Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Why People Don't Live Past 114

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the mostly-it's-because-of-tax-benefits dept.

Medicine 916

kkleiner writes "Average life expectancy has nearly doubled in developed countries over the 20th century. But a puzzling part to the equation has emerged. While humans are in fact living longer lives on average, the oldest age that the oldest people reach seems to be stubbornly and oddly precisely cemented right at 114. What will it take for humans to live beyond this limit?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Genesis 6:3 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058751)

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (5, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058807)

Boring, wake me up when there's begetting and pause it for me if you can see tits.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058823)

So he owes us each six years? Can I choose which ones? I want 21-27 again. Thanks.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058919)

No, it's 5% tax

Re:Genesis 6:3 (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059209)

But if you have a Christian loyalty card (sold at participating Churches), the tax is rebated with eternal afterlife! What a bargain.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (0, Troll)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058871)

So, what was Jeanne Calment, a satanist?

Also, why doesn't *everyone* live that long? God said they could!

Re:Genesis 6:3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058937)

That isn't 114. Not in any numbering system you could ever come up with is that 114.

yet more biblical contradictions (3, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058979)

So if the lord limited humans to 120, why did Methuselah get 8 times that much time? [wikipedia.org]

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059049)

Lifespans gradually decreased post-flood.

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (3, Informative)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059079)

He died before the limit was imposed. Prior to that, many people lived hundreds of years, such as Adam.

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (5, Funny)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059087)

It is a little known fact that Methuselah exploited the life span mechanics of the Real Life MMO. That and other bugs, hackers, gimmicks, etc. got so bad that God had to nearly completely revamp the game. The new mechanics were firmly put in place after The Flood patch.

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059165)

So I have hackers to blame. Wonderful. If only Methuselah had hidden away his trainer maybe we could all hack and the admins wouldn't mind.

Off topic, apologies in advance to Gideon.

If Gideon posted it you know it to be true.
Citation: http://www.gideons.org/ [gideons.org]

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (1)

EliSowash (2532508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059111)

Yeah, his kid and grandkid way outlived the 120 year limit too.

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (2, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059113)

The calendar was lunar, so each "year" was 29 days. Back in those times, iiving up to 80 was something to note.

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059127)

Your question is answered in the previous chapter, Genesis 5. Methuselah lived before God decided to limit mankind to no more than 120 years.

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059129)

So if the lord limited humans to 120, why did Methuselah get 8 times that much time? [wikipedia.org]

Methuselah lived in Genesis 5 [biblegateway.com] , before the decree in Genesis 6...

Re:yet more biblical contradictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059153)

I think it's better than a contradiction. Perceived contradictions cause conflicts that rarely lead to a greater understanding. The biblical "age limit" tells me two things: 1) Genesis is just a story and shouldn't be taken as actual history, and 2) God's laws are more of guidelines than legal limits. Observation #1 shuts up all the evolution haters, and observation #2 shuts up the bible thumpers who use religion as a weapon.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059099)

The bible is a fairy tale written to keep idiots in line.

Leave Slashdot now, and don't ever come back. We don't like your kind
here, because we deal in rational thought, not fairy tales.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059157)

And the Lord sayeth, "sucketh the horse's cocketh, and drink the milk of the stallion. Feel now, the stallion's fruits, roll them around in your hands. You shalleth be granteth eternal life"

-- Neuteronomy 69:420

Re:Genesis 6:3 (1, Funny)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059217)

And the Lord sayeth, "sucketh the horse's cocketh, and drink the milk of the stallion. Feel now, the stallion's fruits, roll them around in your hands. You shalleth be granteth eternal life"

-- Neuteronomy 69:420

So that's why no one is granted eternal life.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059171)

Amen, brother! (or sister)

Re:Genesis 6:3 (4, Insightful)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059185)

-1000 pts for mentioning "rational thought" in a place were a flame war can start over using a CLI vs a GUI.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059207)

The Bible also says that those who believe will be followed by signs like being immune to venom and poisonous drinks and will cast spirits out of people and stuff. How about I get you some cyanide and an Inland Taipan and we-- what's that? Oh yeah, don't put God to the test, right? If a hypothesis is not to be tested, keep it the f*** off slashdot. And biology? Have you read Genesis 30? The entire thing is a laughable piece of crap. That's why it deconverted me.

Re:Genesis 6:3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059213)

120 years? Wow... I'll be a christian now... I think I can catch up with the best Christians when I cry while I pray..

The promise of.. (0, Offtopic)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058759)

The iPad 4. Fanbois only of course...

The oldest person lived to 122. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058771)

No, I didn't read the article. It really doesn't matter. 114 is not some magic barrier.

Re:The oldest person lived to 122. (1, Funny)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058827)

You're just trying to obstruct science and medicine. Don't let that fact get in the way of an insightful /. post. Hey guys, don't get distracted, back to talking about 114. Frankly we should be ashamed of letting anyone live that long. Humans are a disease. They should all be killed on sight so our planet doesn't get destroyed by those greedy parasites.

I agree, we shall form a line (4, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058941)

You first. Don't worry, the rest will be right behind you. laughing.

Re:The oldest person lived to 122. (1)

dimko (1166489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058945)

Sure thing buddy, we need some demonstration please. Show us how its done, start from yourself!

Re:The oldest person lived to 122. (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058975)

By all means, then, you first.

Suicide pacts (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059163)

Your real name doesn't happen to be Josephus, by any chance?

Re:The oldest person lived to 122. (5, Interesting)

boef (452862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058987)

TFA does not state you get suddenly croak when you hit 114.. That number is more when the odds change.. and the question is why.
quote:
“the odds of a person dying in any given year between the ages of 110 and 113 appear to be about one in two. But by age 114, the chances jump to more like two in three.”

Re:The oldest person lived to 122. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059095)

I didn't say that either. I really don't care. I was just speaking out against the summary.

Re:The oldest person lived to 122. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059191)

Modded down by mistake... posting to remove. shouldve been imformative

Going to take a wild guess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058781)

Actual understanding of the causes for the limit and development of a solution?

It will take... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058787)

...proper verb conjugation.

For behold, thy God is a jealous and angry grammar nazi! Honor thy noun clause and verb clause, that thy days may be numbered long upon the Earth.

Additional information. (5, Informative)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058791)

This has been noticed before. Here [slate.com] is another article on it.

Tell that to Jeanne Calment (5, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058803)

Re:Tell that to Jeanne Calment (4, Informative)

dredwerker (757816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058843)

You would have a job doing that as she is dead. :)

Re:Tell that to Jeanne Calment (2)

necro81 (917438) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059115)

You would have a job doing that as she is dead.

Nah, you can still tell her, just don't expect a response.

Re:Tell that to Jeanne Calment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058985)

Exactly you would see a LOT of 113's in this list. Instead you see many almost making 115 and a few as high as 120.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955

It looks like summary is trying to pull in clicks by challenging and making sweeping statements. When it is trivial to prove it wrong. Also the article ends with "Just my two cents for what they’re worth". So this is an opinion piece.

The 99.999% percentile though will probably not make it past 100. Supercenturions are fairly rare...

Re:Tell that to Jeanne Calment (3, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059181)

Exactly you would see a LOT of 113's in this list. Instead you see many almost making 115 and a few as high as 120.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955

It looks like summary is trying to pull in clicks by challenging and making sweeping statements. When it is trivial to prove it wrong. Also the article ends with "Just my two cents for what they’re worth". So this is an opinion piece.

The 99.999% percentile though will probably not make it past 100. Supercenturions are fairly rare...

Go ahead and look at the Wikipedia article. Unsurprisingly, a number of the > 114 yo crowd have their birth dates as 'disputed'. So, no you didn't 'prove it wrong'.

Re:Tell that to Jeanne Calment (-1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059085)

*Ahem*

That's -Saint- Jeanne Calment to you, friend.

Genesis 6:3.

Because, as we all know, the answer to life (5, Funny)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058809)

is 42. And 114 is 42 backwards if you add the 1's together. The opposite of life is death - metaphysically speaking of course.

Look a bunny!

what?

Re:Because, as we all know, the answer to life (5, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058917)

If you factor out 114, you get 19, 3, and 2. (19 * 3 * 2 = 114)
If you add these up, you get 24.
Flip the numbers (since death is the opposite of life) and you get 42.
Thus, the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.

Lifestyle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058817)

A lifetime of healthy food (fruits, vegetables, nuts and algae), regular exercise, no stress, meditation, happiness and joy. Achievable, but not easy.

Re:Lifestyle (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059051)

A lifetime of healthy food (fruits, vegetables, nuts and algae), regular exercise, no stress, meditation, happiness and joy. Achievable, but not easy.

Or just to as the world's oldest person ever did, smoke for 96 years.... I doubt what shape you were in 50+ years ago matters for whether you become 100, 110 or 120.

Not all of the oldest living people are alive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058849)

The article mentions that many of the records of the oldest living people, in particular people over the age of 100, come from Japan. The problem with this is that it was recently found in Japan that many of the "reported" post-100 people actually died many years ago, and were merely being reported as still alive by their families in order to continue collecting their pensions. Home visits to verify the people's living status were rebuffed with "He's not feeling well today, and isn't accepting visitors", which the government agents were to polite to object to.

Genisis 6:3 (-1, Troll)

EliSowash (2532508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058857)

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

Re:Genisis 6:3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058999)

Uh, yeah, thanks for that. I always look to religion for the correct answer to question science already has the answer for, Remind me again, which which hand should I throw stones when I'm murdering women for having been raped?

Re:Genisis 6:3 (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059189)

The one that you DIDN'T use ot thrown the man in who raped her.

Is it that hard to figure out?

Re:Genisis 6:3 (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059199)

[a] question science already has the answer for. . .

Incidentally, the article we're using about says that scientists don't really understand why 114 seems to be the end of the curve.

Re:Genisis 6:3 (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059123)

Unless your name be Methuselah or Jared or Noah or Eve or Adam or Seth or Kenan or Enos or Mahalalel or Lamech or Shem or Eber of Cainan or Arpachshad or Salah or Enoch or Peleg or Reu or Seruq or Job or Terah or Isaac or Abraham or Nahor or Jacob or Esau or Ishmael or...

Time travel (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058859)

From TFA:

A person born in the US at the turn of the 20th century could expect to live 49.2 years. Their ancestor born in 2003 could reasonably expect to see their 77th birthday.

The emphasis is mine.

Re:Time travel (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059083)

Ooh, a lesson on not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

Re:Time travel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059215)

"Concentrate," hissed Zaphod, "on his name."
"What is it?" asked Arthur.
"Zaphod Beeblebrox the Fourth."
"What?"
"Zaphod Beeblebrox the Fourth. Concentrate!"
"The Fourth?"
"Yeah. Listen, I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox, my father was Zaphod Beeblebrox the Second, my grandfather Zaphod Beeblebrox the Third..."
"What?"
"There was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine. Now concentrate!"

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058863)

No I'm in no way trying to start a religious discussion or argument, but in the book of Genesis, God says "man's days shall be limited to 120 years." For me, rather than extend my life to a point where my body is broken down and tired, I'd rather live less years and enjoy them.

You will die when God says you will die (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058877)

And right now that target of death is "precisely cemented right at 114." Good luck trying to convince Him that we should be able to wreck havoc for more that a century!

Time for a ethics of dying (3, Insightful)

zarlino (985890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058881)

Even if medicine could keep me alive that long, I'd rather just live a normal lifespan and make space for my sons.

Re:Time for a ethics of dying (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058961)

/dev/world is full - please kill yourself or anyone you can

Re:Time for a ethics of dying (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059011)

At this point medicine can't keep you alive all that long. TFA pointed out that in spite of advances the best they can do is get you to ~114. Then they speculated on some sci-fiy stuff about keeping you alive indefinitely. You see doom and gloom in that, but as long as we're in the realm of sci-fi pipe dreams, i say you could take off in a spaceship. Maybe FTL travel isn't attainable anytime soon. We don't need it if a 100 year flight to a new planet is only an annoyance.

Re:Time for a ethics of dying (4, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059101)

as an aside, euthanasia and predetermined lifespans are recurring themes in sci-fi. Usually it's a story where people are only allowed to live x years and the protagonist rebels reaffirming that people want to live! It's a good story because it's true about humanity. I don't think i've ever seen a story where society has decided not that it will kill you after x years, but instead that after x years, it becomes your duty to humanity to start doing more and more dangerous things for the benefit of the race. Youd do stuff like going to habitable worlds and other grand adventures where you'll likely be killed by alien monsters.

Re:Time for a ethics of dying (1)

Suferick (2438038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059039)

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov's first published novel, 'Pebble in the Sky', which featured compulsory and universal euthanasia at age 60

Re:Time for a ethics of dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059053)

Fuck your sons. Step aside, I'll live forever and take up your space (and theirs).

Luddite.

Re:Time for a ethics of dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059117)

You'd rather pass the buck onto the next generation rather than make the most of your own existence? I don't see how that is even defensible, let alone ethical.

Obviously... (4, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058891)

...God plays with the same modus operandi than most corporations built to his image; It simply planned obsolescence.

A statistical blimp (4, Interesting)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058911)

Here's the gist of the article, and also an explanation of why it isn't really interesting at all:

“This is a fascinating phenomenon and nobody has really much idea of what’s going on. What we do know is that it’s absolutely essential to not jump to conclusions about what’s going on. Time and time again over the decades past demographers have been brutally misled by short-term phenomena, by statistics gathered only over a few years. Blips happen for all manner of impenetrable reasons. In this case we’re talking about people born in a small segment of time, around 1900, and most of them born in particular countries and going through certain types of life they might not have gone through had they been born 20 years previously or 20 years later. There are many factors called ‘cohort effects’ that can cause early life phenomena to have an influence on longevity.” Bottom line: don’t believe the hype.

Re:A statistical blimp (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059005)

So what has the non-rigid dirigible got to do with it?

Re:A statistical blimp (1)

needs2bfree (1256494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059065)

What we do know is that it’s absolutely essential to not jump to conclusions

But then what will I use my auto posting jump to conclusions mat for?

Re:A statistical blimp (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059097)

The cohort effect is fascinating; there's a generation in the UK born around 1935 who have extraordinary mortality, and every year it gets better and better. Yet there is no real causal explanation for it (lots of theories, such as WWII rationing, but no verifiable causal links). On the present topic, there is a well known theory in mortality studies that death rates stabilise at high ages, around 110 in humans. Research done on the US Social Security Master Death File has suggested that this rate is (IIRC) about 46%. Given that of a population of 300 million, only a few thousand (rough estimate from ELT15, the only life table I have handy that runs that high) reach 110, it seems pretty reasonable you'll get very few lives surviving beyond 114 given the compounding of death rates.

They do in Soviet Georgia.... (2)

bossk538 (1682744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058923)

...by eating Dannon Yogurt.

Ugly Bags of Mostly Water (2)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058927)

Turn me into a machine, then I'll live past 114!

What will it take for humans... (5, Interesting)

slidersv (972720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058939)

...to live beyond that limit? Cryogenic freezing, I guess. But seriously, the problem is not the ability, but purpose. It's one thing to be able to survive into 100+, and completely another to enjoy your time on this planet. If you survive for 150 years, but enjoy the first 50 and suffer for the next 100, that sounds more like a Doom episode: Hell on Earth. All people are measuring when it comes to age is heart beating. But what they should be focusing on are different questions. Like: "do you enjoy getting up in the morning?" "how fast can you read?" "and write?" "do you hear me well enough?" "can you describe me what you see outside the window?" Can people over 80 on this forum add to this discussion, if they are interested to live another 34 years, until the "current limit" of 114?

Deperessing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058947)

The depressing part of this is that within a couple of years all people who were born in the 1800's will be dead.

Oblig. (4, Interesting)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058951)

Tyrell: The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Batty: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship... sinks.
Batty: What about EMS-3 recombination?
Tyrell: We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
Batty: Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation - and you've got a virus again... but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Batty: But not to last.

Thank you, thank you... (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059193)

Is this not the greatest bit of dialog in the history of cinema?

Who Wants to Live Forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39058963)

There's no chance for us, it's all decided for us. This world has only one sweet moment set aside for us. Who wants to live forever? Who dares to love forever when love must die?

Re:Who Wants to Live Forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059089)

I have something to say. It's better to burn out than to fade away!

Why People Don't Live Past 114? (1)

slidersv (972720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058971)

Cuz they don't want to

Contractual? (5, Funny)

Senior Frac (110715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39058983)

I'm betting there is some warranty clause that kicks in at 115.

Quality not quantity (5, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059001)

No one likes the idea of dying, but I think we might be less traumatized by it if we felt our time on earth meant something. Let's face it, working a McJob, fighting with an unfaithful spouse, buying lots of crap on Amazon.com and cheering for corporate football teams just doesn't make us "feel alive."

Good news everyone! (1)

masteva (996554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059013)

We just need to figure out what is keeping Professor Farnsworth alive and we will be set! Although it will likely involve growing many things in jars and several sins against nature... but it would be for science!!!

Should we? (1)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059021)

Should we even live past that age - from a practical perspective?

We're already overpopulating the planet, not from a space to live perspective, but from a resources perspective.

We're already using resources faster than the planet can sustain them, and we will need the equivalent of two earths to sustain us in 2050.

And that's only talking about food. We've reached peak oil, and tar sands will only sustain us for so long (and pollute much more than crude oil ever did).

Starting to wonder if population control programs may not be our future. You can't have both old age and increasing amounts of births per person.

Re:Should we? (1)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059047)

Re:Should we? (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059169)

Should we even live past that age - from a practical perspective?

I'd rather take population control and live to be a thousand years old. The trick here being, of course, to make sure that when you age you don't spend the first 50 of those years healthy and then spend 950 years old and weak.

I suspect most others would feel the same way. I'd gladly sign a contract stating that I would not procreate irresponsibly if it meant I could lead an extremely long and healthy life.

Re:Should we? (1)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059197)

Living for, say, 1000 years would cause you to take up 10x as much resources as you would have otherwise.

Meaning that, in the grand scheme of things, it is a bad tradeoff for sustainability.

Re:Should we? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059205)

The problem is the plural. Would be very impractical if everyone lives up to 120 years. But what about you in particular? Ok, maybe not you or me, there are people that are practically swimming in money, what about them? If there are a way to push the limit a few years, they will, even if that goes around bathing in the blood of babies every day.

Requires much more boobies (2)

cod3r_ (2031620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059027)

10 minutes of boobs a day keeps the doctors away.. old fogies need to find the interwebs.. Our generations will live till 150 easily..

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059029)

We are not extending the potential life span of humans, only reducing the impact of disease and physical/mental problems that are the usual causes of a reduced life span, with the use of drugs and lifestyle.

Time travel is what it takes (2)

bregmata (1749266) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059031)

"A person born in the US at the turn of the 20th century could expect to live 49.2 years. Their ancestor born in 2003 could reasonably expect to see their 77th birthday".

Wow. Just wow. Any article involving the violation of the known laws of physics is a waste of the electrons it was written in.

The rest is crap, too.

Irrelevant (1)

slydder (549704) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059033)

until the quality of life over age 60 is as good as at age 30 it's completely irrelevant how long over 100 we live.

Oh, yeah? (2)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059035)

Whatever happened to, "Hope I die before I get old"?

I find myself thinking it is unfortunate (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059075)

I find myself thinking it is unfortunate that we keep people alive for so long. My grandmother who is 84 is living in an assisted living facility. It's one thing to live into your hundreds if you can actually do things that make living life worthwhile, but it seems the elderly I've seen living in those facilities are miserable. It's a horrible place to live. You can play board games with other strange elderly people that you may not like, or you can watch tv, or you can stare at the walls and wish for death.

Maybe I'm not your standard issue human, but I sincerely hope I don't live anywhere close to 114.

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059081)

just dont stop breathing

Ever heard of Telomeres? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059091)

I remember when smart people commented on slashdot.

Telomeres (1)

piggywig (780829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059131)

There is actually one quite well known reason why we would have a limit to our lifespan and that comes from the fact that on a cellular level we cannot live forever. The ends of each of our chromosomes have regions called telomeres which basically act to protect the chomosomes from deterioration and end to end fusion. They are made up of repetitive sequences of DNA. With each round of cell division, the telomeres become shorter until they reach a length called the Hayflick limit where the cell will no longer be able to divide. No more new cells can be created and hence the organism can't go on. Of course there are circumstances where the telomeres are lengthened, for example in sperm and egg cells and to a certain extent with stem cells. This also happens in cancer cells, if they weren't able to lengthen their telomeres, the cancers would effectively die of old age, which is why finding ways to block the lengthening of telomeres is a pretty active area of research in cancer biology.

Heart rate (4, Funny)

ewrong (1053160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059135)

Well according to this post http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/02/15/2338229/scientists-study-how-little-exercise-you-need?utm_source=feedburnerGoogle+UK&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)&utm_content=Google+UK [slashdot.org] earlier today. A person's maximum heart rate can be calculated: "very roughly, by subtracting our age from 220".

From these two 'facts' that I have learnt today I conclude that once your maximum heart rate drops to 106 - you die.

Questions that need answering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39059187)

Why People Don't Live Past 114 - Answer
Why Don't People Live Past 114 - Question

The submitter/editor would do well to learn the difference

Precisely "cemented" at 114 ? (1, Informative)

aepervius (535155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39059203)

Do I need to bother reading the article, since the oldest person ever alive was 122 ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?