Thread 16746301

Imagine the year I was born the average life expectancy is 73 years, today in my 30s is 78 years, and by the day I will be 85 50 years from now the life expectancy will be 85.
When am I most likely to die? At 73, at 78 or at 85? or at a different number?

>>16746301 (OP)
In the US and other countries the government publishes a table of current life expectancy for each specific age plus the probability of dying that year look it up can't be hard to google.

>>16746301 (OP)
Imagine being a frog poster.

You took tests in your childhood. They probably said you are average intellince. How do you even doubt you are a moron? I'm stupid as shit and scored 99th percentile.

>>16746303
>current life expectancy
what does that even mean? In my example if today my average life expectancy are 78 years, does that mean I'll live to 78? Because by the time I'm 78 the average life expectancy will be much higher

You will die in the year 2,017,621. This is because genetic engineering on adult humans will become in the 2060s-2070s and humans will no longer be "slowing down" aging because the human body will not be in a detoriating state anymore. It will be in a youthful state forever. The only way you will die is when on the road, which of course they will make driving illegal. The republicans will seethe about this but given they're the type to refuse genetic engineering, they'll all be dead and the sane people can then control the world.

>>16746309
It means they provide a list like "people at age X currently have a life expectancy of Y and a Z% chance of dying within a year."

>>16746310
even if they cure aging in the future, my current life expectancy is 78, doesn't that imply that my generation won't make it?

>>16746312
>>16746309
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Here enjoy knowing when you're statistically likely to die.

>>16746312
then that's dumb. I was born in 1997, does the current average include newborns born in 2024 and old hags born in 1954? That has nothing to do with my life expectancy. Probably the guy born in 1954 lived under an abestos roof and it's gonna have a higher rate of cancers than me

>>16746319
>the guy born in 1954 lived under an abestos roof and it's gonna have a higher rate of cancers than me
...that's accounted for. And the ones who got cancer from asbestos have already either died or recovered for the most part, nobody's inhaling asbestos one day and getting cancer 70 years later as a direct consequence.

>>16746322
I thought asbestos was like smoking? it raised your chance of cancer permanently instead of getting cancer the first day you smoke a cigarette

>>16746329
Actually yeah I derped. Anyway they only have to chuck the data for years of higher asbestos exposure into the formula. Like there's data showing gen X is the most leaded up cohort so I assume other historical oppsies also have similar info.

>>16746318
The only usable data is at the upper end. Unreliability as a function of expected death age minus current age.
Things like changes in food, physical activity, mental health, war, drug use, medical practices, chemical exposures, etc. will only be seen when people start dying sooner/later.
Might be worth looking at the yoy trends for what % in each age die within the next year.
Such trends might be watered down by how the generational averaging is done for the ssa table.
God forbid there are nonlinearities. You know the retard stats will miss those.

>>16746301 (OP)
life expectancy in the USA is dropping actually, some say its because of covid and fentanyl and isnt dropping if you dont include these

>>16746308
The real question is what percentiles constrain those unwilling or unable to acknowledge their inherent stupidity.

>>16746301 (OP)
euro? life expectancy has been declining in the US for the past decade. for men anyway. it's been going up for women.

>>16746301 (OP)
retard