>human lifespans 400 years ago80 years>human lifespans now80 yearsWe haven't improved diddly
it wasn't 80 400 years ago, check the data again
>>16908726Yeah cause babies died more oftenIf you made it to adulthood there was a good chance you got to at least 70 if not 80
>>16908729no, most people did not make it to 70-80 back then, sorry
>>16908706actually, we are at 83 in spain. try eating more mediterranean diets
>>16908706I’m sure if we just eat natural foods like the countries with extreme pension fraud we’ll be immortal eventually.Oh but you may NOT make replacement organs. Just eat more fish or something.
>this thread againI'll be expecting your concession shortly.
>>16908921That graph is completely misleading. That is the *average* skewed because half of all children died before they reached 15 years old. Once they were adults it was worse than now but nothing so drastic.
>>16908941How is it misleading?It explicitly shows the life expectancy assuming you made it to at least a certain age. So a 30 year old in 1841 was expected to make it to about 64. That a 30 year old is expected to make it to around 82 today *is* a drastic improvement.
>>16908729when will this canard die? life expectancy at birth != life expectancy at reaching adulthood. for this reason life expectancy at birth is rarely calculated, we use probability of raching adulthood and life expectancy at reaching adulthood instead, because no statistician would attribute meaning to the expected value of a double-peaked distribution. but this does not matter, some redditard came up with the bullshit you so eagerly parrot and now all half-wits go around crowing about it.
>>16908921I don't think you get the purpose of the question. Yeah accidental deaths and deaths by disease are less common. The risk of getting eaten by a machine or a bear has dropped, and certain diseases have gotten more treatable. The question is, why can't a healthy, wealthy, and lucky person live much longer today than a healthy, wealthy, and lucky person did 400 years ago?People aren't getting killed as much, that doesn't mean human lifespan has gotten longer.
>>16909159Could you define what the alternative would even look like? Everyone is killed by *something.* Dying from "old age" just means you were old when you died and the thing that killed you was mundane.Medical advancements, improvements in nutrition, and mass availability of basic needs means more people are "healthy, wealthy, and lucky" today compared to the past. What else are you even asking for?
i don't want to die young, bros. i'm scared
>>16908921You're missing the spirit of what OP is saying. The average life has gone up because we stopped dying as children and cured a ton of diseases ect. But the maximum lifespan is the same. We just removed a ton of filters that prevented people from getting there.
>>16909351death is only scary if you're a materialist
>>16909159>>16909354This is like complaining that we don't get infinitely taller as nutrition improves and fewer people end up as underdeveloped manlets.
>>16909354Again I ask what the alternative would look like. People that would have lived to 60 a couple centuries ago now live to be 80.People who would have lived to be 80 a couple centuries ago now regularly make it to 90.People are living longer across the board.
Medical science has become better at dealing with black swan events. I had my appendix removed last year because it was about to rupture. A couple of centuries ago appendicitis was a death sentence. Treating body trauma has also improved greatly. If you fall from the roof of a two story building, you're far more likely to survive now, especially if you're in reasonable distance of a hospital, than you would have been even a century ago.It's the issues of aging where less improvement has been made. The body simply wears out over time. In the west, we've cleaned up the environment and added lots of safety rules but lifestyle factors have absorbed many of the benefits of the former. You're less likely to be exposed to lead now but much more likely to be obese.
>>16909351Don’t worry bro. It’ll be alright. You won’t die young. We’ll die together when we’re old and lived good lives :)
>>16909351You will fear a young death until you fear an old one.
>>16909360Stupid analogy. Living longer is good. Getting taller is not>>16909368>Again I ask what the alternative would look like.there is no alternative we're not arguing 2 sides here. The complaint is science hasn't made life expectancy 120 over 80
>>16909455>living longer>goodI have 2 grandparents who are like 95 and both their brains are at varying levels of fucked
>>16908941>That is the *average* skewed because half of all children died before they reached 15 years old.Then just look at the lines for 20+, 30+, 40+, 50+, 60+, and 70+ instead of the ones for 10+, 5+, 1+, and 0+.
>>16909456skill issue
>>16908706You can thank the nuclear scientist who decided to weaponize the tech and irradiate the earth with life reducing charged particles in the process instead of using it for the greater good.
>>16909355Not if you are one of the many non materialists who believe in vengeful spirits and Book of the Dead tier tricks and punishments.
>>16909459Fermi was just a cuck who did what he was told
>>16908706But anon we squeezed some extra years out of a bunch of miserable boomers at great expense!
>>16908706Tellamirs, nigga. Google that shit. There is a hardcap on how old it's possible for people to get.
>>16909470If there is, its not 80 years.
>>16909470>doesn't even know how to spell telomeres Well anon how about we figure out a way to keep those things working rather than 73729263@48392 more fucking drugs to keep Ethel's diabetic heart beating
>>16909455>science hasn't made life expectancy 120 over 80It used to be lower than 80 though. This complaint is dumb and unfounded. The things that used to be killing people when they were younger are now killing them when they're older, which is exactly the point of longevity.
>>16909609Too bad infant mortality has increased in my life proving you wrong.
>>16909612I would like you to sit back and reflect on what you just said, in the context of this discussion, until you realize on your own just how retarded this attempt at an argument is.
>>16908726this. it was actually 100 years
>>16909455>Living longer is good. Getting taller is notYou become less likely to successfully reproduce as you get old, but more sexually attractive as you get taller. By simple natural selection, getting taller wins over getting old.
>>16909843yeah and you back becomes exponentially more likely to explode when your reach your 30s
>>16909678see>>16909609>The things that used to be killing people when they were younger are now killing them when they're older,I would like you to explain how this can be justified knowing that more people are dying as infants than in past decades and how exactly it is possible for older people to die of infant mortality.
>>16910386Are you not capable of thinking back more than a single post? Okay, I'll spell it out to you.Assuming what you said is even true: 1. This contradicts the central claim made ITT that rising life expectancy is a result of declining infant mortality. This argument only shoots yourself in the foot.2. That you even make this argument shows you can't differentiate short-term deviations from long-term trends. It's like arguing climate change is fake because winter is cold.And that's assuming you were correct at all. Until just before writing this post I sorta shrugged and thought "heh, it's probably true. But it doesn't affect the core argument." Now I decided to check.Oops! Infant mortality didn't go up in recent years:https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortalityBut maybe I should check other sources just to be sure:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.INHuh. Seems that source also says infant mortality is on the decline with no recent upswing.Maybe if I check the US specifically?https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/infant-mortality-rateHow about that... seems there was a 2.5% decline from 2024 to 2025 alone.Where did you even get your claim from? Because all I needed to do was search "infant mortality over time" to show it's bullshit.
