Posted on 08/22/2009 1:40:22 PM PDT by decimon
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, often the harbinger of bad news about e. coli outbreaks and swine flu, recently had some good news: The life expectancy of Americans is higher than ever, at almost 78.
Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.
But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans were not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
What’s missing?
As a graveyard (and general history) conniseur, I can assure it’s true.
Many people died at ancient ages very long ago, such as in their 80s back in the 1700s. The problem was many died in infancy (tons) up until probably mid-1900s (I have an uncle that died as an infant/toddler in the ‘30s). They’re all over the graveyards. And that’s just regular death.
I think the problem - as usual - is that they’re using averages rather than medians.
Meanwhile, I don’t believe much that there’s been a decline in murder. In some places, sure, but not in the cities!
Plenty died in their 40s and 50s from diseases we can now control, such as diabetes.
I believe that modern medicine has reduced more than infant mortality. In fact, he gives example in the second paragraph. Yet he concentrates on infant mortality and maximum human lifespan.
Maximum human lifespan may have remained roughly the same but I think there is a higher percentage of people reaching that maximum.
A properly functioning human body is probably good for 80-90 years. Take away infant mortality, and the median life expectancy has probably not changed all that much.
We DO have better medicines and what not, but then again, our lifestyles as of late are making us die even sooner than we should, if we didn't have such poor lifestyle habits.
Yes, true, but actually probably the biggest threat outside an outbreak was pregnancy/childbirth. It is a terrible thing.
You’ll see lots of young WOMEN in the graveyards, about 20-30. Sometimes along with their “infant son”.
Bottom line is people who were pretty healthy and didn’t get unlucky other ways (accidents and murder) could make it up to the 80s.
That people did not age any sooner, as the “old at 46” myth implies, is apparent when we look at the ages of the first 10 presidents at the time they first took office:
Washington-57
Adams-61
Jefferson-57
Madison-58
Monroe-58
John Quincy Adams-57
Andrew Jackson-62
Martin Van Buren-54
William Harrison-68
John Tyler-50
The average for this group (@58) is considerably higher in fact than for the last 10 presidents (@53).
Obama-47
GW Bush-54
Clinton-46
GHW Bush-54
Ronald Reagan-69
Jimmy Carter-52
Gerald Ford-61
Richard Nixon-56
Lyndon Johnson-55
John Kennedy-43
I can count on 2 hands all relatives that have died under 90 in the last 200 years.
I have 4 that have lived past 100.
My Great Great Grandfather died @ 104 and I met my Great Grandfather when he was 100 that died at 101.
I’m thinking not. Certainly, if you take infant mortality out of the mix, the average life span increases. However, people routinely died of infectious diseases in the past that we now consider much less of a threat. My father’s father died at age 32 of pneumonia after having the flu. This was before antibiotics. Clean water and sewer systems also decreased deaths from diseases.
I think the point of the article is that the human life span (that is, what you could live to be if you didn’t die from infectious disease, accident, etc) have not changed much. I think it’s interesting that in the Bible, God gave man a lifespan of about 120 years. That seems to be the upper limit.
You have fantastic genes behind you!
I've seen that figure in non-biblical context. A guesstimate of what would be normal without disease.
Deaths during childbirth also served to lower life expectancy.
Probably longer than that. But the statement is misleading. What we have today is a system of Mulligans. Got appendicitis? No problem, we'll do a simple operation and presto, you get a mulligan to keep trying for that maximum age. Got a bad bacterial infection? No problem take some penicillin and take another Mulligan. I'm 44 and have already gotten two Mulligan's (once at infancy and once at 24) for easily treatable problems that would most likely have killed me 100 years ago.
Yes, it’s interesting how rarely anyone lives past 120, I think the oldest verified was somewhat over 122. That seems about the limit the human body was designed to last. I know people who have lived into their 90s, but they all seemed to start failing fairly quickly at that point. My 84 year old Dad is hale and hardy and plans to live to 100. A very good reason to not want Obamacare.
That’s true. I had pneumonia as a baby and almost died, and if not for an oxygen tent and antibiotics I’m sure I would not be here now. I would probably also have died in childbirth with my first son. So, I guess I’ve had 2 mulligans myself! Of course, I just consider them blessings! ;)
hundreds of times more credit is due to the non medical sciences. For exponential improvements in sanitation, home and workplace safety, affordable nutrition, and on and on and on,
And the most overlooked modern medical care that saves many lives...dentistry.
Some people certainly lived to ripe old ages in the past, but not nearly as many as today, and it is not just a matter of infant deaths.
A gross exageration and a bit of forgetfulness about medical science. Draining swamps and spraying mosquitoes WAS led by medical science.
I'm not sure traumatic injuries have been reduced at all, however, I am certain that treating them has improved to the point that almost no one dies from a compound fracture now.
Sanitation also came out of the medical sciences.
Not arguing with your contention but the draining of swamps was done before it was known why that reduced such as malaria.
Interesting maybe, but not surprising. Every time a chromosome is replicated, a little bit of the end of the chromosome is lost. Fortunately, chromosomes come with things at the end called telomeres, which are DNA sequences which (basically) are unused "junk" and serve primarily to protect the "important" DNA.
A telomere is often compred to an aglet (the plastic part of your shoelace which keeps the lace from unravelling), FWIW.
Eventually, you run out of telomere, and chromosomes begin to lose encoding DNA during replication. The body stops making the right stuff, and in some cases makes the wrong stuff, and eventually the wheels on the bus stop going round and round.
At the same time, the longer you live, the slower you move, and the more chances you have to get hit by a bus.
Finally, we have cancer. The body has defenses against cancer (interestingly, the "reason" for telomeres is so that one of the body's defenses against cancer doesn't kill us). IIRC, there are three main ones. Each can be defeated by genetic mutation. Once all three are gone, you're hosed. The longer you live, even if you avoid all of the things that cause high probabilities of said mutations, the higher the odds of eventually hitting the trifecta.
Yup, I’m a biology teacher, so I know about telomeres and I’m indeed familiar with that. :)
I find this verse interesting re. the topic at hand.
We're doing a bit better than that but not much.
Sure, but it was coincidental and generally had little impact because it was not done systematically, but rather as a matter of draining useful ground for production. Thus some would be drained and some wouldn't. 18th and early 19th century Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. etc. were plagued with Yellow Fever, despite a strong push to make productive use of the marshes where feasible. The problem was that often it just wasn't feasible from an agricultural economic viewpoint.
The sanitation leaps of the 19th century were absolutely tied to eliminating disease. Many scientists connected the dots of cause and effect, even if they couldn't yet exactly explain the why.
What is worth note though is that I doubt the men of which we speak would have ever thought to divide science into separate pursuits. They were generalists who explored sanitation one day and astronomy the next.
They may have drained the swamp surrounding D.C., but there's a new strain of Yellow Fever that has devastated the GOP.
Indeed.
Don’t forget vaccines; arguably MUCH more important than antibiotics in increasing life expectancy.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks decimon. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Ask any genealogist. I’ve seen lots of cemetery indexes listing people who died in the 1600’s in the colonies who were in their 70’s or 80’s. At first I thought it was a little odd because “everybody knows” people died young back then.
Read on.
Yeah, heh... one of my ancestors passed the century mark before she passed over 250 years ago. In the Middle Ages a young man from northern Africa wound up meeting the Pope of that time, converting to Christianity, and (having been born a few years from the end of the previous one) lived to be over 100 years old and saw the entire century. :’)
ITMT, the mortality rate has never changed: one death per live birth...with one notable exception.
Lot of them getting hit by the West de Nile virus, too.
Just going up my mom’s line - ggrandfather - 91, gg-grandfather - 83, ggg-grandfather 80, his wife’s father - 100, his g-grandfather - 83 born in 1695. That’s one of many just in my family tree.
A lesser percentage of people reached the elder years.
I think the author made a good point in debunking a popular notion. I think the author misleads in not providing a more complete picture of what he discusses.
OK....so how do we protect them? Thats the billion dollar mousetrap.
I remember reading recently about Polk’s grandson still being alive.
Now THOSE are some genes.
If you mean “fixing” telomeres so they don’t run out, we’d probably want to find the cure for cancer first (cancer being cells that continue to replicate, and refuse to die when they are supposed to).
But then I suppose other diseases will just pop up. I believe that one of the primary “causes” for cancer today is quality medical care. 100 years ago, if you had a heart attack you died and didn’t live to eventually get cancer. Today, you get a second chance. If we cure cancer we’ll live on to get [something], IMO.
I dont disagree with you. My dad had his first heart attack at 65. For the next ten years he went through a stroke, PE, Kidney failure, another heart attack, and finally lung cancer.
Kind of makes you wonder....
You could be right, I don’t know about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.