Is 72 the new 30?
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, said progress in lowering the risk of death at all ages has been so rapid since 1900 that life expectancy has risen faster than it did in the previous 200 millennia since modern man began to evolve from hominid species…
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, looked at Swedish and Japanese men – two countries with the longest life expectancies today. It concluded that their counterparts in 1800 would have had lifespans that were closer to those of the earliest hunter-gatherer humans than they would to adult men in both countries today.
Those primitive hunter gatherers, at age 30, had the same odds of dying as a modern Swedish or Japanese man would face at 72.
Scientists who worked on the study said it was unclear what the possible upper limit for life expectancy would be. “How much longer can we extend life?” said Oskar Burger, lead researcher on the study. “We just don’t know.”











Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No, it is not.
Blake on February 26, 2013 at 10:43 PM
The Holy Scriptures give an average lifespan of seventy to eighty years. Discounting infant mortality and warfare, that’s always been about the sum of it.
So 72 is the new… 72.
Scribbler on February 26, 2013 at 10:44 PM
We shall never know. The full story is behind a subscription/registration wall.
nobar on February 26, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Are they talking about child coverage age for Obamacare?
Oil Can on February 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM
I think it holds up to the rest of the trends. Take into consideration all of the millennials unlikely to be able to find work, get married, move away from home… 30 is on pace to become the new 14.
Gingotts on February 26, 2013 at 10:48 PM
$billions or $trillions?
Ronnie on February 26, 2013 at 10:54 PM
I’m sure if your 72 you want to think it is. But its not.
brewcrew67 on February 26, 2013 at 10:58 PM
I’ll pick No.
Mimzey on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM
No it isn’t. It’s an absurd comparison as is the argument that,
Neither the earliest hunter-gatherers nor those in 1800 were any different physically (except for natural wear and tear) than people of today. The difference is the fact that they succumbed to diseases that are easily treated now. I don’t know about the early hunter-gatherers, but 72-year-olds now are just as decrepit as their counterparts in 1800 minus the offset for the treatment of disease.
I’d also note the flaw that percentages hides. It’s not so much that people live longer but that more people live to the limit, and that increases life expectancy, not so much the length of natural life.
Dusty on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Wait, I’m going to start feeling better?
Cindy Munford on February 26, 2013 at 11:06 PM
The real question isn’t how much longer scientists can extend life, but how much more grant money do they want.
Dusty on February 26, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Give the nanny-staters 10 years and we’ll be asking, “Is 30 the new 72?”
Dusty on February 26, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Can a woman get pregnant at 72? No. She can’t pretty much after 45, and it’s basically impossible after 50.
wildcat72 on February 26, 2013 at 11:22 PM
This.
notropis on February 26, 2013 at 11:36 PM
Sure, if they start plugging us in a la The Matrix at 30.
flataffect on February 26, 2013 at 11:37 PM
People live longer because of better nutrition, medicine and vaccines and better living conditions.
And P.S.
We didn’t evolve from lower species.
NeoKong on February 26, 2013 at 11:45 PM
lol, I’m 59 and feel 55.
arnold ziffel on February 26, 2013 at 11:45 PM
I’m 40 and feel 60.
wildcat72 on February 26, 2013 at 11:46 PM
So much BS
Schadenfreude on February 26, 2013 at 11:51 PM
It depends on the legs of the dame I’m dancing with.
Seth Halpern on February 26, 2013 at 11:56 PM
dammit! every time I think I’m getting close to the end, they move the finish line…
affenhauer on February 27, 2013 at 12:08 AM
When I see a 72-year-old in the NHL, then I will believe it.
Greek Fire on February 27, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Sure when one can live until 140 years old and work at 72 for another 40 years.
tjexcite on February 27, 2013 at 7:31 AM
Why will we even need a retirement age anymore? Get rid of social security, completely. Union workers will retire at 50, live the life O’Reilly and the rest of us will work ’til we die. Wait. That’s how it is now…
Fallon on February 27, 2013 at 7:49 AM
No – in the ObamiNation, 29 is the new 40, whether one considers age or hours worked.
Steve Eggleston on February 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM
I’m 58 and feel 72. My hip is shot and my knee is close behind. The last couple of years I’ve had trouble talking so I suspect a stroke in my past. I dread the real 72 but, maybe my brain will be so far gone I wont care when the BO health panel shoves me into the “retirement” chamber. For the good of the family of course. IKEA meatballs here I come.
Dr. Frank Enstine on February 27, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Bwahahahahah
SWalker on February 27, 2013 at 10:28 AM