I am not sure what relevance ‘pop-science’ has unless pop science means non science.
I get that you are saying ‘maybe, possibly, not completely ridiculous to think’, etc., however until it has been demonstrated to be a possibility, the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
Something which is evidenced to be not possible does not suddenly become ‘possible’ just because one can imagine it.
It’s just really low quality sciences journalism, so it often distorts facts and whatnot, but there usually is some article making some point.
Just as there is with your article. They’re essentially reporting on what they’re opinion of the implications of rhe study is.
the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
No it isn’t. Show a single study saying that.
You can’t, because scientists don’t make sweeping conclusions about futures that haven’t happened.
Something which is evidenced to be not possible
Again, you’re pulling this out of your arse, because you feel like emphasising a thing online. Not good, man.
Do you know how proving negatives even works?
What your originally said is basically a claim that human medicine, society and thus life expectancy will have literally zero advancement in a century, and only supporting it with an article about a study which says that the rate of increase for life expectancy is slowing down. That still means there is an increase in life expectancy. That means that most probably, in 2125, someone from the 1900s will be alive.
You know, because you took the longest life of today and then added 100 years.
It would be preposterous to think there will be no increase or advancement for a hundreds years.
It has been proposed that no fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent today. Studies in the biodemography of human longevity indicate a late-life mortality deceleration law: that death rates level off at advanced ages to a late-life mortality plateau. That is, there is no fixed upper limit to human longevity, or fixed maximal human lifespan.
Wikipedia has really fucked it up on this one — given his certain you are that science is certain that there is a fixed human maximum life span… unless… unless… I was correct in assuming that you were talking out of your arse? Yes. That would explain it.
We also have science showing that life expectancy is constantly increasing. Even you linked an article which relied on a study that noted that as a fact. They showed that the increase is now slower than it used to be — but it is still there. Thus, it would be preposterous to hypothesise that the current record for longest lives won’t be broken constantly as life expectancy increases.
Observed maximum life span isn’t synonymous with life expectancy.
Some low quality science journal says that ‘maybe we could live forever, or like, 150 or something’ and I say ‘cool story bro’.
You have no science showing that, the only science you even indirectly linked support exactly what I am saying, and I just quoted Wikipedia, which uses sources.
People like you are why Iemmy is almost as bad as Reddit… talking in circles, saying nothing.
I literally laughed out loud. You’re speaking out of your arse, just like I said.
It has been proposed that no fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent today.[8][9] Studies in the biodemography of human longevity indicate a late-life mortality deceleration law: that death rates level off at advanced ages to a late-life mortality plateau. That is, there is no fixed upper limit to human longevity, or fixed maximal human lifespan.[10]
8: The Biology of Life Span: A Quantitative Approach. New York City: Starwood Academic Publishers.
Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you.
I am not sure what relevance ‘pop-science’ has unless pop science means non science.
I get that you are saying ‘maybe, possibly, not completely ridiculous to think’, etc., however until it has been demonstrated to be a possibility, the idea that a human might live until 150 is just about as preposterous as the articles’ postulation of the potential for physical immortality.
Something which is evidenced to be not possible does not suddenly become ‘possible’ just because one can imagine it.
“Popularised” “popular”.
Sort of like how tabloids aren’t news.
It’s just really low quality sciences journalism, so it often distorts facts and whatnot, but there usually is some article making some point.
Just as there is with your article. They’re essentially reporting on what they’re opinion of the implications of rhe study is.
No it isn’t. Show a single study saying that.
You can’t, because scientists don’t make sweeping conclusions about futures that haven’t happened.
Again, you’re pulling this out of your arse, because you feel like emphasising a thing online. Not good, man.
Do you know how proving negatives even works?
What your originally said is basically a claim that human medicine, society and thus life expectancy will have literally zero advancement in a century, and only supporting it with an article about a study which says that the rate of increase for life expectancy is slowing down. That still means there is an increase in life expectancy. That means that most probably, in 2125, someone from the 1900s will be alive.
You know, because you took the longest life of today and then added 100 years.
It would be preposterous to think there will be no increase or advancement for a hundreds years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span
Wikipedia has really fucked it up on this one — given his certain you are that science is certain that there is a fixed human maximum life span… unless… unless… I was correct in assuming that you were talking out of your arse? Yes. That would explain it.
That’s a long and boring response.
The evidence that no one can live past 123 is that no one has ever lived past 123. We have a sample size of billions on that statistic.
Some low quality science journal says that ‘maybe we could live forever, or like, 150 or something’ and I say ‘cool story bro’.
I can imagine that it might be true, but that does not make it possible.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
People like you are why Iemmy is almost as bad as Reddit… talking in circles, saying nothing.
So you’re saying there’s an absence of evidence?
We also have science showing that life expectancy is constantly increasing. Even you linked an article which relied on a study that noted that as a fact. They showed that the increase is now slower than it used to be — but it is still there. Thus, it would be preposterous to hypothesise that the current record for longest lives won’t be broken constantly as life expectancy increases.
Observed maximum life span isn’t synonymous with life expectancy.
You have no science showing that, the only science you even indirectly linked support exactly what I am saying, and I just quoted Wikipedia, which uses sources.
I literally laughed out loud. You’re speaking out of your arse, just like I said.
8: The Biology of Life Span: A Quantitative Approach. New York City: Starwood Academic Publishers.
9: “Book Reviews: Validation of Exceptional Longevity” (PDF). Population Dev Rev. 26 (2): 403–04.
10: “Biodemography of Human Longevity”. International Conference on Longevity.