Is Life Expectancy Finally Topping Out? | Hacker News Reader

Is Life Expectancy Finally Topping Out?

spectrum.ieee.org

48 pointsheadalgorithm57 comments

My understanding is that the doubling in life expectancy over the last 150-200 years was primarily due to the drastic reduction in infant mortality and elimination of most infectious diseases. If you only look at life expectancy from the point of reaching adulthood, the change hasn't been nearly as dramatic.

And they are falling a bit into that trap: "In 1850, the combined life expectancies of men and women stood at around 40 years in the United States, Canada, Japan and much of Europe."

But if you eliminate life expectancy at birth, you'll notice that there hasn't been a drastic improvement. It's been discussed on HN previously, and I think adult life expectancy has only improved by less than 20 years over the last several hundred.

(Someone with sources feel free to correct me).

Yes. When most people say "life expectancy" they mean "life expectancy at birth." Even in the depths of the middle ages when life expectancy at birth was around 30 years, most people who lived to adulthood lived into their 60s and 70s.

I think the OP is specifically trying to say that most lay people do not actually mean "life expectancy at birth" when they use the term "life expectancy", but instead mean "how long I, a person who has reached adulthood, can expect to live". I agree with OP, FWIW.

That’s a common “fun fact” but it’s been so overdone people are probably now erring more to the other side. Here’s a graph: http://www.roperld.com/science/graphics/LifeExpectancyForDif...

As an example, in the 20th Century, life expectancy at birth rose from about 40 to 77 years. But for 20 year olds, it also went from 34 to 59 additional years.

That does not seem to be accurate for the US from 1900 looking at a life table. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life1890-1910.pdf

Page 52 Men in 1900 life expectancy at 20: 42.48

Page 54 Women in 1900 life expectancy at 20: 43.6

The Social Security life table for 2016 lists 56.91 years at 20 a gain of ~13.9 years in the last 116. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

56 looks like a small number compared with other developed countries

It's additional years of life - so 76 total.

I remember seeing the horrible decline in life expectancy when the Soviet Union collapsed.

At the same time, the Soviet client state of Cuba saw a dramatic reduction in economic activity and caloric restriction. Cuban dietary belt tightening led to a massive reduction in cardio vascular disease with a correlated massive reduction in obesity.

I’m not a doctor, nor a data scientist or economist.

But I suspect we will see bifurcated life expectancy moving forward.

In the distant past when there was great wealth divide, one common denominator was similar life expectancy.

Moving forward, that same wealth divide can now be leveraged by those who can afford it to exploit the entire spectrum of longevity incremental opportunities:

Nutrition Clean water Clean air Mitigating physical wear & tear Sleep Stress Well being Microbiome Supplements Pharmacology Stem cell therapy Gene therapy CRISPR

I predict a continued flattening of average life expectancy as developing world life expectancy slowly improves and some developed countries possibly see some attrition from systemic obesity, economic disruption, and continued wealth divide.

But I see the top few % of most wealthy begin to see enhanced quality of life in their later years, as well as incrementally more years.

Longevity tech is the ultimate market.

How much will people pay for a Tesla Model Y(assuming it makes it to market)?

Something.

How much will people pay for an extra 5-10 years?

Everything.

Apologies, social “scientist” talking fiction!

> How much will people pay for an extra 5-10 years?

> Everything.

Yeah as long as it doesn't require any effort.

Exercise every day, stop alcohol, stop smoking, start eating well. You might not live longer but you'll live in good health longer, which is all that matter in the end. I'd take living until 60 in full physical and mental shape over slowly rotting in a retirement home until 90.

If we truly cared about health we wouldn't accept ICE cars inside our cities, fast food, sodas, fat acceptance movements, &c. We're not killed by diseases anymore, we're killed by sloth and gluttony.

I do agree with you about the majority unwilling/unable to invest sufficient effort into their physical wellbeing.

But I strongly believe there is a small minority of people who are making consistent choices that positively impact longevity.

Anecdotally, I’m seeing it with my cohort of friends and family here in NZ as well as when visiting the US.

At the age of 50, I’m already seeing clear indicators of the bifurcation between those who are taking active steps to enhance their longevity compared to those who are not.

My personal opinion is that we will see single digit percentage of people who consistently take drive steps to enhance their health and well-being to enhance longevity,

Also important will be quality of life in the later years.

If you're unhealthy, lonely and constantly in pain then why bother?

I've read that having a good network of friends & family into old age can keep you feeling better, having hobbies and keeping active are also very beneficial.

It's something I'm actively thinking about now I'm approaching 50 myself. Swimming and yoga beckon :)

You don't even have to eat that well... After not smoking and reducing alcohol, reducing sugar (in particular fructose) is probably the best thing you can do for yourself. Then followed by less refined food overall.

Sugar is as addictive as anything, and its heavily subsidized and advertised for... A single 12oz can of Coca-Cola has as much, or more, refined sugar than the average adult should have in a day on average.

The statement wasn’t “what will people be willing to do for longevity”, the statement was “what will people be willing to pay”.

>How much will people pay for an extra 5-10 years? Everything.

I doubt it, most people aren't even willing to pay the small price of feeling lactic acid when exercising. Or not consuming excess calories.

Quality of life matters too. If you have children, I would be surprised if most people would want to spend their personal wealth for an extra 5 to 10 geriatric bed ridden years. It only happens now because the taxpayers pay for it. I'd rather pass those resources onto my kids if it had to come out of my pocket.

A lot of people in the 90s wish they have another 10 years of being 50 and would happily live 10-20 years less time for that. Nobody is talking about ways to become a Struldbrugg, this is about extending healthy lifetime.

There is a huge difference between "exercise to uncomfortableness every day and you'll probably live longer" and "give us $10M for a genetic modification treatment that extends your 50s for another 5=10 years"

The linked article, and presumably the person I'm replying to, are specifically talking about the maximum age a human can attain. Granted, chriselles was specifically referring to the rich extending life 5 to 10 years, but the rich are generally already living pretty long lives and I'm not sure how much more quality of life can be wrung out in the last 5 to 10 years, especially if you're having to pay a considerable amount (which would indicate you have many or complicated problems).

Agreed about the choice to spend money for extra years bed ridden.

But I believe we are quickly approaching a time where we will be able to purchase extra years of higher quality of life.

Look at cancer drug Herceptin as an example. It doesn’t cure cancer of stop it. It just slows t down allowing the cancer victim more time at a better quality of life.

I think we will see a two fold improvement with new longevity developments that mix better quality of life combined with slowly incrementally longer life.

But I completely agree that the solution is not a pill.

You have to invest in both work and time otherwise pharmacological inputs alone will likely be marginally effective, if at all.

Paying for life extension treatment is a lot easier than actively exercising/dieting, at least if you're relatively wealthy. It's different when the cause and effect is immediately apparent as well, as opposed to changing ingrained habits to effect outcomes that might be 40 - 60 years away.

So you're saying we should expect something like the immortal plutocrat 'Meths' in Altered Carbon? I don't doubt it. The old adage of 'you can't take it with you' will be amended to 'but if you're rich enough you don't have to go.'

Firstly, I’m a fan of Hard sci fi like Altered Carbon.

What a great show!

I don’t think we will see human consciousness slipping from body to body in our foreseeable future.

If so, it surely would add yet another dimension to unbalanced wealth accumulation.

But I think we are fast approaching a time where an extra 5-10 years of high quality life are within the reach of the affluent and wealthy.

Perhaps starting with not so much longer life, but better life before an inevitable physiological/cognitive decline.

Why would true anti aging medication be expensive? The market is huge, even with cheap medication you'd make a lot of money.

I assume dealers would use a similar model to insulin or AIDs remediations; charge as much as (in)humanly possible, rake in the dough, and give no thought to those who will die because of it.

Why is insulin expensive? That market is huge.

It's only expensive in the US...

Fair enough. But the point is that wide appeal does not guarantee low prices.

it sort of does, if you are not in US...

Implying that the current economic conditions will remain as is forever is not a good bet. The current economic poison in the heart of the US could go away, or it could spread.

While I have no personal experience in these matters, I have the understanding that Europe's economic situation is becoming more American like faster than the US is becoming like anyone else.

Because it can be.

This makes some sense in theory but in actuality people frequently avoid making decisions that would very easily allow them to live years longer.

On a deeper level, the notion that humans put “the will to live” above everything else is itself problematic. See Schopenhauer’s concept of the will to live and Nietzsche’s commentary on it.

My grandmother was born in 1912 and live to 97.

She:

- was born in a time with no antibiotics

- lived on a farm with all of it's inherent risks

- lived through World War 1 (granted in the United States)

- survived the "Spanish Flu" (although as someone under 10 whereas hardest hit were adults)

- lived through the Depression

- started having children post World War 2 (now with antibiotics available).

I've often thought, just making it to age 10 showed that she had a strong immune system. When she started having children, she benefited from having access to antibiotics at a time when there was no drug resistance.

Looking at my parents generation (the baby boomers) and suddenly you have a generation of children where infant mortality etc goes way down (again thanks to antibiotics). In other words, children that wouldn't have survived in 1912 are now living into adulthood. We applied selection pressure to have children (and then in turn adults) with weaker immune systems. (Not saying this is a bad thing).

Because of the above, I wonder how much of the life expectancy increase has to do with a kind of winning the demographic lottery of: "When I was little, my immune system kept me alive. When I was an adult, medicine took care of what my immune system couldn't."

This doesn’t make much sense because life expectancy cohorts are grouped by the year they are born, not the year they died.

The concept of a “strong” vs “weak” immune system also doesn’t correspond to reality: for the flu, it’s hypothesized that it’s too strong an immune reaction that kills you. Many of today’s leading causes of death also don’t have much to do with the immune system, from the opioid epidemic to heart attacks, strokes, and cancer. Autoimmune disease is far ahead as a public health issue compared to infectious disease, from MS to (probably) vascular disease (edit: see this other story currently on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19742188)

I haven't come across any information that would indicate that we can generalize a person's immune system to be better than another's, outside of specified immune system disorders that have been defined. The immune system and the body in general are such a complex mechanism that it's impossible to claim one or a few persons surviving in one or a few instances and environments indicates they will have greater odds of future survival.

>I haven't come across any information that would indicate that we can generalize a person's immune system to be better than another's,

There's definitely people who seem to get sick all the time and people who don't. Ask any schoolteacher and they'll tell you that for every cough/cold/whatever that goes around there's a couple kids that always get it and some that never do. Of course there's other variables like hand washing and whatnot but there's probably still some differences between people. Whether these are genetic or environmental (e.g. nutrition) I don't know.

Another example is the life expectancy of holocaust survivors. Holocaust survivors in israel have longer life expectancy than other israelis. That's because you had to have the best immune system and psychological will to live in order to survive the disease and starvation ridden concentration camps.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/surviving-holocaust-contribute...

I agree with your point about demographic lottery. Your genetics and where you are born probably contributes significantly to your life expectancy.

> and suddenly you have a generation of children where infant mortality etc goes way down (again thanks to antibiotics)

Infant mortality went down in white communities, there is still a disparity between infant mortality in white communities and urban/african-american communities. Some communities have the infant mortality rate equal to a third-world country.

Never mind the decline in improvement, I think we're going to see a sudden sharp drop very soon. It may be hidden by the long-lived generation before, but the baby boomers have eaten, drunk, and medicated themselves into oblivion compared to their parents.

And who knows what's to come for the next generation, with an increasing wealth divide and heck knows what else.

My parents, baby boomers themselves, are starting to see the effects of this. Funeral after funeral of friends and family dying in their early to late 60's - almost always due to heart disease, liver failure or some sort of cancer.

Every time I join them it's the same "he seemed so healthy/ it was so unexpected/ she was gone so quickly".

In my head I can't help but think "he ate nothing but meat/ she drank a bottle of wine a night/ they haven't broken a sweat in years".

> dying in their early to late 60's - almost always due to heart disease, liver failure or some sort of cancer

In a "Death and Dying" psych class I took in university, the professor remarked how we went from dying from infectious diseases to dying from lifestyle issues.

I'm not sure how true or false this is, but when one isn't going to die from the flu you might live long enough to die from consuming too much bacon and alcohol.

I'm interested in learning more about this idea.

> If we are still far from the limit to the human life-span, then the largest survival gains should be recorded among the oldest people.

Trends in outliers cannot be used to extrapolate trends in mean, unless for very small populations (such that outliers are unreliable).

The article just seems to be an opinion piece to explain away falling improvements in average life-expectancy rather than tackle rising inequality.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/for-life-expe...

Being poor in the United States is so hazardous to your health, a new study shows, that the average life expectancy of the lowest-income classes in America is now equal to that in Sudan or Pakistan.

30% gap between known maximum and highest average is interesting in and of itself. We have barely attacked aging as opposed to diseases of age.

"Aging" is not singular thing.

After development, the age of a human body is just an accumulation of many many different kinds of failures over time.

And we will be able pretty soon to replace failed organs - anything but the brain itself should be replaceable in 30 years at the latest, I bet. With the progress that is being made right now, I'd say prototypes should exist in a decade, and another 20 years to let the economies of scale work.

What has not caught up with reality yet is society: how are people living 100+ years supposed to be financed? Do we expect people to work in their 80s fulltime? Will we be mandating organ replacements for those above a certain age?

How are we supposed to feed all those people? It's barely working out right now with current mortality rates and only not collapsing because the rate at which resources like fish are exploited is way beyond the sustainability threshold?

I feel food production shouldn't really be an issue, of course depending on the food type. But the tiny country of The Netherlands is a huge food exporter [0]. Certainly other countries could learn a thing or two [1] on food production from The Netherlands.

---

[0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-...

[1]: https://www.wur.nl/en/Education-Programmes/master/MSc-progra...

The Dutch mainly produce plant stuff - which is indeed easy to scale up. The problem is that veggies are not the part that causes problems... it's meat, both land animals (cattle, pigs, poultry) and water animals. The rising meat demand especially in the exploding middle class in formerly poor countries such as China and India has to be produced somewhere, and animals have the problem that they create massive amounts of feces which:

- for land animals are carted across half of Europe as both Germany and the Netherlands produce more feces than can be brought out to fields

- for fish, contaminate the farms and the freshwater in which the farms are set. In addition the fish food that does not get eaten by the fish causes algae and other pest blooms in the waters, plus the attraction that fish farms pose to predators.

They are also a huge importer of input materials for their farming machine. Fertilizer, livestock fodder (that will result in even more fertilizer), fossil energy to fuel greenhouses.

Thinking of modern Dutch agriculture as food production is misleading, it's more meaningful to think of it as a refining process. Cheap nutrients go in, expensive nutrients go out.

Also, most 100-year-olds are not self-sufficient.

If it was the norm be to live to 100 years old we would have a lot of "disabled" people, and even architecturally that would be a problem, no..?

I don't doubt that we're approaching the max life expectancy that you can get from natural means... By that, I mean curing diseases and maintaining the right balance of nutrition.

But I think we'll start to see improvements that aren't about just staying healthy, but instead are about actually reversing "the aging process" and the things we barely understand about what makes us change as we get older.

We seem to have got a lot worse at nutrition over the last thirty years.

I don't know where you were in the 80s but 30 years ago nutrition was as bad or worse than now from my perspective (except in countries that were previously too poor to eat badly) - white bread, lots of sugar, etc - all stuff people nowadays avoid a lot more than my parents' generation did at the time.

Yep. People born in the 60's seem to have rather atrocious habits compared to the ones we have today. I remember getting Kellog's Frosties with strawberry jam for breakfast as a kid. I doubt many parents would serve that to their kids today.

Well in the US at least there was much less obesity, which I think says something about nutrition, no? I don't think people were particularly more physically active 30 years ago...

I think it's both. People were notably more physically active in decades past.

"Lower levels of physical activity, both in organized sports and at play, account for a lot of the rest, they say. U.S. health authorities say children should be getting 60 minutes of active play a day, but only one-third are getting that.

Children are much less likely to walk, bike or skate to school than they were in the 1970s, at least in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. Neighborhoods are increasingly suburban, especially in Asia, and people are driving more.

And from the 1970s till now, the number of global households with TVs, VCRs, computers, Internet access and video games has soared."

- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/11/20/2463167...

That's if you can afford to do so; otherwise, there are way more options for cheap processed foods than there were 30 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com