Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now we have the distribution of deaths per 100,000 people. What you will notice is two things.
I notice a third thing. The chart closely parallels the natural decline of thyroid function (actually of conversion of T4 to T3, but the effect is the same) which is really the limiting factor on natural lifespan, cuz everything else depends on it to work right. That decline starts around age 50 for otherwise-normal people, and absent treatment, is typically fatal within about 15 years, most often from secondary heart disease, dementia, stroke, hypertension, obesity (co-symptom, not cause), certain cancers, etc, tho some very tough individuals may stagger on somewhat longer. And about 20% of folks experience little or no decline, and live to be very old in good health even absent all medical care.
If you want to live longer and healthier, always insist on normalizing thyroid before treating anything else -- because about half of all chronic conditions, and most of what we think of as 'symptoms of aging' are in fact the wildly diverse effects of low thyroid (as becomes evident if you read broadly enough in the literature), and treating the symptoms does not cure the root cause.
I think people figured out that Kamala was out for Kamala and no one else. She's just a tad too ambitious for many people's liking and she has quite a mixed record as Prosecutor and AG much of which is not flattering.
I love her. If the DNC gives me a candidate I can't stand, I'm writing her in.
I love her. If the DNC gives me a candidate I can't stand, I'm writing her in.
Nothing wrong with that. I think in the last election there were a lot of write-in votes. I know I wrote in a candidate because, for me, the two choices on the ticket were disappointing but I needed to vote on other measures so I had to choose someone.
I didn't think I'd ever say it or even consider it but I'm looking at Tom Steyer. Believe me, this is out of the blue. When he started doing those impeach commercials months ago, I just wanted him to go away and stop stirring the pot but now I'm interested in what he has to say. I doubt he'll be the candidate chosen but maybe he's worth taking a look at for the next election (if I'm still above ground)
Nothing wrong with that. I think in the last election there were a lot of write-in votes. I know I wrote in a candidate because, for me, the two choices on the ticket were disappointing but I needed to vote on other measures so I had to choose someone.
I didn't think I'd ever say it or even consider it but I'm looking at Tom Steyer. Believe me, this is out of the blue. When he started doing those impeach commercials months ago, I just wanted him to go away and stop stirring the pot but now I'm interested in what he has to say. I doubt he'll be the candidate chosen but maybe he's worth taking a look at for the next election (if I'm still above ground)
There really isn’t a bad candidate running in the democratic field ... except Gabbard, if she can be considered running. They are all quite sincere at this point. They are all at least capable and competent to handle the job. Not just in comparison to the mental case in office now ... but regardless.
Steyer and Bloomberg have proven their executive abilities in both business and in political arenas. Steyer hasn’t held elected office but he has launched impressive organizations serving public interests.
Klobuchar is solid as they come.
Biden is an excellent statesman with deep experience ... but his time has passed.
Warren is smart as a whip and has excellent energy to follow through.
Buttigieg is the weakest of the bunch maybe in terms of applicable experience, but handles himself extremely well ... very clear, controlled and measured.
Sanders? 50 years of consistent messaging and public service. Honest. Inspirational. Revolutionary. Lots don’t want a revolution. But lots more do ... including the youth - who are the future of the country.
We really can’t go wrong except on the issue of who can beat the mental patient.
Dude... no. I pulled up the life expectancy tables from the CDC popped it into excel. I'm going to use Hispanic Males & Females as an example (didn't even know I grabbed that initially, but it's the first one in the PDF and I'm not typing in anything else). You can find all the data here in case you want to follow along or look at different groups/years.:
So now we have the distribution of deaths per 100,000 people. What you will notice is two things. The sum of all the deaths at 100 = 95,499. So there is still about 4.5% of the population living to 100 years old so almost 2 SD's is described by the data in the chart. The next thing that should be immediately apparent is that the sum of all deaths at 85 is 51,414 (approximately half). This is the approximate median life expectancy for the population because that means that 51,414 people died before 75 and 48,586 died after 85. FYI, actual life expectancy at birth for the data set is 82. So the rough estimate is pretty good!
Now let's make a nifty graph of this data to explain why your initial math is flawed.
So as you can tell the distribution of this data is exceptionally left skewed. Your simple math of taking the average between 5 and 65 to come up with an average of life expectancy of 35 is completely erroneous because you are assuming that the number of deaths each year is a standard normal distribution. Clearly, it's not. Instead let's look at the life expectancy compared to the longest expected person living in the sample (life expectancy for someone at 100 in the data is 2.7 years so lets use 103) . So that's 82/103 = 0.80. That means if the median life expectancy is 82 and basically 99.99 of the population dies by 103 we can extrapolate that to a median life expectancy of 35. That means that life expectancy for paleolithic humans of 35 would imply 99.99% of the population would be dead by 44 if it has a similar distribution.
That means 3 standard distributions is 9 and someone aged 65 would be 21 above that. While obviously not impossible and I don't know the distribution of life expectancy for people that were dead thousands of years ago, it's certainly not probably.
Bottom line, you would be dead. Statistics is fascinating too.
Lol. This is a classic example of specious Sophistry. You must have put this together tongue-in-cheek. Bears zero relationship to the question of hunter-gatherer life expectancy. I do not believe for one second that someone of your intelligence believes it does.
The tangent that popped up was me pointing out that technology is not required for long, healthy, happy, productive living.
You said if I were living in ancient times [read: if it weren’t for technology] I would be dead.
I provided scientific rebuttal demonstrating that human physiology is readily able to endure in the 100 year life range. Indeed, we see examples throughout recorded history of more than a few people living that long - ergo :. human physiology has the capacity.
Furthermore, anthropology / archeology verify that homo sapiens have always included individuals who lived well past the “average age” you suggested as having been “35 years”.
I linked you to scientific clarification of how your “averaging” was speciously disingenuous - due to “U-shaped (inverted bell curve) mortality rates of ancient times connected to lifestyle survivability challenges (child-birth, accidents, etc.) ... and that individuals reaching ages past puberty were then typically found to live well into years far more senior (60’s and 70’s and longer even) than your specious “35 years”.
The above was further buttressed against your claims by scientifically validated observations about the nature and timing of fertility and childbirth / rearing years for females ... and the role of post-menopausal nurturing in primitive societies.
Indeed, there are still primitive hunter-gatherer societies on our planet today that further confirm the anthropology / archeology cited.
Ok. Now you come back with this non sequitur mumbo jumbo about modern day CDC Hispanic male / female life expectancies?
What?
Look bd, you are a smart guy. You seem like you are likely quite successful at some profession. But this argument doesn’t appear to be your best area of erudition.
Lol. This is a classic example of specious Sophistry. You must have put this together tongue-in-cheek. Bears zero relationship to the question of hunter-gatherer life expectancy. I do not believe for one second that someone of your intelligence believes it does.
The tangent that popped up was me pointing out that technology is not required for long, healthy, happy, productive living.
You said if I were living in ancient times [read: if it weren’t for technology] I would be dead.
I provided scientific rebuttal demonstrating that human physiology is readily able to endure in the 100 year life range. Indeed, we see examples throughout recorded history of more than a few people living that long - ergo :. human physiology has the capacity.
Furthermore, anthropology / archeology verify that homo sapiens have always included individuals who lived well past the “average age” you suggested as having been “35 years”.
I linked you to scientific clarification of how your “averaging” was speciously disingenuous - due to “U-shaped (inverted bell curve) mortality rates of ancient times connected to lifestyle survivability challenges (child-birth, accidents, etc.) ... and that individuals reaching ages past puberty were then typically found to live well into years far more senior (60’s and 70’s and longer even) than your specious “35 years”.
The above was further buttressed against your claims by scientifically validated observations about the nature and timing of fertility and childbirth / rearing years for females ... and the role of post-menopausal nurturing in primitive societies.
Indeed, there are still primitive hunter-gatherer societies on our planet today that further confirm the anthropology / archeology cited.
Ok. Now you come back with this non sequitur mumbo jumbo about modern day CDC Hispanic male / female life expectancies?
What?
Look bd, you are a smart guy. You seem like you are likely quite successful at some profession. But this argument doesn’t appear to be your best area of erudition.
Dang. You couldn't follow the stats there and now just trying to deflect by calling it non-sequitur mumbo jumbo. Well I tried. Human lifespan would have a much smaller variance in paleolithic times than modern day. Probably would be right skewed instead of left skewed.
Here's some good stuff from NIH. Key findings that I saw while looking through the article.
An assessment of younger (20–40 y) versus older (>40 y) adult mortality distributions for late archaic humans (principally Neandertals) and two samples of early modern humans (Middle Paleolithic and earlier Upper Paleolithic) provides little difference across the samples. All three Late Pleistocene samples have a dearth of older individuals compared with Holocene ethnographic/historical samples.
These adult mortality distributions suggest low life expectancy and demographic instability across these Late Pleistocene human groups.
The young adult mortality may well reflect generally low adult life expectancy among these populations, in response to the multitude of stresses associated with a Late Pleistocene foraging existence.
A more probable factor in the dearth of older individuals comes from the evident necessity for mobility among all of these Late Pleistocene humans. Under these conditions, it is likely that older individuals with reduced mobility were left behind, to die and have their remains consumed by the ubiquitous carnivores on the landscape.
Just for definitional purposes this is important: These stages comprise adultus/adulta (young people with no external closure of the medial sagittal suture), maturus/matura (middle aged people with some but not complete closure of the medial sagittal suture) and senilis/senilia (older people with complete closure of the medial sagittal suture). No generally accepted ages of transition between these stages exist. In order to give an idea about the range of transition ages it has been estimated in the Danish Medieval Tirup sample that the median maximum-likelihood age estimate at transition from adultus to maturus is 32.5 years and that the standard deviation of this transition is 5.4 years. For the transition from maturus to senilis the corresponding figures are 48.9 and 7.2 years.
In conclusion, it appears that the steady increase of human adult survival - both male and female - is a fairly new phenomenon in hominid evolution. For the males the crude data analysed here indicate a decline in mortality starting in the Early Middle Ages, during or after the fall of the Roman Empire. This late decline of male mortality is paralleled by the females. The decline is even more pronounced among females than among males. The increase of female mortality leading to the decline of survival from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic is probably a very important shift in the selectional forces shaping our species. https://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Boo...0evolution.htm
This is also a general overview that you might find helpful. Paleolithic = 33.
Per the Kaplan article above, the expected age for someone who lived to 15 to die in a hunter gatherer culture was about 55. As I said, you would be dead at 65. Now could you be an outlier? Sure. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Dang. You couldn't follow the stats there and now just trying to deflect by calling it non-sequitur mumbo jumbo. Well I tried. Human lifespan would have a much smaller variance in paleolithic times than modern day. Probably would be right skewed instead of left skewed.
Here's some good stuff from NIH. Key findings that I saw while looking through the article.
An assessment of younger (20–40 y) versus older (>40 y) adult mortality distributions for late archaic humans (principally Neandertals) and two samples of early modern humans (Middle Paleolithic and earlier Upper Paleolithic) provides little difference across the samples. All three Late Pleistocene samples have a dearth of older individuals compared with Holocene ethnographic/historical samples.
These adult mortality distributions suggest low life expectancy and demographic instability across these Late Pleistocene human groups.
The young adult mortality may well reflect generally low adult life expectancy among these populations, in response to the multitude of stresses associated with a Late Pleistocene foraging existence.
A more probable factor in the dearth of older individuals comes from the evident necessity for mobility among all of these Late Pleistocene humans. Under these conditions, it is likely that older individuals with reduced mobility were left behind, to die and have their remains consumed by the ubiquitous carnivores on the landscape.
Just for definitional purposes this is important: These stages comprise adultus/adulta (young people with no external closure of the medial sagittal suture), maturus/matura (middle aged people with some but not complete closure of the medial sagittal suture) and senilis/senilia (older people with complete closure of the medial sagittal suture). No generally accepted ages of transition between these stages exist. In order to give an idea about the range of transition ages it has been estimated in the Danish Medieval Tirup sample that the median maximum-likelihood age estimate at transition from adultus to maturus is 32.5 years and that the standard deviation of this transition is 5.4 years. For the transition from maturus to senilis the corresponding figures are 48.9 and 7.2 years.
In conclusion, it appears that the steady increase of human adult survival - both male and female - is a fairly new phenomenon in hominid evolution. For the males the crude data analysed here indicate a decline in mortality starting in the Early Middle Ages, during or after the fall of the Roman Empire. This late decline of male mortality is paralleled by the females. The decline is even more pronounced among females than among males. The increase of female mortality leading to the decline of survival from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic is probably a very important shift in the selectional forces shaping our species. https://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Boo...0evolution.htm
This is also a general overview that you might find helpful. Paleolithic = 33.
Per the Kaplan article above, the expected age for someone who lived to 15 to die in a hunter gatherer culture was about 55. As I said, you would be dead at 65. Now could you be an outlier? Sure. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Lo ‘effing L, bd. There you go again, as Ronnie Regan used to say. Your quotes and links do NOT support your initial declarations: that “I would be dead” (because) “average lifespan was 35 years”. You didn’t say “65 years”. So now we’re up to “expected age ... 55”?
And still you don’t want to admit that physiology isn’t the limiting factor? It’s (according to your latest, above) “mobility” ... which isn’t an issue nowadays, eh?
Furthermore, the point in contention wasn’t whether I lived in the Paleolithic era (and would die at 35) ... it was, and remains, that given all the inventory of knowledge we have accumulated in all the years since, living with similar Paleo-ish simplicity in TODAY’S times wouldn’t result in any shorter lifespan than is supported by medicines and machines. In fact, I’d hold that many living such simple lifestyles today would live closer to the body’s physiological time potential through healthier diet and vastly reduced stress.
By the way, fully aware I might die any minute, a realization that I became quite intimate with during my service in Vietnam dangling out of helicopters snatching downed pilots out of the jungle, ... my mother lived to 99 without any special habits or medical interventions ... she was never sick a single day in her life ... not even a common cold. She had an aunt who did laundry for neighbors for a living until she was in her mid-90s and lived to 104. There were others on that side of the family tree as well as my father’s (his mother lived to one day short of 100 ... old time immigrant farm wife ... no special health habits ... no medical crises in her life). So far, people who ask my age pretty much don’t believe me given my condition and activities. With my simplistic lifestyle, will I live longer than my relatives? Dunno, sport. Sh*t happens.
We’re way off topic at this point. But it’s been fun. I’ll spare you more evidence from anthropolgical sources on lifespans that contradict yours. Thanks for playing
Your quotes and links do NOT support your initial declarations: that “I would be dead” (because) “average lifespan was 35 years”. You didn’t say “65 years”. So now we’re up to “expected age ... 55”?
Uhhh. I didn't say that the average lifespan was 35 years. I said life expectancy was 35 years. It turns out I was a bit high on my initial estimate and it's actually 33. Those are two COMPLETELY different metrics. And yes 55 is less than 65. Ergo u ded =(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
And still you don’t want to admit that physiology isn’t the limiting factor? It’s (according to your latest, above) “mobility” ... which isn’t an issue nowadays, eh?
I never said that physiology is or is not the limiting factor.
Don't put words in my mouth. Otherwise you're going to end up arguing something I never even said (like right now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Furthermore, the point in contention wasn’t whether I lived in the Paleolithic era (and would die at 35)
Actually that's exactly what the point in contention was (except not necessarily at 35, it was prior to your age now which I presume to be 65). Keep up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
... it was, and remains, that given all the inventory of knowledge we have accumulated in all the years since, living with similar Paleo-ish simplicity in TODAY’S times wouldn’t result in any shorter lifespan than is supported by medicines and machines. In fact, I’d hold that many living such simple lifestyles today would live closer to the body’s physiological time potential through healthier diet and vastly reduced stress.
The Kaplan article I linked to was by an anthropologist who studied modern day humans who lived primitive hunter gatherer lifestyles without access to modern technology and medicine. They died by 55. That's where the data for that chart I posted came from.
There really isn’t a bad candidate running in the democratic field ... .
LOL. They are all complete and utter garbage except maybe for Bloomberg. You not seeing this tells me all I need to know.
Biden...intellectual midget. Can't even form decent sentences half the time
Warren/Sanders - Socialists/Communists. Wants the state to control pretty much everything. Don;t believe in rich people and want to forcefully take their money.
Steyer- Good philanthropist, out of touch president
Pete - Too green. Never accomplished anything
Klobuchar - Not ready. Also never done anything
Bloomberg - Accomplished, but too many demons IMO to get elected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
