Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Life expectancy rises 'grinding to halt'

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Life expectancy rises 'grinding to halt'

Old 18th Jul 2017, 11:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 65
Posts: 0
Life expectancy rises 'grinding to halt'

Auntie has just written a piece based on evidence from a so called expert at UCL trying to link the above to "austerity". Now may I suggest an alternative and totally unprogressive view. Life expectancy is nothing to do with austerity. In our western world life expectancy related to how you have been brought up. If you have uneducated, illiterate parents with low aspirations they will generally breed carbon copies of themselves. Worse, they will have been encouraged by the ill-considered benefit system over the last 30 years or so to breed more sprogs than they could possibly otherwise afford. Now years of poor diet and takeaways, knock-off cigarettes, poor hygiene, no exercise and grog are taking their toll. But nobody is blaming the politicians from these years for who were responsible for the so called welfare system during this period.

You could correlate education into these statistics as well. But it would again be pointless. My experience is that a child's future is limited by their parents before their first birthday. By the time they get to school they should be potty trained, be able to count up to three, know a few colours and be able to feed themselves. Not a hope when I live. Worse, schools permit all sorts of disruptive behaviour from nasty little children because they are afraid of parents nearly as much as the local educational authority. Unfortunately, these poor (in every way imaginable) kids will continue to replicate their parents slide to the bottom of the social pile by the time they leave school. Also, once these kids have working tackle they then pop a few more of their own to add to the list. Well done you progressives!

Unfortunately what I have described continues in the North-east where I live but now the benefits cap is limiting their ability to boost their income through procreation.

What do we do? It won't be simple. But a good place to start would be to get rid of the spineless progressives at the BBC who disseminate drivel about the effects of "austerity" and maybe start to suggest that we are individually responsible for our lives and those of our children, not the system or the state. Then the hard work starts but given the government's precarious majority I don't expect much to happen anytime soon. Remember "austerity" is just government employees complaining they haven't had a pay rise for a while. Well guess what, neither have I!

PM
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 11:57
  #2 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 57
Posts: 8,779
Aaaaaannnndddd... breathe!
treadigraph is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:04
  #3 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,028
According to the Times the gist in the report is that the cause is the rise in Dementia and Alzheimer's amongst the middle classes. Related article suggests the best way to avoid it is to do crosswords and number puzzles and keep learning.

Just finished the cryptic and toughie in the Torygraph and the cryptic and smaller ones in the Times/Times 2 along with the sudoku puzzles. At my university graduation this afternoon.

Fingers crossed for the future.....
ORAC is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:08
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Life expectancy rises 'grinding to halt'

I heard it slightly differently: "Life expectancy increase is slowing down." Well it would wouldn't it. It can't go on increasing for ever. There has to be a peak and a cap, of sorts. God forbid we live forever. Enough is enough. The longer we survive at the end the more we condemn our children to a life of long sweat-shop labour. It'll be like have eternal captains so the F/O's never get promoted without expansion. The knives will soon be out and you'd better check the brake pipes in the car park.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 412
I read that piece and thought it was just making a political point, too. I suspect that how well you ate, looked after your health, exercised etc when younger may well have a greater impact on longevity than the recent few years of pay and public sector expenditure restraint.

I have a feeling that those born between 1940 and 1960 might well have a better life expectancy than those born later, perhaps. I was talking about this to a neighbour last week, and we were both in agreement that the relatively low sugar, low processed food, diet that prevailed during all the years of rationing, and a while beyond that, might well have meant that we were a fairly healthy generation. I've no idea if there is any evidence to support this, but I do remember that the incidence of childhood obesity when I was growing up seemed pretty low, for example.
VP959 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:11
  #6 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 57
Posts: 8,779
Always do the DT General Knowledge crossword on Saturday - haven't tried the cryptic in years, really ought to get back into the swing of it...

Have a great time this afternoon ORAC, and well done once again.


I do wonder how much boozing contributes to gradual loss of memory function - I try to cut down a bit each week but can never remember how much I've already had...
treadigraph is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bomber County
Age: 71
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I have a feeling that those born between 1940 and 1960 might well have a better life expectancy than those born later, perhaps. I was talking about this to a neighbour last week, and we were both in agreement that the relatively low sugar, low processed food, diet that prevailed during all the years of rationing, and a while beyond that, might well have meant that we were a fairly healthy generation. I've no idea if there is any evidence to support this, but I do remember that the incidence of childhood obesity when I was growing up seemed pretty low, for example.


I would put it earlier: My Dad, born 1926 had a hard life - no sugar, walked everywhere etc. He benefited in his adult life from medical advances (only indirectly as he avoids doctors!) He is 91 this year and still going strong (although I've stopped him climbing ladders to cut his hedges!) His siblings lived to a decent age.


Born in 1950 I had a slightly easier life (we had the occasional sweet!) but still walked/cycled everywhere. All my life has been supported by medical advances (but I still avoid Doctors!)


My view is that physically, what you have built up to, say, 20 yo sets you up for life. If I live as long as Dad I will consider myself well satisfied.


My kids, in their 30s eat sensibly, exercise etc but did not have the austere upbringing of Dad and Self so I think they may become part of the age plateau.
radar101 is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:37
  #8 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,123
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man View Post
Auntie has just written a piece based on evidence from a so called expert at UCL trying to link the above to "austerity". Now may I suggest an alternative and totally unprogressive view. Life expectancy is nothing to do with austerity. In our western world life expectancy related to how you have been brought up. If you have uneducated, illiterate parents with low aspirations they will generally breed carbon copies of themselves. Worse, they will have been encouraged by the ill-considered benefit system over the last 30 years or so to breed more sprogs than they could possibly otherwise afford. Now years of poor diet and takeaways, knock-off cigarettes, poor hygiene, no exercise and grog are taking their toll. But nobody is blaming the politicians from these years for who were responsible for the so called welfare system during this period.

You could correlate education into these statistics as well. But it would again be pointless. My experience is that a child's future is limited by their parents before their first birthday. By the time they get to school they should be potty trained, be able to count up to three, know a few colours and be able to feed themselves. Not a hope when I live. Worse, schools permit all sorts of disruptive behaviour from nasty little children because they are afraid of parents nearly as much as the local educational authority. Unfortunately, these poor (in every way imaginable) kids will continue to replicate their parents slide to the bottom of the social pile by the time they leave school. Also, once these kids have working tackle they then pop a few more of their own to add to the list. Well done you progressives!

Unfortunately what I have described continues in the North-east where I live but now the benefits cap is limiting their ability to boost their income through procreation.

What do we do? It won't be simple. But a good place to start would be to get rid of the spineless progressives at the BBC who disseminate drivel about the effects of "austerity" and maybe start to suggest that we are individually responsible for our lives and those of our children, not the system or the state. Then the hard work starts but given the government's precarious majority I don't expect much to happen anytime soon. Remember "austerity" is just government employees complaining they haven't had a pay rise for a while. Well guess what, neither have I!

PM
Wow ! just like buses when you need them, no less than two JB social affairs correspondents appear in quick succession.

This being JB, your standing on here will now have risen to heights that many aspire to.

Unfortunately, and there's always one, although there may well be more in time, some of us don't agree with your assessment of matters so lucidly and with such overtly conscious bias, offered above.

First, if, instead of rushing to impress the chaps here on JB, you had actually read the article, you would have noted the author does not try to link austerity to life expectancy....he does link lack of social investment however, which, funnily enough, relates to the draconian cuts imposed by, presumably, as no Labour supporter would produce a rhetoric riddled polemic on the scale you have, beloved Tory party.

Take your time, have a read......

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ife-expectancy
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:58
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 588
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I read that piece and thought it was just making a political point, too. I suspect that how well you ate, looked after your health, exercised etc when younger may well have a greater impact on longevity than the recent few years of pay and public sector expenditure restraint.
I have the same opinion as you, but as the JB Opinion Nazi has raised his head, there probably isn't much point bringing any real world experience/observation to the debate...
eal401 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 13:29
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by RAT 5 View Post
I heard it slightly differently: "Life expectancy increase is slowing down." Well it would wouldn't it. It can't go on increasing for ever.
Thank you for a bit of common sense.

This is the sort of behaviour from the BBC that infuriates me. A single academic publishes research with a very questionable and entirely unproven hypothesis (but brazenly political subtext) and it’s elevated to the days main headline. (Highly convenient, as well, that the study was restricted to England and examined the growth in life expectancy since 2010. Now what changed in 2010 I wonder…….)

It’s self-evident (to me at least) that sooner or later we will all die. Advances in medicines and healthcare and improvements in diet and lifestyle can extend our lifespan, but only so far. Sooner or later we will approach the limits of what is possible, so it’s no surprise that growth in life expectancy is slowing. Personally, I would expect that a step change in medical technology will be needed to accelerate life expectancy again.

At best this is dreadfully sloppy journalism, at worst a calculated attempt by the BBC to generate controversial headlines.
Andy_S is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 13:41
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 0
Life expectancy rises 'grinding to halt'

..... The longer we survive at the end the more we condemn our children to a life of long sweat-shop labour. It'll be like have eternal captains so the F/O's never get promoted without expansion. The knives will soon be out and you'd better check the brake pipes in the car park.
Over here we have proposed "Trump care" to protect our survival of the fittest
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 14:04
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 65
Posts: 0
Let's get the numbers over and done with first. You a can never, keep increasing life expectancy year on year. Like Ryanair passenger numbers and UK house prices, the figures will have to plateau at some time. But the dreadful social policies we had for the past few decades are to blame for the current levelling off.

I have read the article. But that whinger Owen Jones only has one song. The first verse is everything bad is the fault of the Tories. The second verse is that poorest in our society will only be helped by increased public expenditure. The chorus is "Tax, Spend, Borrowd". His article is utter tripe based on false premises and unfounded facts.

Not until we inspire those at the bottom of society to do better will further expenditure work. Our education, welfare and health systems are not perfect but not matter how much we spend, we can not buy ourselves out of this problem. To help those at the bottom we have change their minds and THEN support them as they progress. Eventually we will again start to see improvements in life expectancy, but not for a generation. But no politician has the balls to grasp this nettle. Shame really, because the poorest in our society need some help.

PM
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 14:22
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,269
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man View Post
Auntie has just written a piece based on evidence from a so called expert at UCL trying to link the above to "austerity".
Bit of a leap considering that we have only had 'Austerity' for 6 years and the have still had year on year increases in Public Spending..
Jet II is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 15:09
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,269
Funny how the BBC left this out. Obviously didn't fit the narrative..

“national mortality improvements have fallen off a cliff since 2001”



https://sias.org.uk/events/previous-events/?ev=301
Jet II is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 16:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Some years ago, I saw a government-created graph of life expectancy in the UK over the last century or so. Obviously there were a couple of steep dips around WWI and WWII, but otherwise it was pretty much two straight lines, with a discontinuity where the rate of increase suddenly dropped by about 50%.

Oddly enough, that happened right around the time the NHS was formed. Could be a coincidence, but it would be a strange one if it was.

Back more directly on topic, life expectancy is about to explode, through genetic modification and repairing the damage caused by ageing. But the tech looks likely to be developed in China, because Western governments put too many roadblocks in the way of such research ('in-situ genetic modification? We'll have to for a committee to think about this for fifty years and get back to you').
MG23 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 16:18
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 69
Posts: 62
Mathematically you would not expect longevity to carry on increasing. The highest possible age is around 117. Only seven people in recorded history have exceeded that age and been verified to have done so. Health improvements will have been responsible for the big increases but now with higher and rising obesity rates in the under 40's you would expect many to die young. I weighed 15kg less than my 28 year old son does when I was his age and even now I am 5kg less.

Maybe significantly when I go out walking he is in his room playing computer games.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 16:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
Mathematically you would not expect longevity to carry on increasing. The highest possible age is around 117.
No, it's not. The highest age reached by an unmodified human is around 117. That says nothing about the highest possible age with genetic modification and sophisticated repair techniques.

According to a recent article, people who live past a hundred tend to die of one particular cause (I forget what it is), and simply curing that would raise the age limit even without any other anti-ageing tech.

And, with that tech, life expectancy will be increasing at least one year per year within a few decades. Death is on its last legs.

Maybe significantly when I go out walking he is in his room playing computer games.
The Oculus Rift is currently UKP399. Get him playing some active games with it every night, and he'll be fitter than you in a few months.
MG23 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 18:42
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
Funny how the BBC left this out. Obviously didn't fit the narrative..

“national mortality improvements have fallen off a cliff since 2001”



https://sias.org.uk/events/previous-events/?ev=301
Errr...those graphs and the link you provide show that life expectancy improvements "fell of a cliff" around 2011 - not 2001. Improvements look pretty steady from 2000 to 2011 (the y-axis on those graphs is % improvement each year).
stagger is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 18:59
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,283
Think it was some Prussian who said 'Dogs, would you live forever!'
Good news. Means the time spent in ga-ga land is not expanding.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2017, 19:10
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: closer to hell
Age: 49
Posts: 909
Meanwhile...on the other side of the Atlantic.
Google's life-prolonging moonshot Calico partners with C4 Therapeutics - MedCity News
This may not be of much interest to most but...there are some revolutionary advances being made.
troppo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.