Re: Max lifespan increasing too slowly

"Tim Tyler" wrote...
> In sci.life-extension Johnny Astro wrote:
> : "Tim Tyler" wrote...
> :> In sci.life-extension Johnny Astro wrote:
>
> [Re: http://www.lauralee.com/news/130years.htm ]
>
>
> : But if the rate of increase of the rate of increase [was] constant:
then in 30
> : years it went from 5 months per decade to 13 months per decade.  So in
60
> : years it would be at 29 months per decade.  It would reach 120 months
per
> : decade in just over 400 years, if my math is correct.
>
> :> The article itself points out the fact that the rate of increase
> :> appears to be increasing.

That was more difficult to calculate.  I figure the rate of increase is
increasing at 3.22% per year.  That comes to immortality in 2071, when the
rate of increase passes 10 years per decade, for the lifespan of the very
oldest people.  Naturally, immortality for the few at the maximum is not
exactly the same as immortality for the average person.  Average maximum
lifespan increases like this:
2000:  108 years
2010:  109 years 5 months
2020:  111 years 6 months
2030:  114 years 3 months
2040:  118 years 2 months
2050:  123 years 5 months
2060:  130 years 8 months
2070:  140 years 8 months
2080:  154 years 4 months
So, it actually looks like there's a chance for anyone under 130 years old
in 2060.  By this crude estimate anyone born after 1930, who already expects
to live well over 100, has a reasonable chance of reaching it.
But this is all just averages, of course.  Despite the average today we've
had a couple of celebrities die young recently.  I think John Ritter and
Robert Palmer were both 54.  So there are no guarantees for anyone.  Even if
you believe the numbers.