Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

what should the life expectancy by 2100


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1
jamesgera

jamesgera

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts

how long do you expect people to live to by 2100.

will people born in 1960 still be alive ? will i still be alive since i was born in 93.

our life lengths have always gone up but with modern science attempting new things by the next few years i suspect new ways of keeping people alive should come in. 

for example. 

lab grown organs will save everyone who needs a transplant and can't wait.

reverse aging should be able to keep us alive many more years and

gene therapy and nanobots would be away to fight diseases and mend the body from the inside.

people are saying it is hard to expect since normally each generation only lives a few years more than the last in the future science and technology would do so much it would be hard to know if we would be living to our 100's or for hundreds of years. 

 



#2
Kemotx

Kemotx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • LocationWrocław

Infinite, and I believe we will be immortal by 2025-2040. First we will use gene therapies, then nanobots. I predict there will be no ''lifespan'' once we have nanobots because as we would approach, say, our ''200 year lifespan'', new technologies would be developed. I think that the first person to be 200 was born in 1910s.



#3
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,241 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Without reverse-aging technology: probably 100 to 110 based on current trends.

With reverse-aging technology: anyone born in 2100 could expect to live 500-1000 years on average (suicides, accidents, and murders can always happen)


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#4
jamesgera

jamesgera

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts

Without reverse-aging technology: probably 100 to 110 based on current trends.

With reverse-aging technology: anyone born in 2100 could expect to live 500-1000 years on average (suicides, accidents, and murders can always happen)

and people born before that. 



#5
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,241 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Depends on how old they are. I doubt that anyone born in 1910 would live much longer than the current maximum human lifespan, but 1960 maybe, 2010 likely, and 2060 definite.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#6
Kemotx

Kemotx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • LocationWrocław

Depends on how old they are. I doubt that anyone born in 1910 would live much longer than the current maximum human lifespan, but 1960 maybe, 2010 likely, and 2060 definite.

 

If a person born in 1910 lives to be 120 years old, it will be in age of gene therapy and nanobots. I would say everyone after 1960 will be immortal.



#7
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

You're all pessimistic.

 

The first person to live to a million years has already been born.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#8
jamesgera

jamesgera

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts

 

Depends on how old they are. I doubt that anyone born in 1910 would live much longer than the current maximum human lifespan, but 1960 maybe, 2010 likely, and 2060 definite.

 

If a person born in 1910 lives to be 120 years old, it will be in age of gene therapy and nanobots. I would say everyone after 1960 will be immortal.

 

i don't really think there are any people born in 1910 left except a few. 

they would be 114. i won't expect to see gene therapy and reverse aging for another decade or 2 so unless you think those people can live to 124 or 134 it would be unlikely they will be immortal 



#9
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,241 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

Depends on how old they are. I doubt that anyone born in 1910 would live much longer than the current maximum human lifespan, but 1960 maybe, 2010 likely, and 2060 definite.

 

If a person born in 1910 lives to be 120 years old, it will be in age of gene therapy and nanobots. I would say everyone after 1960 will be immortal.

 

Yeah, but the chance of any given 104-year old living to the age of gene therapy and nanobots are 1 in 1000 at best. I've read that after 110, there's a 50% chance you'll die on any year. Also, people won't be immortal for thousands if not millions of years. Immortal means that someone is impossible to kill. Even if you elliminate aging, you can still get a disease. Even if you elliminate disease, your body can still be destroyed. Even if you've got your conciousness backed up on a computer, someone can always hack into the computer and delete the data. It'll always be possible to kill someone.

 

 

You're all pessimistic.

 

The first person to live to a million years has already been born.

Oh, I don't doubt that. There are billions of people alive who will live long enough to see reverse-aging technology. It's just that not everyone will live that long. As I said, accidents or deliberate injuries can always happen.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#10
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,750 posts

I'll bet that life will be slightly longer if you live within the "first world" by the year 2100. Cancer will probably be gone and heart disease treatable...The main difference will probably be quality of life.

 

I'll say a avg of 88.

 

30% of the population will make it to 100 years old. Expect the oldest to reach 120 and maybe 130 once in a blue moon.

 

I just don't believe we will add more then 8-9 years on the means. Unless of course, we can reverse it all together.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#11
Bradley

Bradley

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Both Samsung and Apple announced health wearable platforms. Google is expected to announce a health platform for Android during I/O. That data collection will result in huge leaps in average life expectancy rates. Health insurance companies will jump all over this technology. They will want to gather your data and make sure they treat your heart condition before it becomes a heart attack (at which point treatment becomes enormously expensive). 

 

Something as simple as data collection will have enormous benefits in terms of average life expectancy rates. 


  • Kabe Ayofe likes this

#12
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Without anti-aging technology? 90-100 in developed countries, 80-90 worldwide.

With anti-aging technology? (Much) Higher than this. I don't want to get too specific with this (yet) since there might be various types/kinds of anti-aging technology which could have different results.



#13
lechwall

lechwall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationSunny England

Over 100 anything less would be a catastrophic failure


  • Kabe Ayofe likes this

"The future will be better tomorrow.  If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.   For NASA, space is still a high priority. The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history. Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."  Dan Quayle

 


#14
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

anything less would be a catastrophic failure

Oh, please! Considering that global life expectancy was like 30 years just two centuries ago, even having the global life expectancy be 80-90 years in 2100 will be an extremely significant improvement.



#15
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
Im going with no aging in the first world by 2100 if we get there. Still other ways to die though.

So for most here its live long enough to live forever.
'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#16
mareram

mareram

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • LocationSpain

Something between 100 and 115 with no life-extension-age-repairing-medicine. With it, at the year 2100 the life span should be indefinite (at least for medical reasons)



#17
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,750 posts

I think people should consider reading 1920 through the 70's before they answer this question. The innovation and advancement in health can't be matched the past 25 years.

https://en.wikipedia...1960_in_science

 

The potential is there for some serious advancement, but I'll believe it when I see it helping people. This 50 year period, you could see it helping people and it helped add 30 years onto the avg life span.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#18
lechwall

lechwall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationSunny England

 

anything less would be a catastrophic failure

Oh, please! Considering that global life expectancy was like 30 years just two centuries ago, even having the global life expectancy be 80-90 years in 2100 will be an extremely significant improvement.

 

 

The rate of technological change increasing is what would make it a failure


"The future will be better tomorrow.  If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.   For NASA, space is still a high priority. The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history. Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."  Dan Quayle

 


#19
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,827 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

all this talk of adding 30 years to a life span. You guys know that means mostly that less babies died right?

 

People like Ben Franklin lived into his eighties. Many people lived into their sixties for a good chunk of human history. High infant mortalities are what cause those numerical changes.

 

The other big change in life expectancy, though much less that infant mortality, comes from things like vaccines, antibiotics and the ability to do surgery without the risk of almost certain death from exposing the internal organs to outside air.

 

After that it's ability to repair injuries and illness based damage.

 

Almost all the gains on life expectancy have been made by changes to early survival and avoiding death by outside forces. We have become good at mitigating the risks and repairing the results of life, but not much in the way of adding any length to it.

 

I don't see genetic therapies being all that advantagious in humans, their largest potential I feel is in making bacterial farms that produce the proteins that a given gene would make in a human that we can then give to people as medicine. Because altering the gene may actually alter another gene that shares base pairs with it that we do not wish to alter, where as we can achieve the effect of having altered the gene via simply producing the drug/medicine with the compounds the gene would produce. Between that and altering the genes of the microbiome to optimize them while making them more resilient and more controlled. Or altering the genes of parasites and bacteria so that the can more easily be targetted or made non-infectious to humans.

 

That would be a huge step but again it tends mostly toward aftercare of the effects of life on people.

 

Printed organs, now that I see huge potential for. The first generation or two will likely be less capable than the ones we are born with. But I imagine we will likely see organs reach a point where swapping out a heart or kidney would be like getting a new fuel pump or filter for a car.

 

Once you can do that for organs and replace connective tissue or build new limbs the biggest limit on life is the central nervous system.

 

So provided you avoid dementia and other neural related age declines I can't imagine that we won't see at least a few reaching 230 years old. and if we manage to crack the neural decline issues with stemcell therapies and drug therapies made from genetically engineered bacterial farms that could well become the standard age many reach. and beyond.

 

I think at that point the threshhold becomes 5-800 years with the limits of the the human brain to contain new material, which by then we would hopefully have means of getting around that limit.


  • Kabe Ayofe likes this
Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#20
Bradley

Bradley

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

 

Printed organs, now that I see huge potential for. The first generation or two will likely be less capable than the ones we are born with. But I imagine we will likely see organs reach a point where swapping out a heart or kidney would be like getting a new fuel pump or filter for a car.

 

 

As long as you went as far as printed organs, why not stem cell regenerated organs? Will stem cells leap frog printed organs now that researchers can start experimenting directly on human tissue?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users