I agree with you, it's important to be able to have open scientific discourse about the future. I wouldn't advise you not to post, but to strengthen what you write by being a little bit more critical and scientific.
The concern is focused on the change of "If the pace of increase in life expectancy . . . continues" to the materially different unsubstantiated claim of "more likely than not to reach the age of 100".
It's important to recognize that published literature is often wrong or misleading. We should all be very critical, particularly when relying on a single source. It's also dangerous to present conjecture or prediction as fact as done here.
>How would one prove this claim wrong?
You are highlighting that it's questionably falsifiable. Need I say more?
I am very interested in what you have to say, but when cracks like this show up it throws everything you write into question.
I agree with you, it's important to be able to have open scientific discourse about the future. I wouldn't advise you not to post, but to strengthen what you write by being a little bit more critical and scientific.
The concern is focused on the change of "If the pace of increase in life expectancy . . . continues" to the materially different unsubstantiated claim of "more likely than not to reach the age of 100".
It's important to recognize that published literature is often wrong or misleading. We should all be very critical, particularly when relying on a single source. It's also dangerous to present conjecture or prediction as fact as done here.
>How would one prove this claim wrong?
You are highlighting that it's questionably falsifiable. Need I say more?
I am very interested in what you have to say, but when cracks like this show up it throws everything you write into question.