With the average lifespan increasing over time, would you expect that healthy people who are young today will be living to 110 instead of 90?
>>16837516>With the average lifespan increasing over time,
>>16837516You kids will be dying off in your 40s what with all the Tide pod vaping, hot chip challanging, EM radiation filled environment.And all those microplastics will start to mimic mRNA vaccine proteins in a fortnight or so.
>>16837524This was in the peak of Covid
>>16837530>if you ignore all the bodies in the freezer trailers and stacked up in the morgue there really aren't a lot of bodies in here.
>>16837530ok and?
No, the average is meaningless for you biologic lifespan, conflating the average lifespan (considerably affected by retards destroying their bodies and early deaths) with the max lifespan is stupid.>life expectancy goes from 60 to 85>when LE was 60 the oldest people was 70-75 years>tries to extrapolate [70 - 75] * (85/60) = 100-105It doesn't work like that retardo. The change from 60 -> 85 was related to avoiding child mortality and reducing some accidents, the actuarian tables (life expectancy in function of age) haven changed too much in 200 years (ie. since there're register).
>>16837549>forgets the central limit theoremEvery fucking time
>>16837554>lets reduce all the non-biological causes of death>oh no, now it looks terribly asymmetric, I wonder why
>>16837562>forgets the central limit theorem after being told he forgot the central limit theoremDamn.
>>16837580>says nothing>repeats
>>16837516>With the average lifespan increasing over timeLife expectancy has been going down.
>>16837524This. People are dying en masse.
>>16837547Presumably the medical system won't be collapsing in on itself while you're old
>>16837516I expect 2 weeks
>>16837516They'll all die after expecting retirement at 60 and being supported by increasingly small younger generations that will have to just say 'fuck it I'm not paying 70% of my income to social security for some old cocksuckers' at some point.You know its true.
>>16838588Not an coincidental.
>>16837562This is a good use case for the Central Limit Theorem.
>>16837516Absolutely not. The average person born today is clamped, vaccinated, and circumcised. The predator-parasite class has capped their lifespan ~60. You could say they CLAMPED their lifespan. They VACCINATED them against long lives and old age. And they CIRCUMCISED their total possible depth and length of life.
With all the medical breakthroughs coming out right now, and especially with organ replacement made possible by 3d printing or growing them around scaffolds, yes, but only a few of the wealthy are going to afford this.
>>16838606The CLT doesn't turns any phenomena into a normal distribution completely ignoring the underlying cause.Ie. if you plot the falling acceleration of any (unpowered) object in air the plot would look kinda similar, and guess what, it's bounded by 9.80 m/s^2.Tell me anon, what have medicine done to 'rise' the biological limit of the human body? is telomerase treatments something widespread? is gene edition something common? etc. All increase of life expectancy (population half-life) is related to improving general hygiene, public health, nutrition and safety.
>>16838628There is no reason why healthy kidneys should be used by criminals when there are upstanding high social-credit score individuals who could make much better use of those organs.
>>16838631Maybe try using the Central Limit Theorem correctly in your next example, moron.
>>16838638If you're turning a non random phenomena into random data then you're a retard abusing of the CLT.Even if you remove all the accidental and disease-related causes of death biologically the body is limited (and in current year there's no approved procedures to change that), if you can't understand that then you're a waste of posts.
>>16838656>If you're turning a non random phenomena into random dataYou are doing that. I am applying the Central Limit Theorem to a skewed distribution to normalize it.
>>16838670Again: Ie. if you plot the falling acceleration of any (unpowered) object in air the plot would look kinda similar, and guess what, it's bounded by 9.80 m/s^2.You're just trying to force the CLT ignoring that the underlying cause isn't purely random, instead of name dropping like a bot do:Lets see, do a drawing of the normal curve for a large sample of whatever is your population (specify it).
>>16838680This is a life expectancy thread. The only thing being dropped is your grade. That is falling at a rate faster than that predicted by gravity. Please tells us all your made up non-aging example, again. It makes you easier to filter.
>Mathfags trying to apply math to biologyLMAO.Stick to what you are "supposed" to know chuds.GEG
>>16838684Where's the drawing-plot anon? be substantial, name dropping will not back your idea of post-mortality.
>>16837562Holy shit, if I just survive to 105 I'm basically immortal
