• 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

#61 struct

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

Posted 10 February 2007 - 05:52 PM

110.54

(81 superc.)

#62 struct

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

Posted 14 February 2007 - 04:54 PM

110.53

(80 superc.)

#63 struct

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

Posted 21 February 2007 - 07:01 PM

110.56

(81 superc.)

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 21 February 2007 - 07:09 PM

Where do you get this data from?

#65 struct

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

Posted 21 February 2007 - 08:39 PM

from www.grg.org
first number actually comes from a simple calculation (see title and first post of this topic) done by me using their data.

#66 struct

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

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:45 AM

110.57

(82 superc.)

#67 struct

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

Posted 25 February 2007 - 04:59 PM

110.60

(83 superc.)

#68 struct

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

Posted 03 March 2007 - 10:14 PM

110.61

(82 supercentenarians)

#69 struct

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

Posted 05 March 2007 - 07:16 PM

110.63

(83 superc.)

#70 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,193 posts
  • 63
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 05 March 2007 - 09:18 PM

Well, interesting thread, but I don't think the oldest living people have too much relevance for your lifespan. You never know if you will get cancer or have a stroke... The way to really make those chances negligible and have much control over the situation is to effectively stop the aging process. If we get this under control then how old people that were born in 1920 live to be will have very little relevance to your lifespan.

#71 struct

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

Posted 05 March 2007 - 09:54 PM

True. The primary matter of this topic is the title, not the subtitle. The subtitle is secondary; I kind of set my goal toward it even though I may deviate from my goal if that is not high enough. The current oldest living people don't have much relevance for my lifespan but they have a little bit since those people are the few ones that have gone that far (in living) and I don't have a better concrete reference.
As for cancer and stroke, they don't appear out of blue sky, I can somewhat reduce their chances of getting me. Actually, even things that strike out of blue sky I could reduce their chances of hitting me. Since I cannot control everything I stated that that is my life expectancy and not my absolute living time. On top of that that number is not static, as you can see.
When we stop aging I will defenitely stop posting on this topic.

#72 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,193 posts
  • 63
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 06 March 2007 - 12:48 AM

When we stop aging I will definitely stop posting on this topic.

Nice. haha.

All I was really trying to say was that how old that generation lives has really little to do with how long you will live. The telescoping nature of technology or time is a theory that discusses how much more quickly innovations occur as time goes on. There are lots of break throughs that are on the cusp of happening in so many different fields. As Aubrey de Grey said: The first person to live to be 1000 was probably born in 1945, and the first person to live to be 200 was probably born in 1935. While I probably disagree with his specific numbers, the point is that those 10 years in date of birth make a huge difference in lifespan.

Bottom line is that no one really knows what we are in store for.

p.s. You look a lot like someone I met at Georgia Tech, you wouldn't happen to go there eh?

#73 struct

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

Posted 06 March 2007 - 05:11 AM

No.
I did my undergraduate in Valdosta State University (in Georgia) though.

Here is a tricky question for you or whoever wants to answer it:
Given what the title and subtitle says, what would be the highest rank that I could hold? 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, .... ... or 100th? (1st being the oldest person and 100th is youngest of 100 oldest people living at that time)

#74 Aegist

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

Posted 06 March 2007 - 05:20 AM

Hmmm, oldest living person = 1 in 6+ billion. Great odds of achieving that LOL!

#75 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 06 March 2007 - 06:49 AM

I really like the idea of this thread, but one thing really caught my eye:

We have 83 Supercentenarians (78 Females: 5 Males) on our list

I didn't realize that women had such an advantage over men in this area... could it be possibly that back then when these people were young, men took most of the physical burden and stress (eg. farming, building houses, carrying heavy sacks of grain, and working in factories with high mortality rates?), Now that women play a much active role in the workplace and often have physically strenuous jobs, does anyone think that we will begin to see the numbers even out? (Even just a little?) Or is it more of a genetic thing?

#76 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 06 March 2007 - 06:52 AM

Women have always had a higher life expectancy than men.

Here is something I read awhile back on it:
http://www.news.harv...menLiveLon.html

#77 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,193 posts
  • 63
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 06 March 2007 - 09:45 AM

Given what the title and subtitle says, what would be the highest rank that I could hold?

Yah, I think you are thinking about this in the wrong way. If some of these life extension things take off the ground, then we will all live to really high ages. If it doesn't we will probably on average live to 90+ (my generation anyways). Don't think of it as a race against other people (to come in 50th), think of it as a race against nature (to live to 230). Cheers :)

#78 struct

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

Posted 06 March 2007 - 10:19 PM

I don't see it as a race against other people. I would rather be 10000000000000th from the top and live 3000 years than be 1st (at some time) and live 120 years. Actually I would like other people ahead of me live longer so that I have a good example to follow. I wish I never reach that number (in the title) but if I go close to it 'what would be the highest rank I could hold' was
my question without hinting any race.
It's not 50th.
Give it another try (just for the fun it).
cheers!!

#79 struct

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

Posted 18 March 2007 - 06:51 PM

110.67

(83 supercentenarians)

#80 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 18 March 2007 - 08:06 PM

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.


I agree one hundred percent. I don't think religion plays that much of a role since so many people who have died young are religious.

We need technology, obviously, to get us to the super high ages. [tung]

#81 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 18 March 2007 - 08:21 PM

I didn't realize that women had such an advantage over men in this area... could it be possibly that back then when these people were young, men took most of the physical burden and stress (eg. farming, building houses, carrying heavy sacks of grain, and working in factories with high mortality rates?),


There are two main biological theories AFAIK: women rarely have a chance to build up excessive levels of iron, and the differences in the hormonal situations between the sexes.

I haven't looked into this much at all, though.

#82 struct

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

Posted 22 March 2007 - 03:56 AM

110.66

(82 supercentenarians)

#83 struct

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

Posted 04 April 2007 - 02:15 AM

110.73 (back where I started)

(83 superc.)

#84 struct

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

Posted 08 April 2007 - 12:53 AM

110.73

(82 superc.)

#85 struct

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

Posted 09 April 2007 - 03:13 AM

110.71

(81 superC)

#86 struct

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

Posted 12 April 2007 - 02:23 AM

110.68

(80 superC)

#87 struct

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

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:09 AM

110.66

(79 superC)

#88 struct

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

Posted 25 April 2007 - 12:32 AM

110.67

(79 superC)

#89 struct

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

Posted 09 May 2007 - 12:07 AM

110.65

(78 superC)

#90 struct

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

Posted 14 May 2007 - 01:00 AM

110.66

(78 superC)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users