> Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long
I'm sure this is backed up by studies and references, and at the same time I am amused at the hubris of making this statement. It's a cheap prediction to make, given that it will be around 2070 before you can verify it - and how right it is depends on lack-of-catastrohpies (e.g. in 20 years we'll have an idea how the meltdown in Fukushima affects lifespan), same-rate-and-same-kind-and-availability of advances, etc.
And before you criticize me for being "anti-sciece" - I am not, and unlike a lot of other assertions, this might technically be science (I haven't reviewed the source material) - however, it is not useful science because it may take 70 years to falsify.
Furthermore, a lot of -- perhaps most -- extrapolations of past trends had been wrong. At the time of Wallace & Darwin it was "scientifically" extrapolated that food will only grow linearly. And in 1980 climate studies had shown that if we don't do anything (and we didn't) by 2000 quite a few coastal cities will be underwater. If I wasn't anonymous, I'd place a long bet that the data crunching that led to this prediction will turn out to be complete rubish.
It's just a simple projection, it's not meant to be taken so seriously. I expect that it's extremely conservative. We are currently in the dark ages of medicine where we just shoot people up with random chemicals and see what happens. There is a lot of room for improvement. Not to mention the singularity.
Exactly. We are simply molecular machines, and we can and will become masters of our molecular destiny, and I would be happy to make a Simon–Ehrlich type wager with anyone, executed by smart crypto-contract, that the average lifespan of a Female born in 2000 will be > than 100.
I would say that my heir(s) will collect the winnings, but I fully expect medical progress will let me outpace death for quite some time.
I would take that bet and not solely because you failed to exclude third world countries. I would probably hesitate on "in 2050, a 50 year old women has, on average, another 50 years of life" and definitely pass on "in 2075, a 75 year old women has, on average, another 25 years of life."
Well, last time I looked for it, I couldn't find any older studies on the IPCC website that have been shown to be wrong.
However, having lived and read newspapers at the time, I remember the scare mongering, and specifically the mention of the "Marker Tree" in the Maldives, which were projected to to have significant areas under water by 2010, then 2020, now 2100 (spolier: it didn't happen https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201107180902...)
I'm sure this is backed up by studies and references, and at the same time I am amused at the hubris of making this statement. It's a cheap prediction to make, given that it will be around 2070 before you can verify it - and how right it is depends on lack-of-catastrohpies (e.g. in 20 years we'll have an idea how the meltdown in Fukushima affects lifespan), same-rate-and-same-kind-and-availability of advances, etc.
And before you criticize me for being "anti-sciece" - I am not, and unlike a lot of other assertions, this might technically be science (I haven't reviewed the source material) - however, it is not useful science because it may take 70 years to falsify.
Furthermore, a lot of -- perhaps most -- extrapolations of past trends had been wrong. At the time of Wallace & Darwin it was "scientifically" extrapolated that food will only grow linearly. And in 1980 climate studies had shown that if we don't do anything (and we didn't) by 2000 quite a few coastal cities will be underwater. If I wasn't anonymous, I'd place a long bet that the data crunching that led to this prediction will turn out to be complete rubish.