On 31/07/2013 13:30, knuttle wrote: > One of the interesting facts I have observed from my families is that > while the average age of death has changed over the decades, the change > is caused by the reduction in infant and child birth deaths. > > This is obvious by the fact the age of death curve is tri modal. One > mode is centered at about 10, one mode is in the late twenties, and the > last in the early eighties > > From the data it appears that the biological life span has not changed, > what has changed is the life spans affected by disease and such. > > I have 100 year olds born in the 1700's and in the 1900's This "end > point" appears not to have changed with modern medicine and health care > practices. Absolutely. Life expectancy has not changed at all because all the statistics are skewed by the numbers of child and infant deaths. Humankind has long had the capacity to live until 80, 90 or even 100. But, if anything, people are not dying older, on average, but younger. My studies show more and more deaths of people in their 50s and 60s. The more they move to the cities, the younger they die.

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:48:53 PM UTC-4, Renia wrote: > On 31/07/2013 13:30, knuttle wrote: > > > > > One of the interesting facts I have observed from my families is that > > > while the average age of death has changed over the decades, the change > > > is caused by the reduction in infant and child birth deaths. > > > > > > This is obvious by the fact the age of death curve is tri modal. One > > > mode is centered at about 10, one mode is in the late twenties, and the > > > last in the early eighties > > > > > > From the data it appears that the biological life span has not changed, > > > what has changed is the life spans affected by disease and such. > > > > > > I have 100 year olds born in the 1700's and in the 1900's This "end > > > point" appears not to have changed with modern medicine and health care > > > practices. > > > > > > Absolutely. Life expectancy has not changed at all because all the > > statistics are skewed by the numbers of child and infant deaths. > > Humankind has long had the capacity to live until 80, 90 or even 100. > > But, if anything, people are not dying older, on average, but younger. > > My studies show more and more deaths of people in their 50s and 60s. The > > more they move to the cities, the younger they die. According to this compilation of U.S. statistics http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html life expectancy has increased for all ages, not just at birth. For example, 100 years ago, a 50-year-old white male could expect, on average, to live to age 70. Whereas now a 50-year-old white male can expect to live to age 79. I would be surprised (but interested) if this is different in the UK.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Morgan <daniel.f.morgan@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:48:53 PM UTC-4, Renia wrote: >> On 31/07/2013 13:30, knuttle wrote: >> >> >> >> > One of the interesting facts I have observed from my families is that >> >> > while the average age of death has changed over the decades, the change >> >> > is caused by the reduction in infant and child birth deaths. >> >> > >> >> > This is obvious by the fact the age of death curve is tri modal. One >> >> > mode is centered at about 10, one mode is in the late twenties, and the >> >> > last in the early eighties >> >> > >> >> > From the data it appears that the biological life span has not changed, >> >> > what has changed is the life spans affected by disease and such. >> >> > >> >> > I have 100 year olds born in the 1700's and in the 1900's This "end >> >> > point" appears not to have changed with modern medicine and health care >> >> > practices. >> >> >> >> >> >> Absolutely. Life expectancy has not changed at all because all the >> >> statistics are skewed by the numbers of child and infant deaths. >> >> Humankind has long had the capacity to live until 80, 90 or even 100. >> >> But, if anything, people are not dying older, on average, but younger. >> >> My studies show more and more deaths of people in their 50s and 60s. The >> >> more they move to the cities, the younger they die. > >According to this compilation of U.S. statistics > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html >life expectancy has increased for all ages, not just at birth. > >For example, 100 years ago, a 50-year-old white male could expect, on average, to live to age 70. Whereas now a 50-year-old white male can expect to live to age 79. > >I would be surprised (but interested) if this is different in the UK. > Scotland, see :- http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/life-expectancy/scottish-areas/2008-2010/index.html 82.21y for a 50y old male (only 75.33y in Glasgow) England and Wales, see :- http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/life-expectancy-at-birth-and-at-age-65-by-local-areas-in-england-and-wales/2009-11/stb.html (East Dorset seems to be recommended)