If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   Half of the people born after the year 2000 will live to at least 100, complain that there's still nothing on cable   (newser.com) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, half  
•       •       •

904 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 May 2014 at 10:54 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-18 06:31:03 AM  
The other half are the men.
 
2014-05-18 06:59:02 AM  
And people are earning less and less, unable to save for retirement.  In this scenario, people will basically have to work, possibly into their 80s, until they physically can't work anymore.   Elderly care/Medicare will become a huge financial drain on taxpayers.  I predict that families will be burdened taking care of their elderly parents - and grandparents - who can no longer afford to support themselves because the money ran out.

Frankly, I expect that suicides will spike as well as people live to be 100 but their lives ended decades earlier.
 
2014-05-18 07:36:48 AM  
And they will be eating green slime. The world's last steak will be mine.

/of course they will work longer. 50-60 years of retirement is silly
 
2014-05-18 08:11:23 AM  

Sgygus: The other half are the men.


static.comicvine.com
 
2014-05-18 09:01:26 AM  
Surely MechaMatlock will be available.
 
2014-05-18 10:01:24 AM  
This is the kind of headline that causes a new disease to flourish.
 
2014-05-18 10:12:40 AM  
I figure the having to work harder and not being able to retire will take care of that possibility to live longer.
 
2014-05-18 10:44:10 AM  
A longer career means more productivity. More productivity means better quality of life. Better quality of life means fulfilling careers. Ad infinitum.
 
2014-05-18 11:12:43 AM  
Half alive. Half dead. = Zombies
 
2014-05-18 11:16:55 AM  
"A longer career means more productivity. More productivity means better quality of life. Better quality of life means fulfilling careers. Ad infinitum."

You is funny.

3.97293/10
 
2014-05-18 11:23:57 AM  

jaylectricity: A longer career means more productivity. More productivity means better quality of life. Better quality of life means fulfilling careers. Ad infinitum.


In 1% speak.

Longer lives means more drones.  More drones means more competition for jobs.  I can pay less and provide less benefits.  Buy a few congress-critters and get some workplace safety laws replaced or relaxed.

Teach drones early to 'gets theirs'.  Get them in debt early either by the education lie (you are unemployable unless you take out these student loans), consumerism lie (you are nothing if you do not buy stuff now - put it credit), or the housing lie (you need this to be considered successful and to be a good provider for your children - go ahead and take out this mortgage - don't worry about that balloon payment - you expect to be making more money by the time that rolls around).  One of these three or a combination of any two or better yet all of them will have them as indentured servants filling my coffers until they die.

Surplus drones will be kept poor and destitute to keep active drones in line.
 
2014-05-18 11:28:05 AM  
They'll probably be complaining that the cable bill is larger than their mortgage.

/"In my parents' day TV was free"
 
2014-05-18 11:29:06 AM  

K3rmy: jaylectricity: A longer career means more productivity. More productivity means better quality of life. Better quality of life means fulfilling careers. Ad infinitum.

In 1% speak.

Longer lives means more drones.  More drones means more competition for jobs.  I can pay less and provide less benefits.  Buy a few congress-critters and get some workplace safety laws replaced or relaxed.

Teach drones early to 'gets theirs'.  Get them in debt early either by the education lie (you are unemployable unless you take out these student loans), consumerism lie (you are nothing if you do not buy stuff now - put it credit), or the housing lie (you need this to be considered successful and to be a good provider for your children - go ahead and take out this mortgage - don't worry about that balloon payment - you expect to be making more money by the time that rolls around).  One of these three or a combination of any two or better yet all of them will have them as indentured servants filling my coffers until they die.

Surplus drones will be kept poor and destitute to keep active drones in line.



But then men will rise up and fight the drones!
www.csmonitor.com
 
2014-05-18 11:42:03 AM  
Wrong. As always, half of people born after 2000 will die young in third-world shiatholes.
 
2014-05-18 11:47:32 AM  
Does that take into account the Great Water Wars of the 2070s or not?
 
2014-05-18 11:48:36 AM  
Bullshiat.  Since when have we ever been able to solve the dying of old age problem?  Sure, we've done a good job at raising the average and median, mostly by solving the infant mortality problem and keeping younger/middle-aged people alive through medical intervention, but there is still no cure for being over 80.
 
2014-05-18 11:54:25 AM  
I think they'll be asking what the hell cable was, subby.
 
2014-05-18 12:32:17 PM  

Earguy: I predict that families will be burdened taking care of their elderly parents - and grandparents - who can no longer afford to support themselves because the money ran out.

You mean it's not happening already?  I'm already staring down the barrel of caring for my entire extended family and wondering if it's going to come down to triage.  In my grandmother's last months her round-the-clock care, which lasted years mind you, cost over $10k/month.  That's one person.  My grandfather had saved up to pay for that prior to his death, bless his soul, but we got pretty close to running out.

Now I have two siblings approaching middle age with no savings, an aging mother with little to her name, and two parents-in-law with bad health and debt.  I could leave them all to die slow, horrible deaths in this "life at any cost" culture or. . . well, it's basically triage.  I don't make enough to pay for one person's long-term care, and it looks like they're all going to need it at some point, and for at least a couple decades each.  What do you do when you're looking at an extended family's long-term care bills in the eight figures?  And that's assuming my spouse doesn't get sick.  There's just no way.  I can't even start to form a plan before my brain shuts down to avoid going insane.

DrPainMD: As always, half of people born after 2000 will die young in third-world shiatholes.

More than that.  And first-world populations will start dying earlier due to bad lifestyle habits.
 
2014-05-18 12:40:53 PM  

DrPainMD: Wrong. As always, half of people born after 2000 will die young in third-world shiatholes.


Came here for this. Thank you.

As usual, by "everyone" we really mean Western, first-world, mainly white people.

Yay cultural centrism!
 
2014-05-18 12:42:16 PM  

Snarfangel: K3rmy: jaylectricity: A longer career means more productivity. More productivity means better quality of life. Better quality of life means fulfilling careers. Ad infinitum.

In 1% speak.

Longer lives means more drones.  More drones means more competition for jobs.  I can pay less and provide less benefits.  Buy a few congress-critters and get some workplace safety laws replaced or relaxed.

Teach drones early to 'gets theirs'.  Get them in debt early either by the education lie (you are unemployable unless you take out these student loans), consumerism lie (you are nothing if you do not buy stuff now - put it credit), or the housing lie (you need this to be considered successful and to be a good provider for your children - go ahead and take out this mortgage - don't worry about that balloon payment - you expect to be making more money by the time that rolls around).  One of these three or a combination of any two or better yet all of them will have them as indentured servants filling my coffers until they die.

Surplus drones will be kept poor and destitute to keep active drones in line.


But then men will rise up and fight the drones!


And how long will we be able to sustain this model before the sheer trillions of people making $1 a year decide "to hell with living, let's murder the shiat out of every corporation and government and just take what we need so our kids don't starve?"
 
2014-05-18 12:45:16 PM  
So, having been born in 1982, I'm most likely farked.

Well, if they can't find a cure for Alzheimer's, I'm probably farked no matter what.
 
2014-05-18 12:55:05 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Snarfangel: K3rmy: jaylectricity: A longer career means more productivity. More productivity means better quality of life. Better quality of life means fulfilling careers. Ad infinitum.

In 1% speak.

Longer lives means more drones.  More drones means more competition for jobs.  I can pay less and provide less benefits.  Buy a few congress-critters and get some workplace safety laws replaced or relaxed.

Teach drones early to 'gets theirs'.  Get them in debt early either by the education lie (you are unemployable unless you take out these student loans), consumerism lie (you are nothing if you do not buy stuff now - put it credit), or the housing lie (you need this to be considered successful and to be a good provider for your children - go ahead and take out this mortgage - don't worry about that balloon payment - you expect to be making more money by the time that rolls around).  One of these three or a combination of any two or better yet all of them will have them as indentured servants filling my coffers until they die.

Surplus drones will be kept poor and destitute to keep active drones in line.


But then men will rise up and fight the drones!

And how long will we be able to sustain this model before the sheer trillions of people making $1 a year decide "to hell with living, let's murder the shiat out of every corporation and government and just take what we need so our kids don't starve?"


It looks to be at have been going on for at least 20 years.  And they let people think that they make a difference because they can vote.  They are easily sidetracked by meaningless debate over issues that will not resolve anything or will not matter.  If there were any more red herrings, the smell would be so bad that Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres would cream their collective comfortable panties for centuries.

People will never rise up - at least not in time to matter in regards to this planet.  After this world is nothing but a shell, the elite will migrate somewhere else.  There will still be people on Earth, but they will be drones - sending their products to Mars or wherever the job creators are and not even enjoying any of the fruits of their labor.  They will scour the refuse left on Earth for their survival - heck, Earth might become a universal landfill as well - similar to Zalem and the low city in Gunnm.
 
2014-05-18 01:08:32 PM  
At the risk of sounding selfish, what do I care about the year 2100? I'll be long dead by then. Dead and forgotten.
 
2014-05-18 01:16:13 PM  
...and around half of people born after 2000 will also be obese.  Coincidence?
 
2014-05-18 01:25:39 PM  
Really? Did no one try to read this article?  It's behind a paywall; nice one subby.
 
2014-05-18 01:38:10 PM  

mcnguyen: Bullshiat.  Since when have we ever been able to solve the dying of old age problem?  Sure, we've done a good job at raising the average and median, mostly by solving the infant mortality problem and keeping younger/middle-aged people alive through medical intervention, but there is still no cure for being over 80.


We're getting really good about keeping chronic diseases like diabetes from wreaking damage on us the way they used to, and we're also getting good at replacing the worn-out and failed parts. I can easily foresee a time when about the only original part people might have is their brain*. If we get to that point, the only limit to mortality would be the longevity of the brain itself, and, no surprise, there are folks working on how to upload the contents of that to somewhere else.

*Reminds me of the old joke: This is the axe George Washington used. Of course, over time we've had to replace the handle and the head.
 
2014-05-18 01:45:40 PM  

golden goat: Did no one try to read this article?

OK, I'd say something about how "you must be new here" but these days almost all greened sources on Fark are unreliable, unavailable, secondhand or downright biased, so really these days I just use Fark for the masochistic pleasure of getting into arguments with a bunch of mean-spirited strangers.

No, I did not RTFA.  I've known for years the NYT is behind a paywall and while there are ways around it, half the time the content's not worth the effort.
 
2014-05-18 01:47:18 PM  

Alonjar: ...and around half of people born after 2000 will also be obese.  Coincidence?




I think obesity will be one if the things medical science will solve in the nex couple of decades.
 
2014-05-18 01:56:34 PM  
Who the fark would want to be alive past their middle 60s, if that old? Have you seen what the fark old people have to deal with just to check the mail and take a shiat in the morning? No thanks.
 
2014-05-18 02:09:45 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Alonjar: ...and around half of people born after 2000 will also be obese.  Coincidence?

I think obesity will be one if the things medical science will solve in the nex couple of decades.


Medical science already knows how to prevent that, but like most things, it takes patient compliance, which most docs will tell you, is one of the biggest challenges in their practices.

/but the patients don't want responsibility
//only a pill
 
2014-05-18 02:18:25 PM  
WAIT!!! I was told that this was the first generation that will NOT live longer than the previous one.

WTF.

Next you're going to tell me that I can eat gluten.
 
2014-05-18 02:30:02 PM  

mcnguyen: Bullshiat.  Since when have we ever been able to solve the dying of old age problem?  Sure, we've done a good job at raising the average and median, mostly by solving the infant mortality problem and keeping younger/middle-aged people alive through medical intervention, but there is still no cure for being over 80.


This.  Overly optimistic and naive article is just that.
 
2014-05-18 02:49:45 PM  

RobertBruce: And they will be eating green slime. The world's last steak will be mine.

/of course they will work longer. 50-60 years of retirement is silly


So much this. I retired from my first career in my early 50's and got bore within a year, so started a new business, which a decade later is growing and thriving. "Retirement" is for people who are ready to die.
 
2014-05-18 03:11:20 PM  

jjorsett: mcnguyen: Bullshiat.  Since when have we ever been able to solve the dying of old age problem?  Sure, we've done a good job at raising the average and median, mostly by solving the infant mortality problem and keeping younger/middle-aged people alive through medical intervention, but there is still no cure for being over 80.

We're getting really good about keeping chronic diseases like diabetes from wreaking damage on us the way they used to, and we're also getting good at replacing the worn-out and failed parts. I can easily foresee a time when about the only original part people might have is their brain*. If we get to that point, the only limit to mortality would be the longevity of the brain itself, and, no surprise, there are folks working on how to upload the contents of that to somewhere else.

*Reminds me of the old joke: This is the axe George Washington used. Of course, over time we've had to replace the handle and the head.


I'm very optimistic on everything but the brain part.

Based on how the brain seems, overarchingly, to work - pattern matching current input to previous input - I suspect that there are limits on how long this process can go on for until the set of previous input gets too large to efficiently handle. Beyond that you're looking at becoming posthuman in order to deal with it.
 
2014-05-18 04:30:02 PM  
Not going to happen.  The next great cull is coming soon.  I just hope I'm not here still to see it.

Headline should read:

Half of those born after year 2000 that survive the next apocalypse will live to at least 100, complain that there's still nothing on cable
 
2014-05-18 05:48:18 PM  
What's cable?
 
2014-05-18 06:05:21 PM  

BumpInTheNight: I think they'll be asking what the hell cable was, subby.


I know where you're trying to go with that comment but people generally don't forget the things they grew up with.  My grandpa still remembered the ice wagon more than 70 years after the last time it went clip-clopping thru the neighborhood.
 
2014-05-18 06:12:34 PM  
I hope they don't get stuck with an extension of another 15-20 years of decrepitude.  Most of my family's done pretty good thru their 70s but go downhill fast in their 80s.  The ones who get to their late 80s are pretty much just ticking days off the calendar.  If the good years last up to the 90s, great.  But if it's just another 20 years of sitting in front of the staring window, count me out.
 
2014-05-18 06:27:53 PM  
Here's an article on living to 100 that you can read if you can't read the original article:

http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_ pe ople_live_to_100_page1.html

It is quite interesting

From 1950 to 1990 the percentage of Americans over 100 increased 10x (1000%) from 0.0015% to 0.0150%.

From 1990 to 2010 it increased to 0.0173%.

That's quite a jump, but not as big as demographers have expected, so I would say we are likely to see continued progress in life expectancy but not as fast as predicted until the predictors figure out what they are doing wrong.

Globally, a recent article points out that life expectancy has increased by 6 years since 1995 or thereabouts. A lot of this is due to things like fewer civil wars and and such. Some of the "failed states" have gotten their acts back together, but even in rich countries, life expectancy shows no signs of stopping its fairly rapid growth as expected in the past.

From this article:  Roughly 1 person in every 6,000 reach their 100th birthday today. Fifty years ago, only 1 person in every 67,000 reached the century mark. - See more at: http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_p e ople_live_to_100_page1.html#sthash.wurlatzQ.dpuf

Most of the growth is still in the younger cadres (or slices of population) because under 20s are so numerous (half the population in poor countries, often more) but the fastest growth is among the elderly rich and middle class people or those countries recovering from social collapse of some sort, often self-inflicted war and violence.

All in all, it's a good thing as Martha Stewart would say. The old are getting older fast but the young of the world are becoming more productive if not healthy.

I expect demographics usually work themselves out eventually. It's a free market in brains and bodies, so to speak, so it is constantly making and solving new problems.
 
2014-05-18 06:28:07 PM  

jtown: BumpInTheNight: I think they'll be asking what the hell cable was, subby.

I know where you're trying to go with that comment but people generally don't forget the things they grew up with.  My grandpa still remembered the ice wagon more than 70 years after the last time it went clip-clopping thru the neighborhood.


Are you my pants?
 
2014-05-18 06:48:26 PM  
Okay, say we've done all we've can for aging and decide zombie-ism is the best course/curse of action to take likewise when space and living boundaries are infinite and infinitesimal concurrently. Just how do we explain to the bioscience donation aliens whom take a test capsule for examination that the matrix isn't the borg, just infected by it, and that neo may or may not be a vampire and or a time traveling awerewolf whom may cause harm to their systems? So if Tesla was a time traveling wear-sheep-skin(false zombie roofie/ditchbreakup) salesmen and he figured out a biological programming mechanism using brain surgery and aluminum-film-laced fleshlights versus mercury and local radiological isotope contamination within neurons, how will we prove time travel false when a wild anti-christ appears while christ walks along the truffle shuffle hurricane of god? Just who and or the what is going to talk to the aliens whom have to make the most expensive collect phone calls in the universe just to make sure their bridges haven't been infected?

What if time travelers had to make collect calls and we had too much religion for a wild zombie to appear?
 
2014-05-18 07:18:07 PM  

basemetal: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Alonjar: ...and around half of people born after 2000 will also be obese.  Coincidence?

I think obesity will be one if the things medical science will solve in the nex couple of decades.

Medical science already knows how to prevent that, but like most things, it takes patient compliance, which most docs will tell you, is one of the biggest challenges in their practices.

/but the patients don't want responsibility
//only a pill


I think they will have a pill in a few years. Something to turn off the part of the brain that generated the desire to eat.
 
2014-05-18 07:18:54 PM  
I'm actually optimistic that I can make it to at least 100. I'm in my early 60's; in good health, normal weight, I cycle 10+ miles 3x per week. I still work and stay engaged with friends and hobbies. My four grandparents lived on average into their mid-80s, even though one grandfather lived only to age 71 by virtue of smoking from age 7 'til 70 (his parents lived into their mid-80s. One grandmother lived to 97.

I'm secular so have no reason to die, and would love to live another 40 years or more in reasonably good health. Yes, I've gone a bit downhill in the past 40 years, but not as much as one might think. The keys to me seem to be not to get overweight, and not to stop moving. Those two factors are why I think the growth in centenarians slowed in the US...the obesity epidemic. Moreover, anyone who reads the health news cannon be unaware of minor breakthroughs being announced what seem like monthly. One of these days those small steps will amount to a giant leap for mankind.

/with Apollo-gees... ;^)
 
2014-05-18 07:28:56 PM  
My grandmother reached the century mark about six months before she died. I don't know how happy she was. She'd suffered from untreated PTSD from a horrible incident from over 90 years ago and basically spent the first 40 years of her life surrounded by people and countries that wanted to obliterate her and her ethnic group. So I don't know if happiness was ever on the menu much for her.
 
2014-05-18 10:06:27 PM  

mcreadyblue: basemetal: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Alonjar: ...and around half of people born after 2000 will also be obese.  Coincidence?

I think obesity will be one if the things medical science will solve in the nex couple of decades.

Medical science already knows how to prevent that, but like most things, it takes patient compliance, which most docs will tell you, is one of the biggest challenges in their practices.

/but the patients don't want responsibility
//only a pill

I think they will have a pill in a few years. Something to turn off the part of the brain that generated the desire to eat.


Like meth?
 
2014-05-18 10:29:58 PM  
No they won't, they'll be dieing of simple infections by antibiotic resistant bacteria while the majority of invasive medical procedures will be a thing of the past. Not because they are obsolete but because they carry the lethal threat of infection.
 
2014-05-18 10:58:28 PM  

Earguy: And people are earning less and less, unable to save for retirement.  In this scenario, people will basically have to work, possibly into their 80s, until they physically can't work anymore.   Elderly care/Medicare will become a huge financial drain on taxpayers.  I predict that families will be burdened taking care of their elderly parents - and grandparents - who can no longer afford to support themselves because the money ran out.

Frankly, I expect that suicides will spike as well as people live to be 100 but their lives ended decades earlier.


If you see taking care of your parents as a burden, I feel sorry for you.
 
2014-05-19 12:55:04 AM  
There's a difference between being alive and living. Most of us aren't really living, we're just filling the time.
 
2014-05-19 02:02:37 AM  
Jeez. I was born a few decades before 2000 and I'm counting on living to be at least 200. Hopefully more. If I have to be a brain inserted into a robot body, I'll take it.
 
2014-05-19 02:38:34 AM  
How neat.

And to think -- here I am, not really wanting to live so much as another day.

I can't wait to be 100! It's going to be super awesome!!!

Oh, wait. I was born in 79. Great. I'll only make it to my late 80s. DAMNIT.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report