Talk:Longevity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] dating the tree

Methuselah doesnt give a current year for it, and neither prometheus nor methuselah is mentioned whether this date is rings or carbon. i find it odd to have exact hundred rings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.144.140 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a random and absurd religious text be cited in an article concerning a matter of science?

[edit] Ancient Man

There should be disscussion about the the longevity of humans before humans left africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.242.21 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph problems

  • 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.

The previous paragraphs were originally at the end of this article. I have a problem with them. 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? -Unknown

[edit] Meaning of word

"Anti-aging proponents"? What does that mean? -Branddobbe 09:55, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Citing beliefs of age expectancy

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)

[edit] World Factbook

Since all of these life expectancy figures are from the World Factbook, shouldn't we claim that Andorra has the longest life expectancy, (listed as 83.51 years) rather than Japan? Also, there are important differences between the life expectancies listed in the 2002 Factbook and the 2005 Factbook: US life expectancy is listed as 77.71, UK life expectancy as 78.38, Germany as 78.65, and so on. The difference between the countries has changed, which, is probably totally irrelevant because the information it affects is confusing (or manipulative?) in the current context. The claim that these differences reflect on how little lifesyle affects longevity seems like it's totaly invalid. 68.17.211.45 20:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-human longevity section added

I added a section on non-human longevity - I don't see why only humans should be mentioned. - Matthew238 03:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BenBest removal of Tai Chi

While I agree with the removal of that weird plant (I looked it up, it's horribly done and only a vague reference to longevity in a list of various plants), removing Tai Chi Chuan may be a bit hasty. There is a claim on the article that it is practised for longevity. I have requested they cite the source, but if medical research does end up supporting it, it does belong here doesn't it? --Tyciol 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

"Despite the fact that it is no more than human nature to not wish to surrender to old age and death, a few organizations are against antiaging, because they believe it sacrifices the best interests of the new generation, that it is unnatural, or unethical."

Is it just me or does that sound like the author doesn't agree with the anti-anti-aging people, ie. it's not neutral? Tango 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound that way. Some could very easily argue that as humans age, some instinctively give into death, sacrificing their lives for future generations, mainly their own children, but it could easily apply to others' children as well. It is certainly an evolutionary advantage. If that's still there, you should definately change it to be more neutral, at least in presenting both sides. Tyciol 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by another person (not Tyciol): Re the evolutionary advantage of adults dying off (so they don't compete with their children and grandchildren for resources). This has struck me as being worth describing in detail. Is there any research on this?

Hi there, I have read of a middle eastern population (possibly in Afghanistan) where the women routinely live beyoind one hundred, has anyone else heard of this, would this qualify as something worthy of this article if I could source something to cite? Cheers, BT1

[edit] Longevity in fiction

Sid Meier: Alpha Centauri (Longevity Vaccine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.115 (talk) 03:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

"# J. K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (The Philosopher's Stone and Nicholas Flamel)

  1. J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings (Aragorn, Bilbo and Gollum)
  2. Bruce Sterling: Holy Fire
  3. Yoda: Star Wars"

Did Yoda write Star Wars? Hmm... Not I think. Should the list be: character: title or author: title?

This fiction section would be the most appropriate place for all biblical citations.

[edit] Details of factors?

I'm a bit surprised that this article does not go into details about the factors associated with longevity, beyond mentioning smoking and the blanket statement "Significant factors in life expectancy include gender, genetics, access to health care, hygiene, diet, exercise and lifestyle". I would have liked to see some correlation specifics. Jeffhoy 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite needed

Whoever wrote this article was thinking more of 'life expectancy' than 'longevity.' They are NOT the same. "Life expectancy" is generally defined as the average age (50%) one can expect to live to. "Longevity" is concerned with the small number of people who live much longer than average (and has generally been defined as 90 and above, such as by the NY Times Index). There is no need to 'merge'; there is a need to 'clean up.'Ryoung122 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a typical dictionary definition:

lon·gev·i·ty (lŏn-jĕv'ĭ-tē, lôn-) n., pl. -ties.

Long life; great duration of life: His longevity vexed his heirs. Length or duration of life: comparing the longevities of the two peoples. Long duration or continuance, as in an occupation: had unusual longevity in the company; her longevity as a star. [Late Latin longaevitās, from Latin longaevus, ancient : longus, long + aevum, age.]

longevous lon·ge'vous (-jē'vəs) adj.

There are really two meanings here:

A. Long Life B. Life Expectancy

I suggest this article be rewritten to focus on (A) and move material for (B) to the 'life expectancy' article. This will clear up the confusion. A disambiguation link should be added to the top that says something akin to "for longevity (statistical calculation) please see life expectancy".

Ryoung122 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These two are related. Life expectancy is a function of time, as is Longevity, which can be thought of as the upper end of those life functions. These both change by time for a cohort mix. One thing troublesome to me here is the mixing in of philosophical notions; those ought to be split out. jmswtlk 15:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue regarding longevity and lifespan is a symptom of the lack of clarity in the article. It is possible to write one article covering both aspects if required but it needs to be appropriately structured to do so. I've added a tag to the top of the article as IMHO the article needs substantial not minor reorganisation.
In addition to the observation above, for instance, the section "RELIGION" contains much that has nothing to do with religion (if we do not include science as a religion). In addition to this observation the title itself is generally innappropriate. Trying to keep the original it would at least need expanding - e.g. "Records in religious texts of longevity". But better would be to scrap it for a new header such as "Legendary longevity" or somesuch.
Continuing this basic structural approach, I realise that "HISTORY" is also an awkward title. Is the section about the evolution of longevity, a sort of anthropology of longevity, or is it about the history of the study of longevity? As it stands it repeats the sort of "facts" regarding the longevity of specific individuals.
The same sort of observations can be made on the section the "FUTURE" of longevity. Is this a question as to whether the human species will survive, or is it a projection from studies of the change in lifespan/longevity anticipated.
Unfortunately I can't see any simple quick way to "fix" these problems. It seems to me that the entire article needs to be re-written from scratch, if these passing observations and the other structural observations made on this page are to be addressed.
I think it would also be helpful, as a general rule, if Wikipedia references were to be limited to references to explantions here of terms used rather than in place of primary research data. Primary (or secondary) research data is required for verification of a statement. For instance, in the numbers given for the life expectancy of people from different parts of the world, the reference to the CIA factbook does not give a reference to that part of the factbook upon which the statement rests but simply to an explanation in Wikipedia of what the CIA factbook is! Traditionally in scholarly articles the base research data is what is cited. So, generally, this article is in need also of citations.

LookingGlass (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added name in Longevity in Fiction

I added to the list of Longevity in Fiction the example of the Dúnedain Men of J.R.R. Tolkien book "The Silmarillion", accourding the explanation in the article related. --Dardón López J.R. 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clams

The article on the clam in bangor university says " evolution found a way" or some similar, funnily i think the exact opposite is the case and primitive organisms can easily live longer because they have less complex and thus vulnerable tissues. Its not important, but i think there has been no direct research on fossil shells maximum ages. Fascinatingly some grew much larger then their nowadays cousins, barring exceptions. Anyhow it is not in this article, a bit of a pitty since old(fossil) lifeforms are quitte possibly among the longer living in life records.77.251.179.188 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I added the text on the clam and on Prometheus the bristlecone pine. That is, is there evidence in the fossil record of long-lived critters. I'm not sure anyone can top 4900 year old trees, but perhaps fossil records can determine if any individual animals lived past 400 years. And re the comment about evolution, a better way to put it might be to say that "natural selection found a way", since the qahog clam seems to have found a nice little habitat niche. Of course, a successful species is measured in its terms to propagate, as well as to survive. --Iacobus 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deleting Longevity in Fiction

I'm deleting longevity in fiction, its unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It also amounts to a trivia section, which wikipedia is against. --Cptbuck 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Could the same be said about the "Religion" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.14.14 (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A separate article discussing the longevity of biblical personages would probably be best, but it is not, in and of itself, as poorly written or as unnecessary as the "longevity in fiction" section. --Cptbuck 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indiginous people (from developing world) with high life expectancy

In the Anti-Aging Plan, it is reported that besides the Okinawans, people from the mountains of India (the Hunzas, the inhabitants from the high mountain valley of Villcabamba in South America and inhabitants in South Georgia have achieved extremely great life spans.[1] [2] [3]

This should be added in the article. Look into it.

KVDP (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longevity in the ancient world

What is the basis for saying that reports of ancient philosophers' living to over 100 years must be frauds? Once we're into the historical period, why should we doubt Diogenes Laertius? It's not inherently improbable that one or two could well have reached 100 years. Isocrates definitely reached the age of 98. Jack (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Rather top-heavy with the Old Testament without being very illuminating. The Babylonians offer an older account of longevity before the Flood and furthermore explain it... as the result of lives led free from any kind of illness (perhaps also injury?) such that people had super-attenuated 'natural lifespans' - ie placing the phenomenon firmly in the realm of mythology - BBC Radio In Our Time - The Library at Nineveh . Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

May I also suggest that all religious citations or biblical references be placed in the "fiction" section above, please. "Longevity" is a matter of science, not make-believe. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.172.106 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longevity and blood sugar gene

Do we have an article on the theory that the ability to control blood sugar (either from ancestors having suffered starvation, or from a gene that is present in the subset of Ashkenazic Jews who live to over 100)? There was a very good PBS documentary about this about a year or two ago but I can't find information about it on the Web. Badagnani (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the transcript. Badagnani (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)