Talk:Longevity
From Academic Kids
The following paragraphs were originally at the end of this article:
Even if that is achievable, we will have the problem that we do not work long enough. Working from 23 to 65 (i.e. for 43 years out of 80) is affordable to First World people, that is just over 50% of the world population.
If we become 120 years old, but only work for 43 years, which is now 30% of our life, we will not be able to finance that. Taking the rate of 50% that we can afford now, we will have to work for 60 something years, probably from 23 to 85 years of age.
I have a problem with these two paragraphs:
Food and lifestyle make rather a small difference (all from CIA World Fact Book 2002):
* USA: 77.4 years * UK: 77.99 years
...
Scientists are working to extend our life, mainly with these ideas:
* Human growth hormone * Strong Antioxidants
...
It would strike me that in the first paragraph, the food and lifestyle of the countries listed are rather similar (all first world,etc.), thus it doesn't really provide evidence for the point made.
The second paragraph is just arkward. Maybe it needs to be scrapped or be more specific. Maybe 'Ideas that have been promoted towards increasing longevity include...' or something?
"Anti-aging proponents"? What does that mean? -Branddobbe 09:55, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
In the article we see:
"It is believed by some that life expectancy in First World countries will have risen to 100 years by 2030, and to 120 years by 2060."
Who are these "some" that believe this? Sources should be cited.
The documentary "Outfoxed" points out that the phrase "some say" and similar terminology is really just a technique for inserting the author's (or reporter's) opinions into a story. That seems like it could be the case here.
- that paragraph was authored by others but I changed it from "some anti anging proponents" to "some" as it looked awkward - no weasling intended. PMA 13:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
