40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

If you randomly choose a present day 40 year old American and a present day 65 year old, who is more likely to reach 90?

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

ill answer if you rate my dinner david

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

You cooked me dinner?

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

these seem about equal, perhaps a small edge to the 65 year old.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

ugh not health and fitness too.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

I choose the 65 year old.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

40

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

Would answers change if you say 20 year old versus 65 year old?

Clearly this boils down to one thing:
Probability of dying between the ages of 40 and 65 versus the medical advancements made in 25 years.

I'll take medical advancements in 25 years, I think the probability of dying b/w 40 and 65 is pretty small.

I'll way favor 20 in a 20 vs 65 to reach 90.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

I imagine this could be solved mathematically.

Let f(x) be a function of the average life expectancy of an american male, where x is the year.

Let g(x) be the death rate for american males in one year where x is the age.

Find out where the two functions intersect. If it's > 40 years then you chose the 65 year old.

This is probably wrong and oversimplified but someone who's better at math should be able to solve this.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly this boils down to one thing:
Probability of dying between the ages of 40 and 65 versus the medical advancements made in 25 years.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think cohort effects are also pretty important. 40 year olds were born in the 60s and 65 year olds in the 40s. Were the 65 year olds exposed to more hazardous materials that might have a lasting detrimental effect on health (radon watch hands, pesticides, thalidomide, lead paint, asbestos)? Is this offset somewhat by the increasing obesity trend? Are the current 40 year olds fatter by a significant margin so that their fatness offsets (in terms of life expectancy) their hopefully smaller degree of exposure to toxins?

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

The 65 year old is 25 years closer to 90.
He's got to be the favorite.

What % of 65 year olds are overweight or obese?
What % of 40 year olds are overweight or obese?

It's possible the 40 year olds are more out of shape.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

The fact that the 65 year old even made it to 65 favors him strongly as far as genetics and social factors(poor people don't last as long and often have far unhealthier lifestyles). The 40-year olds haven't been sorted out by those two factors nearly so much.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this boils down to one thing:
Probability of dying between the ages of 40 and 65 versus the medical advancements made in 25 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

also the probablility of a random 40 year old having access to those future life extension tech. since for a random person they probably won't have access, it makes the comparison like sometihng between two things , each at a very very low probability.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, they're not that significant. The great majority of 40 yos make it to 65, so the question becomes one of medical advancement and the avoidance of large scale threats to survival.

I have to go with medicine. 25 years will see many of the aging related diseases cured or at least well managed, particularly the big killers of cancer and heart disease.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables for these two favor the 65 year old?

Perhaps you could link some tables or some evidence instead of just harping on the same subject.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, they're not that significant. The great majority of 40 yos make it to 65, so the question becomes one of medical advancement and the avoidance of large scale threats to survival.

I have to go with medicine. 25 years will see many of the aging related diseases cured or at least well managed, particularly the big killers of cancer and heart disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've reviewed life tables and watched how they've changed as mortality rates have increased (due in part to advancements in medicine) and you've found they have little to bear on the present question that isn't eclipsed by your ability to predict watershed advancements in medicine radically affecting mortality rates in the next 25 years. Fascinating.

As long as we are bloviating, I predict changes in preventative medicine will have a greater affect on mortality rates in the next 40 years than advancements in chronic care.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables for these two favor the 65 year old?

Perhaps you could link some tables or some evidence instead of just harping on the same subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in doing research for you on this particular question.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables for these two favor the 65 year old?

Perhaps you could link some tables or some evidence instead of just harping on the same subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in doing research for you on this particular question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. So you just wanna troll?

Well then, by all means... Carry on.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
mortality rates have increased (due in part to advancements in medicine)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's discouraging. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ah. So you just wanna troll?

Well then, by all means... Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is trolling to suggest that these wannabe exercises in thought approach being just the opposite.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mortality rates have increased (due in part to advancements in medicine)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's discouraging. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, they're not that significant. The great majority of 40 yos make it to 65, so the question becomes one of medical advancement and the avoidance of large scale threats to survival.

I have to go with medicine. 25 years will see many of the aging related diseases cured or at least well managed, particularly the big killers of cancer and heart disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've reviewed life tables and watched how they've changed as mortality rates have increased (due in part to advancements in medicine) and you've found they have little to bear on the present question that isn't eclipsed by your ability to predict watershed advancements in medicine radically affecting mortality rates in the next 25 years. Fascinating.

As long as we are bloviating, I predict changes in preventative medicine will have a greater affect on mortality rates in the next 40 years than advancements in chronic care.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine, if you want to be an [censored] about it, then I'll show that the numbers are exactly as everyone suspects without looking at your tables.

95.3% remain alive at 40.
80% remain alive at 65.
17% remain alive at 90.

Just as everyone knows from common experience, mortality goes way up after 65 or so. Just as everyone also knows, the proportion of people making it to 90 has gone up greatly over time. See the graph below, page 6:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

Monster increase even from the 1950s.

Just as everyone also knows, drugs and better medical/emergency care have played a big part in increasing the longevity of the old, and there is little reason to think that's going to stop and every reason to think it's going to accelerate.

I agree with you on preventative medicine obviously, but it won't matter. By the time we're messing with genes sufficiently to prevent things like the majority of cancer and heart disease, we'll have some pretty advanced treatments.

None of these tables were necessary...this stuff is everyday knowledge for most people.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
None of these tables were necessary...this stuff is everyday knowledge for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. It is more compelling to say, "I think our progress on the genome and advancements in fractional friggeroftery make today's 40 year old a solid favourite to live more total years on the planet than today's 65 year old" than to say, "Comparing the migration in 50 years of life tables of 40 and 65 year old male life expectancies indicates..." Not only is it more compelling, but it is compelling because everybody knows what is in the life tables.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

I admire your turn of phrase but Mr. Sklansky had a question which is still going unanswered.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me how much we can talk about such things and even purport to do so logically and intelligently without referring to life tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found some life tables. The stupid site put my computer into an infinite loop.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]

95.3% remain alive at 40.
80% remain alive at 65.
17% remain alive at 90.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those numbers seem awfully high. What about wars and
auto accidents? Or just random violence. That ought
to kill off a few.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
I admire your turn of phrase but Mr. Sklansky had a question which is still going unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take the 65 year old.

Happy?

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

95.3% remain alive at 40.
80% remain alive at 65.
17% remain alive at 90.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those numbers seem awfully high. What about wars and
auto accidents? Or just random violence. That ought
to kill off a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those crazy actuaries consider exposure to risk, too.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I admire your turn of phrase but Mr. Sklansky had a question which is still going unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take the 65 year old.

Happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did some more digging. Here's an interesting article giving estimates from the US Census Bureau:

http://www.civicventures.org/publica..._americans.cfm

Extrapolating from these figures:

Of the >83% of current 40 year olds who reach 65, ~36% will reach 90.
Of the 100% of current 65 year olds, 27% will reach 90.

My predictions are slightly in front, but it's close. Two things can alter this. One is radical advances in medicine any time from now to 25+ years in the future. If cancer or heart disease is cured, or anti aging drugs are found, or nanomedicine explodes as some predict, it will give a massive advantage to the current 40 year olds likely not predicted by a conservative census bureau. I'm not sure people are aware how much understanding we will soon gain from exponentially increasing computer speeds (guaranteed for the next 10 years at least) with things like protein folding, molecular design and modelling, imaging, microsurgery, targeted treatments, and so on. The flip side is large scale threats like plagues, war and so on occuring 25+ years in the future.

Personally I think unaccounted for medical advances outdo existential threats and I have this one in the bag.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I admire your turn of phrase but Mr. Sklansky had a question which is still going unanswered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take the 65 year old.

Happy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could he answer either way without your hating it?

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

[ QUOTE ]

Personally I think unaccounted for medical advances outdo existential threats and I have this one in the bag.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about new studies which conclude that due to obesity, the life span of US citizens is getting shorter?

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

In an era of unprecedented and rapidly compounding technological advancement, actuarial tables may be the best indicator we have, but that doesn't make them very good.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

The 40 year old. He has more time to turn around any unhealthy habits he has and improve his fitness. That is assuming he makes the effort.

Re: 40 Year Old Vs 65 Year Old American Hitting 90
 

Big assumption. He also has more time to pick up bad habits that he doesn't get over by age 65, too.