From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 16:01:15 MDT
In a message dated 5/10/02 13:37:29, mail@HarveyNewstrom.com writes:
>I wish this were true, but I think this analysis is flawed. They are
>talking about increased in *average* lifespan, not *maximum* lifespan.
>They prove that *average* lifespan is increasing smoothly due to medical
>advances. *Maximum* lifespans are not similarly increasing. They show
>that the smooth rise in *average* lifespan is not limited by any further
>variables such as "old age". They have not shown that *maximum*
>lifespan is not limited by old age.
Studies of late-life mortality, apart from once-reproducing organisms,
all show there is no such thing as maximum lifespan. Beyond a certain
age, organisms in a population die at a more-or-less fixed rate. The
larger your sample, the larger your maximum lifespan. The most long-
lived documented humans died recently, as you'd expect. Go back two
decades and human maximum lifespan was confidently asserted to be
113. Now it's 122. A few more decades and it'll be 130.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:58 MST