would carry them off earlier, many Greeks and Romans lived into their seventies?

And for OT, the answer is "No. But you can expect to live longer if you get adequate healthcare all your life." Not who pays, nor whether there's any payment, but getting it that counts. And even more—to get back to those old-time guys—mens sana in corpore sano and all that "life of moderation" good living stuff.
 

dj1470

Banned
Apr 7, 2005
7,703
0
0
Except in the USA where they have no health care and eat Big Mac's everyday.
 

a 1 player

Smells like manly roses.
Feb 24, 2004
9,722
10
0
on your girlfriend
dj1470 said:
Except in the USA where they have no health care and eat Big Mac's everyday.
Sort of. In the USA, even being poor is usually better off than being in some of the third world countries. There is fluoride in the water and it is fresh, most people have a roof over their heads, have hydro and are not malnourished. There is also the opportunity for productive labour, which in my opinion has an impact as well.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Maybe Socrates lived untill he was 70+ because he ate and slept well, washed his hands a lot, had others do the dirty work, had assistants, didn't sleep around and kept his mind busy with his work. Others of his time weren't as lucky. His was an exception.

I don't think anyone mentioned the term life span in any of the threads but it's an interesting point bring up, any how.
 

caseyx

Member
Jan 3, 2009
226
0
16
In addition to infant mortality, death in childbirth was common enough that life expectancy for women was skewed way down until recently. (Recently in historical terms anyway.) Again, not the same as life span.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,474
12
38
blackrock13 said:
Maybe Socrates lived untill he was 70+ because he ate and slept well, washed his hands a lot, had others do the dirty work, had assistants, didn't sleep around and kept his mind busy with his work. Others of his time weren't as lucky. His was an exception.

I don't think anyone mentioned the term life span in any of the threads but it's an interesting point bring up, any how.
Granted Socrates was exceptional, not the least because he was poisoned before he could live out his natural lifespan. As to that term, which you suggest no one mentioned, it is in the title of this thread and the subject of the OP. To quote:
The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
danmand said:
Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years .By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience's Bad Science Columnist


.
Perhaps the fact that our lifespans have not increased signifigantly since the ancient greeks(despite medical advances) may be attributable to the fact that the ancients lived a natural food lifestyle and did not eat all the sh*t we eat today. Nor did they live in a polluted world.

And, BTW, I really think that the numbers from the old days may be incorrect: without antibiotics and modern medical techniques almost all injuries( and even childbirth) carried a real risk of fatality.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,474
12
38
Yup, and that's why life expectancy was so low, and remains low wherever people don't have adequate food shelter and sanitation and medical care. One can't expect a dangerous, harsh life to be long. It's the real world observable average. Like feathers falling slower than stones. Or how fast your car engine will seize w/o oil.

But the life span is how long the meat-machine will normally keep running, absent those accidents and outside forces. It's sort of a theoretical number, like feathers and stones falling at the same speed in a perfect vacuum. Or the possible life of a well-maintained engine. And we have to get that too by real world obsrvation.

Even in the worst environments and among those with the unhealthiest of lifestyles there will be some who live to a 'normal' human life span in the late seventies early eighties. But they won't lift the expectancy much. And even in the best circumstances only a rare few individuals do better. And they don't affect the life span numbers much.

When whole body and brain transplants and protein renewal pills are common, pehaps we'll achieve common life expectancies greater than the normal span. But the only way I—with my simple mind—can imagine that life span increasing is by widespread genetic mutation.
 

johnhenrygalt

Active member
Jan 7, 2002
1,406
0
36
To appreciate the statistics, one has to have regard to life expectancy for a person of "x" years of age. Life insurance firms do this all the time.

If you wish to evaluate the life expectancy of an unborn foetus (assume it will be a live birth), average age of death may be a good indicator (or perhaps the median age of death would be better.

But for a 20 year old man, his remaining life expectancy is much greater than that of the newborn, since he's already made it to 20 (assuming he has no known diseases).

Similarly, the 80 year old in good health, may have a life expectancy of an additional 15 years (I'm guessing at this, I have no data), even though he's already over the average and median ages of death. Odds still are that he will not drop dead tomorrow.

In terms of life expectancy in the developed West, the key factors have been in improvment to sanitation, reduction in infections and the containment of infectious diseases such that today, a parent of a newborn expects the child to live out his/her full natural life span, while in days gone this would be the exception rather than the rule. What is holding down life expectancy today is the overall deterioration in nutrition with concomitant increases in obesity, heart disease, hypertension, cancer, etc. Medical advances such as cancer treatment, open heart surgery and the like probably do not make a material impact on the statistics.

Note that humans are somewhat unique. Most species reproduce lots and lots and lots of offspring since few survive (this observation is what led Darwin to attempt to answer the question as to how "nature" selected the survivors). Even mammals such as dogs and cats pump out litters of offspring. Centruries ago humans used to reproduce in great numbers with little increase in overall population, and many would not survive to adulthood and reproductive age.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
oldjones said:
Granted Socrates was exceptional, not the least because he was poisoned before he could live out his natural lifespan. As to that term, which you suggest no one mentioned, it is in the title of this thread and the subject of the OP. To quote:
You're correct, the more complete sentence should have been, mentioned in PAST threads. My bad.
 

benstt

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2004
1,607
474
83
johnhenrygalt said:
To appreciate the statistics, one has to have regard to life expectancy for a person of "x" years of age. Life insurance firms do this all the time.
On the right track.

Life expectancy is the expected number of years remaining, for a given age. Ie at age 50, you might be expected to live another 28 years on average. At age 60, you might be expected to live another 20 years on average.

Here's an example table, where I got the numbers above.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

Life span is the life expectancy for age zero. Ie the average time from birth to death. It includes all known hazards.

What the article is saying is that using lifespan (ie life expectancy at age zero) is misleading; the distribution of death rates has bumps. In this table, you see that a 21 year old male has a higher chance of death than a 29 year old male.

Actuaries are fully aware of the effect of infant mortality, and the bump that young men take due to their reckless lifestyles. They will factor these out when assessing insurance, if you've survived past these events.

To actuaries, this is a non-article, I would guess. They will be well aware that infant mortality is going down, and whether that would have any material effect on the price of insurance for a 30 year old male looking to cover his house debt in case he dies.
 
Toronto Escorts