The argument life extenders make is that in 20 years, we'll cure all the ailments that may cause death for another 20 years and then within that time, another set of cures will evolve until eventually, we've cured everything that could kill a person.
The trend supports them, somewhat. Lifetimes centuries ago were 30-40 years on average. Only a handful of people lived 60 or more years. Today, many people live to 100, many more to 80... so we are getting better at preventing death.
At some point, if this trend continues, we'll be almost perfect at it.
>Lifetimes centuries ago were 30-40 years on average. Only a handful of people lived 60 or more years. Today, many people live to 100, many more to 80
The average in previous centuries was heavily skewed by infant/childhood mortality. Plenty of people lived into their 80's back then. It's just that half of their brothers and sisters died before age 10, which dragged the average down. Still more succumbed to disease and infection before even middle age.
The average isn't going up because people live longer, it's going up because fewer people die young.
if we figure out how to cure diseases that kill us off around a median 90 years, why wouldn't we find cures for those conditions that kill us off at the "imaginary" boundary of 1,000 years?
The trend supports them, somewhat. Lifetimes centuries ago were 30-40 years on average. Only a handful of people lived 60 or more years. Today, many people live to 100, many more to 80... so we are getting better at preventing death.
At some point, if this trend continues, we'll be almost perfect at it.