Posted on 03/16/2006 7:51:36 AM PST by djf
Now we will be retired longer than our careers? How will anyone save enough to live 'til they're 150yo?
I hear that 90 is the new 40.
Social Security is in BIG trouble........
They'll need to raise the age to qualify that's for sure.
Don't know if I'd want to live that long.
Course I might say different if I was 149 yrs, 364 days old when you asked!
I know that there are darn few people in the world I'd wanna put up with for 150 years, and I ain't one of them!
Ask Japan how well this is working out. They now have invented a robot to take care of the unwanted elderly. No, thanks. I'd be happy to leave for heaven after my hree-score-years-and-ten. Surely beats a robot's care in a nursing home.
This is not a "new era" for advanced age. Most from Adam to Noah lived well into their 900s.
Nobody ever lived to see 1,000. (Unless you could Enoch and Elijah, who never died.)
I agree.
how many people in the OT in the bible are reported to have lived well into their hundreds, and people use that to discredit the bible?
now they're saying that living to those older ages is quite possible by limiting your diet.
Does this mean 60 years of p------ in their pants?
I hear that 90 is the new 40.
A bit of an exaggeration, but a few years more, certainly possible.
With the advances in biochemistry, genetics, and the actual mechanics of aging being decoded, I'm inclined to agree with the fellow who talks about 1,000 year lifespans.
There are probably less than a dozen major critical systems in the body, respiration, digestion, waste elimination, cell repair, circulation, etc. As the problems with these systems from an aging perspective are figured out, the limits on aging will be drastically pushed... I mean very, very drastically.
It's entirely possible you could wake up one morning and see a new ad on the tube for a pill that would add 200 years to your lifespan.
It'll cost $46,000,000 dollars, but hey...
...problem is, ageism is silent but rampant.
Could it be possible that the ages listed in the Bible were not calculated using the same yearly measurements?
I agree. I'm hoping I can stay working until I just can't get up in the morning. I can't imagine retiring. I've never made enough money, to be able to save what I would need to live even until I'm 100yo.
That would be a logical explanation.
Ageism is a problem. I used to listen to my wifes dad when he felt like talking. And he could tell the most amazing stories you could imagine.
It often seems sad and somewhat cruel to me that people who have had such experience and wisdom pounded into them are shuffled to the sidelines.
As a long time computer pro, I put alot of faith in people who have made (AND LEARNED FROM) major mistakes.
This is true, but not in the way that you think... WE ARE NOT LIVING ANY LONGER THAN WE DID IN 1900!! Look at the data; the average life expectancy has increased from around fifty to around seventy-six, for a new born. For someone who is sixty, the average life expectancy is about the same. This is due to two main factors: (1) Most important... Infant mortality has gone down (2) Mothers dying in childbirth has gone down... there is also a small increase in folks surviving through pandemics because of anti-biotics. Looking at different scientific analysis of the data, if a sixty year old today lives any longer than one did at the turn of the LAST century is by NO MORE than a few years. Google myths, longevity infant mortality for more info...
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.