Living longer than our ancestors?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Are we really living longer than our ancestors?

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity

************

Over the last few decades, life expectancy has increased dramatically around the globe. The average person born in 1960, the earliest year the United Nations began keeping global data, could expect to live to 52.5 years of age. Today, the average is 72. In the UK, where records have been kept longer, this trend is even greater. In 1841, a baby girl was expected to live to just 42 years of age, a boy to 40. In 2016, a baby girl could expect to reach 83; a boy, 79.

The natural conclusion is that both the miracles of modern medicine and public health initiatives have helped us live longer than ever before – so much so that we may, in fact, be running out of innovations to extend life further. In September 2018, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that, in the UK at least, life expectancy has stopped increasing. Beyond the UK, these gains are slowing worldwide.

This belief that our species may have reached the peak of longevity is also reinforced by some myths about our ancestors:

while medical advancements have improved many aspects of healthcare, the assumption that human life span has increased dramatically over centuries or millennia is misleading.

“There is a basic distinction between life expectancy and life span,” says Stanford University historian Walter Scheidel, a leading scholar of ancient Roman demography. “The life span of humans – opposed to life expectancy, which is a statistical construct – hasn’t really changed much at all, as far as I can tell.”

In the 1st Century, Pliny devoted an entire chapter of The Natural History to people who lived longest. Among them he lists the consul M Valerius Corvinos (100 years), Cicero’s wife Terentia (103), a woman named Clodia (115 – and who had 15 children along the way), and the actress Lucceia who performed on stage at 100 years old.

 life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today”. A five-year-old girl would live to 73; a boy, to 75.

Not only are these numbers comparable to our own, they may be even better. Members of today’s working-class (a more accurate comparison) live to around 72 years for men and 76 years for women.

*************

Interesting.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Steve H]

Life-expectancy figures can be very misleading, unless carefully qualified. I would guess that the low life expectancy in the mid-19th Century was pulled down by the high infant mortality rate: if you made it to (say) 20, your life expectancy then would be higher. There are also other factors to consider, such as class: a working-class person in the 19th Century would have a much lower life-expectancy than a wealthy person. These comments, I say again, are my guesses or assumptions; I haven't got any solid data to back them up.

[Nearly Sane]

I find it more problematic that I live in a city where life expectancy can vary by over 20 years dependent on your postcode.

[Steve H]

Also, if you're told at the age of 50 that you've got a life expectancy of 75, if you make it to 75 the very fact of your survival to that age increases your life expectancy, so it will then be maybe 78 or 80.

[ekim]

"Members of today’s working-class (a more accurate comparison) live to around 72 years for men and 76 years for women."
... then it's about time we had some equality.... equal rights for men, I say!

[Steve H]

I think women's longer expectancy is due to their hormones giving them some protection against heart attacks, amongst other factors.

[ekim]

.... then 'Female hormones for men via the NHS'!  Is there no justice?

[Steve H]

...and, of course, we all know the difference between a hormone and an enzyme: you can't hear an enzyme.