• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 5 votes

Average Age of 100 validated Oldest living people


  • Please log in to reply
300 replies to this topic

#31 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 December 2006 - 08:25 PM

struct

struct wrote>

I just decided to compute roughly a numerical value for my life expectancy at any time.
It won't be the official life expectancy of the country where I live since I don't consider myself an average person of that country.
I aim to live longer than an average person by adjusting to healthier lifestyle. On the other hand I limit my life expectancy at any time to not more than the age of the oldest person on the planet at that time. It's not an overestimation to live as long as the still-living people of the 19th century. My computation of my life expectancy is based on the data that www.grg.org/ is providing about validated supercentenarians. Concretely, this is my own computed life expectancy at any moment:
The average age of 100 validated oldest people living at that moment.


So now my life expectancy is 110.73 years old according to my own calculations.


It would be better if I computed the average age of 100 validated oldest males but I don't know where to get that data. There are only 10 males on that list.
Note that calculating the life expectancy for myself this way does not necessarily mean that I have a finite number of years to live.
Mostly for fun, I'll try to compute my life expectancy, every time I get updated data (every 3 to 10 days) to see if it is changing (I expect to slightly increase every month).

Stephen wrote>

If you believe in probabilities ( and I don't ) you would have to realize
that they are only valid for a sample size that is *large* , not one
(ie. yourself) .

By your words "Mostly for fun..." I think you see this already.

For an individual the probabilities of living until tomorrow
are always 50/50. Life insurance companies know this. They make their money
on large sample sizes.

(The younger you are, the cheaper life insurance is, in case you
might be thinking along these lines in the near term.)

http://en.wikipedia....insurance_works

This may be helpful. Though you might have mentioned it already
in some form:

http://en.wikipedia....life_expectancy

From the movie Final Destination:

We say that the hour of death cannot be forecast. But when we say this, we imagine that the hour is placed in an obscure and distant future. It never occurs to us that it has any connection with the day already begun, or that death could arrive this same afternoon - this afternoon which is so certain, and which has every hour filled in advance.

http://www.imdb.com/...t0195714/quotes

(I'm usually in "Religion" forum)

-Stephen

#32 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 10 December 2006 - 12:42 AM

For an individual the probabilities of living until tomorrow
  are always 50/50. Life insurance companies know this. They make their money
  on large sample sizes.


where in hell did you get that Stephen!?
If that what you say is true then people on average would live only ONE DAY.
I guess you probably are too young to understand this. According to your statement, it must be a miracle for you to be more than 3 years old. Wow, and you know how to write words.
And please pray hard for me so one day I understand your point!

Edited by struct, 10 December 2006 - 03:12 AM.


#33 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 11 December 2006 - 07:32 PM

110.67

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 11 December 2006 - 09:44 PM

Average change from year to year (based on 1972 through 2006 data and skipping missing 1982, 1983, and 1995 through 2005 data): +0.23 years
Standard deviation: +/- 0.38

Based on linear growth of +0.2 year per year, I will "die" in 2103 at age 130.

Let's work on these numbers, people! :)

#35 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 11 December 2006 - 10:55 PM

Thank you Richard for the relevant analysis/contribution!
It will be an happy surprise (not really a surprise actually) if Ray Kurzweil comes next and makes an exponential fit to the data which I think that would be a more logical (and optimistic) thing to do.
Not to turn you down (take it friendly), even though your number 130 seems more optimistic than mine 111 it gives you/us no hope. Mine, when we reach 2103 (the year you 'die') would probably be somewhere between 150-200.

Thanks again Richard! You have temporarily raised the bar.

#36 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 11 December 2006 - 11:01 PM

I think our numbers definitely suggest turning linear growth into exponential or hyper-exponential growth so that we can actually live forever. 111, 130, 150, or 200 are just too finite :)

#37 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 11 December 2006 - 11:08 PM

That's the idea!! and me likes it.

#38 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 12 December 2006 - 03:50 AM

Now back to down-to-earth numbers:

110.60

(let me say it again) sun of a beach!!! the oldest woman has died.
At least we should feel content that now will be surrounded by younger ones.

#39 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 12 December 2006 - 04:33 AM

The oldest person now is a man (115) from Puerto Rico. Out of 78 supercentenarians (>or= 110) only 8 are males.

#40 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 14 December 2006 - 04:45 PM

110.61

#41 rhakshasa

  • Guest
  • 136 posts
  • 1

Posted 14 December 2006 - 08:18 PM

At this rate I could live at least to 130, that would be 110 yrs left! [thumb]

#42 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 16 December 2006 - 01:33 AM

110.63

wish you more years rhakshasa!?

#43 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 17 December 2006 - 05:28 PM

110.64

#44 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 19 December 2006 - 10:48 PM

110.65

#45 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 24 December 2006 - 04:41 PM

110.70

A woman 113 from New Zeland has been validated.

#46 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 25 December 2006 - 08:02 PM

110.71

#47 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 30 December 2006 - 05:48 AM

110.66

#48 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 31 December 2006 - 12:04 AM

110.67

#49 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 02 January 2007 - 05:16 PM

110.71

#50 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 11 January 2007 - 05:21 AM

110.67

(I just turned 31, on Jan 10)

Edited by struct, 12 January 2007 - 01:59 AM.


#51 Aegist

  • Guest Shane
  • 1,416 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 11 January 2007 - 06:00 AM

You're right. The article doesn't mention the Bible as the source of the faith and spirituality of those surveyed. I suspect that's the case; however, I could be wrong.

May be researchers should be more specific on the origin of centenarians belief systems in the future. What you believe and how you live your life according to those beliefs might prove to be the most dominant or determining factor in longevity.

I wonder how many atheists have made it past 100? If the atheist mode of thinking is superior, shouldn't it eventually show up in longevity research?

This sort of research is irrelevent though. The fact that they think their faith contributed to their age has nothing to do with what actually caused them to live longer. It was perhaps their genes, it was perhaps particular physical hardship throughout two great world wars which invoked a necessary caloric restriction program on them?

They have NO IDEA why they are older than everyone else, and the evidence says that the rest of the population from their era were vastly more religious than non-religious, and they all still died just like everyone else, so there is no correlation between longevity and religion. The fact that these centenarians happen to be religious is probably just a carry over of the statistical break down of their generation, and pure chance.

#52 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 12 January 2007 - 02:01 AM

110.69

#53 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 12 January 2007 - 07:32 PM

110.70

#54 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 22 January 2007 - 01:43 AM

110.66

The oldest woman (115) has died. Even though people on top of the supercentenarian's list are dying, the number of supercentenarian is increasing. In 2005 the highest number of supercentenarians was 75; today that number is 85. This means the record has been broken at least 10 times since 2005. Before 2005 that number was lower.

Edited by struct, 22 January 2007 - 04:24 PM.


#55 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 23 January 2007 - 01:57 AM

110.67

(86 supercentenarians)

#56 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 24 January 2007 - 05:59 PM

110.68

(87 supercentenarians)

#57 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 25 January 2007 - 01:52 AM

110.62

(86 superc.)
The oldest person 115, a man from Puerto Rico, died. He kept this title for only 43 days. Now the oldest validated person in the world is a woman 114 from U.S.
Unusually, 4 persons have kept the above title within about 4 months. This explains, partly, why the average age of 100 VOLP has not increased yet as I have expected. On the other the number of supercentenarians is increasing while the peak is flattening, i.e the oldest living person from now on would most likely be less than a year older than the follower. For example now the oldest (114) is less than 2 months older from the 2nd place holder.

#58 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 03 February 2007 - 12:43 AM

110.58

(84 superc.)

The oldest person dies again (not the same person though). I am talking about the woman 114 from U.S.; she kept the title for only 10 days. Now the oldest person in the world is a woman 114 from Japan.
However, I think there will be two milestones that will be reached this year (2007) related to this topic:
1) The number of living supercentenarians will reach 100.
2) The Average Age of 100 VOLP will reach 111.00.
Once both of these numbers are reached I will update the above numbers less frequently (probably once a month)

My extended guesses for the above Average Age:

2007 -> 111.0
2010 -> 112.0
2013 -> 113.0
2015 -> 114.0
2017 -> 115.0

#59 kgmax

  • Guest
  • 75 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 February 2007 - 03:54 AM

Are'nt most of the leaders months apart ?

I know that 2 of the top 10 are here in indiana.
http://www.indystar....LOCAL/702020544

#60 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 06 February 2007 - 01:29 AM

110.55

(83 superc.)

Are'nt most of the leaders months apart ?
I know that 2 of the top 10 are here in indiana.


Yes they are only months apart; I mentioned it few posts above.
So if the one on the top dies it's not a big deal; it just lowers those two numbers and may harm my reputation in forcasting.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users