Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years
Live Science ^ | Aug 21, 2009 | Benjamin Radford

Posted on 08/22/2009 1:40:22 PM PDT by decimon

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: cdc; expectancy; godsgravesglyphs; life; lifeexpectancy; longevity; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last
To: Free Vulcan

I remember reading recently about Polk’s grandson still being alive.

Now THOSE are some genes.


41 posted on 08/23/2009 10:50:07 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein Ein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

If you mean “fixing” telomeres so they don’t run out, we’d probably want to find the cure for cancer first (cancer being cells that continue to replicate, and refuse to die when they are supposed to).

But then I suppose other diseases will just pop up. I believe that one of the primary “causes” for cancer today is quality medical care. 100 years ago, if you had a heart attack you died and didn’t live to eventually get cancer. Today, you get a second chance. If we cure cancer we’ll live on to get [something], IMO.


42 posted on 08/23/2009 12:55:01 PM PDT by Darth Reardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon

I dont disagree with you. My dad had his first heart attack at 65. For the next ten years he went through a stroke, PE, Kidney failure, another heart attack, and finally lung cancer.

Kind of makes you wonder....


43 posted on 08/23/2009 3:47:37 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (Ein Volk, Ein Riech, Ein Ein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

You could be right, I don’t know about that.


44 posted on 08/24/2009 3:31:18 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson