Talk:Longevity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Paragraph problems
- Even if that is achievable, we will have the problem that we do not work long enough. Working from 23 to 65 (i.e. for 43 years out of 80) is affordable to First World people, that is just over 50% of the world population.
- If we become 120 years old, but only work for 43 years, which is now 30% of our life, we will not be able to finance that. Taking the rate of 50% that we can afford now, we will have to work for 60 something years, probably from 23 to 85 years of age.
The previous paragraphs were originally at the end of this article. I have a problem with them. Food and lifestyle make rather a small difference (all from CIA World Fact Book 2002):
- USA: 77.4 years
- UK: 77.99 years
Scientists are working to extend our life, mainly with these ideas:
- Human growth hormone
- Strong Antioxidants
It would strike me that in the first paragraph, the food and lifestyle of the countries listed are rather similar (all first world,etc.), thus it doesn't really provide evidence for the point made. The second paragraph is just arkward. Maybe it needs to be scrapped or be more specific. Maybe 'Ideas that have been promoted towards increasing longevity include...' or something? -Unknown
[edit] Meaning of word
"Anti-aging proponents"? What does that mean? -Branddobbe 09:55, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Citing beliefs of age expectancy
In the article we see:
- "It is believed by some that life expectancy in First World countries will have risen to 100 years by 2030, and to 120 years by 2060."
Who are these "some" that believe this? Sources should be cited. The documentary "Outfoxed" points out that the phrase "some say" and similar terminology is really just a technique for inserting the author's (or reporter's) opinions into a story. That seems like it could be the case here.
- That paragraph was authored by others but I changed it from "some anti anging proponents" to "some" as it looked awkward - no weasling intended. PMA 13:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] World Factbook
Since all of these life expectancy figures are from the World Factbook, shouldn't we claim that Andorra has the longest life expectancy, (listed as 83.51 years) rather than Japan? Also, there are important differences between the life expectancies listed in the 2002 Factbook and the 2005 Factbook: US life expectancy is listed as 77.71, UK life expectancy as 78.38, Germany as 78.65, and so on. The difference between the countries has changed, which, is probably totally irrelevant because the information it affects is confusing (or manipulative?) in the current context. The claim that these differences reflect on how little lifesyle affects longevity seems like it's totaly invalid. 68.17.211.45 20:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Non-human longevity section added
I added a section on non-human longevity - I don't see why only humans should be mentioned. - Matthew238 03:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] BenBest removal of Tai Chi
While I agree with the removal of that weird plant (I looked it up, it's horribly done and only a vague reference to longevity in a list of various plants), removing Tai Chi Chuan may be a bit hasty. There is a claim on the article that it is practised for longevity. I have requested they cite the source, but if medical research does end up supporting it, it does belong here doesn't it? --Tyciol 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
- "Despite the fact that it is no more than human nature to not wish to surrender to old age and death, a few organizations are against antiaging, because they believe it sacrifices the best interests of the new generation, that it is unnatural, or unethical."
Is it just me or does that sound like the author doesn't agree with the anti-anti-aging people, ie. it's not neutral? Tango 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it does sound that way. Some could very easily argue that as humans age, some instinctively give into death, sacrificing their lives for future generations, mainly their own children, but it could easily apply to others' children as well. It is certainly an evolutionary advantage. If that's still there, you should definately change it to be more neutral, at least in presenting both sides. Tyciol 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment by another person (not Tyciol): Re the evolutionary advantage of adults dying off (so they don't compete with their children and grandchildren for resources). This has struck me as being worth describing in detail. Is there any research on this?
Hi there, I have read of a middle eastern population (possibly in Afghanistan) where the women routinely live beyoind one hundred, has anyone else heard of this, would this qualify as something worthy of this article if I could source something to cite? Cheers, BT1
[edit] Longevity in fiction
"# J. K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (The Philosopher's Stone and Nicholas Flamel)
- J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings (Aragorn, Bilbo and Gollum)
- Bruce Sterling: Holy Fire
- Yoda: Star Wars"
Did Yoda write Star Wars? Hmm... Not I think. Should the list be: character: title or author: title?
