|
|
|
|
#2
11-30-2007, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#3
11-30-2007, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#4
11-30-2007, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
11-30-2007, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#7
11-30-2007, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
11-30-2007, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#9
11-30-2007, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
11-30-2007, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
