RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 25, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2017 I notice the burnt 'toast no no'. I always get the burnt toast. Are broken fried eggs a no no too? I only ask because I always get the broken fried eggs too. So you're the one living in my house! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 so why are we living longer? Ed We eat more preservatives...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 We eat more preservatives...... Does this make us the Self-Preservation Society? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 We don't....it is lower infant mortality and medical intervention that has increased the averages. The number of people surviving to old age is higher because there are more people. Research shows old records of early death were affected by infants death, and diseases which are treatable now. Study of death records from the Tudor period showed many people lived as long as now, but the average was far lower. The person who got to old age then was fit, they had survived, and many got to extreme old age. Stephen We are living longer. Yes, the big wins were to do with reductions in infant and child mortality however we are increasingly pushing out the age to which people live. It accounts for the increase in diseases of the elderly. Current estimates are that 1 in 3 people born in the UK will live to 100 yet there is no expectation of significant improvements in birth and infant mortality. Furthermore, the so called 'pensions crisis' is because of the increasing numbers of years those who reach 65 are living for. When 'modern' state pensions were introduced, 1948, it was expected that the average man would claim it for two years. It is significantly longer today. Since 1992 the average life span of men in England who reach 65 has gone up by 4 years and today they can expect to reach 84. A few Tudors lived to great age, most didn't. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 We are living longer. Yes, the big wins were to do with reductions in infant and child mortality however we are increasingly pushing out the age to which people live. It accounts for the increase in diseases of the elderly. Current estimates are that 1 in 3 people born in the UK will live to 100 yet there is no expectation of significant improvements in birth and infant mortality. Furthermore, the so called 'pensions crisis' is because of the increasing numbers of years those who reach 65 are living for. When state pensions were introduced it was expected that the average man would claim it for two years. It is significantly longer today. Since 1992 the average life span of men in England who reach 65 has gone up by 4 years and today they can expect to reach 84. A few Tudors lived to great age, most didn't. . Careful now, you're arguing with the Man Who Knows Too Much Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does this make us the Self-Preservation Society?Only if you're engaged in trying to 'blow the bl@@dy doors off' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 We are living longer. Yes, the big wins were to do with reductions in infant and child mortality however we are increasingly pushing out the age to which people live. It accounts for the increase in diseases of the elderly. Current estimates are that 1 in 3 people born in the UK will live to 100 yet there is no expectation of significant improvements in birth and infant mortality. Furthermore, the so called 'pensions crisis' is because of the increasing numbers of years those who reach 65 are living for. When 'modern' state pensions were introduced, 1948, it was expected that the average man would claim it for two years. It is significantly longer today. Since 1992 the average life span of men in England who reach 65 has gone up by 4 years and today they can expect to reach 84. A few Tudors lived to great age, most didn't. . A lot has to do with recent advances in medicine and to a certain extent that dreaded phrase 'Health & Safety'. Within living memory people died from infections that are routinely treated with antibiotics. Surgery has advanced to treat otherwise fatal conditions. People that would have died from eg a stroke are kept alive, often with a poor quality of life. The list goes on.... It is not so long ago that to survive to old age all you had to do was avoid the serious childhood diseases/ poverty/ cholera/ typhoid/ plague/ industrial diseases or accidents etc - many of these problems have now been eliminated or severely reduced. However, nature may be fighting back: Ebola/ HIV and other 'modern' diseases..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurenceb Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 A lot has to do with recent advances in medicine and to a certain extent that dreaded phrase 'Health & Safety'. Within living memory people died from infections that are routinely treated with antibiotics. Surgery has advanced to treat otherwise fatal conditions. People that would have died from eg a stroke are kept alive, often with a poor quality of life. The list goes on.... It is not so long ago that to survive to old age all you had to do was avoid the serious childhood diseases/ poverty/ cholera/ typhoid/ plague/ industrial diseases or accidents etc - many of these problems have now been eliminated or severely reduced. However, nature may be fighting back: Ebola/ HIV and other 'modern' diseases..... Resistance to antibiotics is increasing, in a few years it will be as if they had never happened Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.