We will never* stop seeing accounts milking this same joke for more attention points
- at least not until 2050 when they’ll change it to “early 2000s”
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
1455 points (99.4% liked)
Science Memes
10760 readers
3282 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !reptiles and [email protected]
Physical Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !self [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It seems awkward to me to refer to the previous century that way until you're at least halfway through the next century. Even then, that's pushing it. Basically I think that way of referring to an era implies you're over, or at least fairly close to, 100 years away from it.
Early 2000's doesn't sound odd at all though.
Because that’s referring the 2000’s decade. In terms of centuries, I would say we are still in the early 2000’s and that does feel odd to say.
I rather meant how it sounds. It's in the "hundreds".
Two thousands.
Twenty hundreds.
"Early twenty hundreds" does kind of make it sound like we live in 2224 instead while "early two thousands" sounds like 2002.
I could have written it better.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Reading that just broke my hip.
My dad told me recently, when he started practicing medicine the old people with heart failures he was treating were often born in the late 1800s, but now those are all dead, and the people he's treating are more likely to have a birth years that are around 1940-1950. Which is also starting to become uncomfortably close to his own, 1960.
A given person's definition of "old" is usually about 15 years older than they are. My boss is 65 and calls 70 year olds "young".
When I started using dating apps I found 24 year olds too old. I still have that impression memorized but it's wild.
Welp, I don't know when from the memory is, but I do vividly remember thinking about how damn old those 14/15 year old 9th graders are. Could be 1st grade.
Basically as if the life ended at 20, and they were soon to retire.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
To use a quote from the later part of the 1900s:
Time keeps on slippin' into the future.
To use another from the very late 1900s
The years start comin' and they don't stop comin'
Definitely one of the songs of the very late 1900s.
The years start comin’ and they don’t stop comin’
and they don’t stop comin’
and they don’t stop comin’
Grandpa, your record is skipping again
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah sure kid, but I was reading the news when I was 3 and your work better be damn accurate!
One day, there will only be a handful of people from the 19 hundreds left
The oldest person who ever lived so far made it to 122, so by 2123 they'll almost certainly all be gone.
That's a verifiable old age people have lived to. Seeing how medicine and our understanding is constantly evolving, you don't think it even possible that someone would live even as long to 123?
This is no science, if even pop-sci, but: the first person to live as long as they want may have already been born is an idea that's been floated around. The remarkable thing is that while people have believed in living forever, well, forever, this is the first time in history that it's actually possible. Not perhaps even probably, but definitely possible that medicine will develop so far.
That article is bunk clickbait.
Here is an article from a better source saying the opposite.
It's pop-science, which I explicitly mentioned.
I've read the study your article is based on. It doesn't really state it in the way your article does in the title.
We found that, since 1990, improvements overall in life expectancy have decelerated. Our analysis also revealed that resistance to improvements in life expectancy increased while lifespan inequality declined and mortality compression occurred. Our analysis suggests that survival to age 100 years is unlikely to exceed 15% for females and 5% for males, altogether suggesting that, unless the processes of biological aging can be markedly slowed, radical human life extension is implausible in this century
Here you'll have to note that societal issues like income inequality have increased massively. Expected lifespan is still continuing to grow, despite the growth having slowed some. Medical technology and the growth of technology and novel medical technologies keep growing at an ever growing rate, really. Well, the speed of growth of technology in general is exponential. Perhaps it's not in the area of medicine, because there might be diminishing returns.
My point is that I'm definitely not arguing that someone from the 1900's will be alive in 2123, I'm just saying that for the first time in history, entertaining the idea that it might be possible for a person who has already been born to live practically as long as they want isn't totally ridiculous. That's all.
It's most definitely an argument that actual scientists on the subject will debate over, and have differing opinions. Remember that like in the 70's, a few people in the lead in computer engineering made comments like "there's never going to be a time in history where people would want personal computers. where would you put it anyway, you'd have to have a whole room" or the like.
The increase in average lifespan in the modern era has come almost entirely from a reduction of people dying during child birth and childhood. The life expectancy for people who've already reached adulthood (and for women, who've stopped having children) hasn't really changed much since prehistory. Maybe we are "on the cusp" of that changing, but it hasn't actually done so yet.
Maybe we are “on the cusp”
No, yeah, that's what I've been saying for a few comments now. That maybe it is so. I'm not saying it is so. I'm saying it's a possibility.
Like I don't believe I can read minds, but if I asked you to think of a number between one and ten and just guessed, I'd still have ~10% hitrate if we did it long enough. Perhaps even more.
Had you been a doctor in the 1920's and talked about people some day perhaps living forever, you'd have been ridiculed in any decent science circles. Now it's a novel thought that might even become reality. Might
The life expectancy for people who’ve already reached adulthood (and for women, who’ve stopped having children) hasn’t really changed much since prehistory.
You're referring to the "two score ten" and yeah, if you reached adulthood, you'd probably make it well into your fifties, with high probability that you'd actually manage to around 70.
My dad made it to 70. Insanely bad living habits. Like genuinely can't remember when he ever did a single thing like taking a walk or eating moderately or not drinking and smoking while doing that all. His mom (my grandmother) is now 93. She too has lived an exceedingly sedentary life and is obese.
If someone actually lives healthily, cares for themselves and has access to healthcare, 70 is extremely low for a life-expectancy. More like 100 for people who are now 30-40, and that's just a guess because I used to drive a taxi and would see a lot of very healthy 90-year olds. Like not even health-nut healthy, just "do my own chores and don't smoke and drink only rarely".
I think the biggest problem is solving things like dementia more than keeping people physically alive.
I imagine a more realistic compromise here would be to assume that when my gen is at the very end of it's life, it's gonna be closer to 130-150 years. Am I being overly optimistic? Probably. Can we know before we get there? Not really. Is there any point in arguing what will happen? No, I don't think so. Were I doing that? I was not. Was I pointing out that it's not totally insane to suggest that one perhaps remote possibility is that we might actually develop crazy medicine. However we'd also need radical social reform to get that to everyone prolly but still.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I just pulled my back and broke my hips reading this, it made me feel so old 👴🏻
I'm Gen-X, 51, and this doesn't sting too much...so like whatever. I do feel for Millenials and the elder Gen-Z though.
Imagine being Gen-Z out to buy some beer, you pull out your ID, the cashier barely glances at it and runs your credit card. You smugly say, "I guess you don't really check ID since you didn't really look at the date." The cashier responds, "I did. I saw the nineteen." Ooooff.
it's an odd feeling to be gatekept from beer by someone who's younger than the stretch marks & grey hairs on my body and; yet; it makes me feel good to be carded nonetheless somehow.
it's an odd feeling to be gatekept from beer by someone who's younger than the stretch marks & grey hairs on my body...
*slow clap*
Amazing. One of the best sentences I have read all year.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Isn't this an actual thing? Pretty sure I was told by some instructor not to use references older than a decade or two. Unless the subject is very elementary older sources are more likely to be obsolete
In chemistry a lot of the foundational synthesis and work is as old as the 60s and 70s; people build on it, but in some cases those early papers said pretty much all there is to be said on a topic, so there's no reason to republish on it.
I've had to cite papers as old as the late 30s before, because no one has ever found anything to fix or correct about their work! Pretty impressive if you ask me, given how few tools they had.
Yes, the point is to see something like your birthyear or maybe that good summer in your 20s being described as too old to be relevant anymore stings
Depends on the subject. Historians use a lot older materials more regularly for obvious reasons.
Ofc
load more comments
(2 replies)