Talk:Longevity/Archive 1

Archive 1

dating the tree

Methuselah doesnt give a current year for it, and neither prometheus nor methuselah is mentioned whether this date is rings or carbon. i find it odd to have exact hundred rings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.144.140 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a random and absurd religious text be cited in an article concerning a matter of science?

Ancient Man

There should be disscussion about the the longevity of humans before humans left africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.242.21 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: what do we know about that? Certainly that some individuals lived long enough to reproduce and bring up their children. The advantages of experience - i.e. 'old folk' - tend to suggest to me, if nobody else, that the lineages that survived may have had some individuals who knew their granchildren, perhaps even the birth of great grand-children - but that is supposition on my part. I am also supposing a generation of perhaps 16-22 years, with brth interval of perhaps four years, thereafter. Fossils will suggest ages - based on current human anatomy. It is, I think, likley that humans [senu lato] from before our lineage, or our relatives, left Africa probably passed forty years in some appreciable fraction of cases. Sixty years, say, would be pretty unusual, I suggest. Is there any evidence for any more precise estimate, even? Do, please, add or refer, if you know it - I'd like to learn. Autochthony wrote 2011 09 17 1945 Z 86.129.157.202 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph problems

• Even if that is achievable, we will have the problem that we do not work long enough. Working from 23 to 65 (i.e. for 43 years out of 80) is affordable to First World people, that is just over 50% of the world population.
• If we become 120 years old, but only work for 43 years, which is now 30% of our life, we will not be able to finance that. Taking the rate of 50% that we can afford now, we will have to work for 60 something years, probably from 23 to 85 years of age.

The previous paragraphs were originally at the end of this article. I have a problem with them. Food and lifestyle make rather a small difference (all from CIA World Fact Book 2002):

• USA: 77.4 years
• UK: 77.99 years

Scientists are working to extend our life, mainly with these ideas:

• Human growth hormone
• Strong Antioxidants

It would strike me that in the first paragraph, the food and lifestyle of the countries listed are rather similar (all first world,etc.), thus it doesn't really provide evidence for the point made. The second paragraph is just arkward. Maybe it needs to be scrapped or be more specific. Maybe 'Ideas that have been promoted towards increasing longevity include...' or something? -Unknown

Meaning of word

"Anti-aging proponents"? What does that mean? -Branddobbe 09:55, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Citing beliefs of age expectancy

In the article we see:

"It is believed by some that life expectancy in First World countries will have risen to 100 years by 2030, and to 120 years by 2060."

Who are these "some" that believe this? Sources should be cited. The documentary "Outfoxed" points out that the phrase "some say" and similar terminology is really just a technique for inserting the author's (or reporter's) opinions into a story. That seems like it could be the case here.

That paragraph was authored by others but I changed it from "some anti anging proponents" to "some" as it looked awkward - no weasling intended. PMA 13:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

World Factbook

Since all of these life expectancy figures are from the World Factbook, shouldn't we claim that Andorra has the longest life expectancy, (listed as 83.51 years) rather than Japan? Also, there are important differences between the life expectancies listed in the 2002 Factbook and the 2005 Factbook: US life expectancy is listed as 77.71, UK life expectancy as 78.38, Germany as 78.65, and so on. The difference between the countries has changed, which, is probably totally irrelevant because the information it affects is confusing (or manipulative?) in the current context. The claim that these differences reflect on how little lifesyle affects longevity seems like it's totaly invalid. 68.17.211.45 20:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

citation Needed

Not sure if we need all the citation needed next to each figure, if you notice the text above says

Population longevities can be seen as increasing due to increases in life expectancies around the world:[1][2]

It seems this entire section is from references 1 and 2, which are from the CIA World Fact Book, a valid reference.--Jmanfffreak (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have checked the source. Will delete the "citation needed" tags. RobertHannah89 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Just checked out other figures from CIA WFB and found that the values written out there are WRONG! And probably have been for many years! Will sort this out... RobertHannah89 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-human longevity section added

I added a section on non-human longevity - I don't see why only humans should be mentioned. - Matthew238 03:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

BenBest removal of Tai Chi

While I agree with the removal of that weird plant (I looked it up, it's horribly done and only a vague reference to longevity in a list of various plants), removing Tai Chi Chuan may be a bit hasty. There is a claim on the article that it is practised for longevity. I have requested they cite the source, but if medical research does end up supporting it, it does belong here doesn't it? --Tyciol 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"Despite the fact that it is no more than human nature to not wish to surrender to old age and death, a few organizations are against antiaging, because they believe it sacrifices the best interests of the new generation, that it is unnatural, or unethical."

Is it just me or does that sound like the author doesn't agree with the anti-anti-aging people, ie. it's not neutral? Tango 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound that way. Some could very easily argue that as humans age, some instinctively give into death, sacrificing their lives for future generations, mainly their own children, but it could easily apply to others' children as well. It is certainly an evolutionary advantage. If that's still there, you should definately change it to be more neutral, at least in presenting both sides. Tyciol 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by another person (not Tyciol): Re the evolutionary advantage of adults dying off (so they don't compete with their children and grandchildren for resources). This has struck me as being worth describing in detail. Is there any research on this?

Hi there, I have read of a middle eastern population (possibly in Afghanistan) where the women routinely live beyoind one hundred, has anyone else heard of this, would this qualify as something worthy of this article if I could source something to cite? Cheers, BT1

Longevity in fiction

Sid Meier: Alpha Centauri (Longevity Vaccine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.115 (talk) 03:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

"# J. K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (The Philosopher's Stone and Nicholas Flamel)

1. J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings (Aragorn, Bilbo and Gollum)
2. Bruce Sterling: Holy Fire
3. Yoda: Star Wars"

Did Yoda write Star Wars? Hmm... Not I think. Should the list be: character: title or author: title?

This fiction section would be the most appropriate place for all biblical citations.

Why is fiction being included? It is most irrelevant. I am removing the bible stuff on the grounds that it is fiction and has nothing to do the longevity of real humans. If you want to see how fictional characters compare in terms of their lifespan then make another wiki page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.201.9 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Details of factors?

I'm a bit surprised that this article does not go into details about the factors associated with longevity, beyond mentioning smoking and the blanket statement "Significant factors in life expectancy include gender, genetics, access to health care, hygiene, diet, exercise and lifestyle". I would have liked to see some correlation specifics. Jeffhoy 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Whoever wrote this article was thinking more of 'life expectancy' than 'longevity.' They are NOT the same. "Life expectancy" is generally defined as the average age (50%) one can expect to live to. "Longevity" is concerned with the small number of people who live much longer than average (and has generally been defined as 90 and above, such as by the NY Times Index). There is no need to 'merge'; there is a need to 'clean up.'Ryoung122 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a typical dictionary definition:

lon·gev·i·ty (lŏn-jĕv'ĭ-tē, lôn-) n., pl. -ties.

Long life; great duration of life: His longevity vexed his heirs. Length or duration of life: comparing the longevities of the two peoples. Long duration or continuance, as in an occupation: had unusual longevity in the company; her longevity as a star. [Late Latin longaevitās, from Latin longaevus, ancient : longus, long + aevum, age.]

longevous lon·ge'vous (-jē'vəs) adj.

There are really two meanings here:

A. Long Life B. Life Expectancy

I suggest this article be rewritten to focus on (A) and move material for (B) to the 'life expectancy' article. This will clear up the confusion. A disambiguation link should be added to the top that says something akin to "for longevity (statistical calculation) please see life expectancy".

Ryoung122 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These two are related. Life expectancy is a function of time, as is Longevity, which can be thought of as the upper end of those life functions. These both change by time for a cohort mix. One thing troublesome to me here is the mixing in of philosophical notions; those ought to be split out. jmswtlk 15:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue regarding longevity and lifespan is a symptom of the lack of clarity in the article. It is possible to write one article covering both aspects if required but it needs to be appropriately structured to do so. I've added a tag to the top of the article as IMHO the article needs substantial not minor reorganisation.
In addition to the observation above, for instance, the section "RELIGION" contains much that has nothing to do with religion (if we do not include science as a religion). In addition to this observation the title itself is generally innappropriate. Trying to keep the original it would at least need expanding - e.g. "Records in religious texts of longevity". But better would be to scrap it for a new header such as "Legendary longevity" or somesuch.
Continuing this basic structural approach, I realise that "HISTORY" is also an awkward title. Is the section about the evolution of longevity, a sort of anthropology of longevity, or is it about the history of the study of longevity? As it stands it repeats the sort of "facts" regarding the longevity of specific individuals.
The same sort of observations can be made on the section the "FUTURE" of longevity. Is this a question as to whether the human species will survive, or is it a projection from studies of the change in lifespan/longevity anticipated.
Unfortunately I can't see any simple quick way to "fix" these problems. It seems to me that the entire article needs to be re-written from scratch, if these passing observations and the other structural observations made on this page are to be addressed.

I think it would also be helpful, as a general rule, if Wikipedia references were to be limited to references to explantions here of terms used rather than in place of primary research data. Primary (or secondary) research data is required for verification of a statement. For instance, in the numbers given for the life expectancy of people from different parts of the world, the reference to the CIA factbook does not give a reference to that part of the factbook upon which the statement rests but simply to an explanation in Wikipedia of what the CIA factbook is! Traditionally in scholarly articles the base research data is what is cited. So, generally, this article is in need also of citations.

LookingGlass (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Added name in Longevity in Fiction

I added to the list of Longevity in Fiction the example of the Dúnedain Men of J.R.R. Tolkien book "The Silmarillion", accourding the explanation in the article related. --Dardón López J.R. 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clams

The article on the clam in bangor university says " evolution found a way" or some similar, funnily i think the exact opposite is the case and primitive organisms can easily live longer because they have less complex and thus vulnerable tissues. Its not important, but i think there has been no direct research on fossil shells maximum ages. Fascinatingly some grew much larger then their nowadays cousins, barring exceptions. Anyhow it is not in this article, a bit of a pitty since old(fossil) lifeforms are quitte possibly among the longer living in life records.77.251.179.188 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I added the text on the clam and on Prometheus the bristlecone pine. That is, is there evidence in the fossil record of long-lived critters. I'm not sure anyone can top 4900 year old trees, but perhaps fossil records can determine if any individual animals lived past 400 years. And re the comment about evolution, a better way to put it might be to say that "natural selection found a way", since the qahog clam seems to have found a nice little habitat niche. Of course, a successful species is measured in its terms to propagate, as well as to survive. --Iacobus 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Longevity in Fiction

I'm deleting longevity in fiction, its unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It also amounts to a trivia section, which wikipedia is against. --Cptbuck 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Could the same be said about the "Religion" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.14.14 (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A separate article discussing the longevity of biblical personages would probably be best, but it is not, in and of itself, as poorly written or as unnecessary as the "longevity in fiction" section. --Cptbuck 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indiginous people (from developing world) with high life expectancy

In the Anti-Aging Plan, it is reported that besides the Okinawans, people from the mountains of India (the Hunzas, the inhabitants from the high mountain valley of Villcabamba in South America and inhabitants in South Georgia have achieved extremely great life spans.

This should be added in the article. Look into it.

KVDP (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Longevity in the ancient world

What is the basis for saying that reports of ancient philosophers' living to over 100 years must be frauds? Once we're into the historical period, why should we doubt Diogenes Laertius? It's not inherently improbable that one or two could well have reached 100 years. Isocrates definitely reached the age of 98. Jack (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Rather top-heavy with the Old Testament without being very illuminating. The Babylonians offer an older account of longevity before the Flood and furthermore explain it... as the result of lives led free from any kind of illness (perhaps also injury?) such that people had super-attenuated 'natural lifespans' - ie placing the phenomenon firmly in the realm of mythology - BBC Radio In Our Time - The Library at Nineveh . Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

May I also suggest that all religious citations or biblical references be placed in the "fiction" section above, please. "Longevity" is a matter of science, not make-believe. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.172.106 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Longevity and blood sugar gene

Do we have an article on the theory that the ability to control blood sugar (either from ancestors having suffered starvation, or from a gene that is present in the subset of Ashkenazic Jews who live to over 100)? There was a very good PBS documentary about this about a year or two ago but I can't find information about it on the Web. Badagnani (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the transcript. Badagnani (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion (now Longevity myths)

I've removed the religion section. It does not belong in a science article. Replaced with a 'See also' link to longevity myths. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not just a science article. Should cover all notable aspects of longevity. (Scientific, cultural, mythic, etc.) A brief summary of longevity myths seems appropriate. I have restored the section to serve as a basis, it could use trimming to provide a summary of longevity myths. (Probably move some of the material from the section into the longevity myth article, since some of it doesn't appear to be covered there.) I also re-titled it to better match the main article on the topic. Zodon (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"A brief summary of longevity myths seems appropriate." - and where are the longevity myths from Africa? From Hindu mythology, from Norse mythology, from Celtic mythology, Australian aboriginal myths etc? Why the Judeo-Christian bias? Before I edited this article it was citing postdeluvian longevity claims from the Bible in the "History" section! You say "This is not just a science article. Should cover all notable aspects of longevity. (Scientific, cultural, mythic, etc.)" I see no justification for this. 'Longevity myths' is an appropriate place for fantastic claims from all cultures. This article should deal with the fact of longevity, not the fantasy. In any case, the section had editorial notes about weasel words, this neatly does away with the problem. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that the section as it stands provided an adequate summary of longevity myths. I think the section could definitely use improvement along the lines you mention (wider coverage, less depth in Judeo-Christian). I tried to indicate that above, but looking back that may not have been entirely clear (it could use trimming of Judeo-Christian, and expansion of other cultural coverage).

I agree that removing the biblical claims that aren't born out by other sources from the history section made sense.

The justification for covering all significant views comes from Wikipedia policy. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."WP:NPOV Since this article is about Longevity, it should cover all significant views on that topic. A customary way to do this is to use wp:summary style. (Just as other sections give a brief view of other topics, such as long lived individuals, longevity myths social/cultural/mythic aspects are also part of longevity, so should be covered by a brief summary and link to the main article on the topic.)

While the existing section needs work, it has references (though too heavy to one source), and can serve as a basis improvement to build a better summary. Zodon (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"(wider coverage, less depth in Judeo-Christian)" - this could never be achieved in this article to everyone's satisfaction, such content belongs in longevity myths or appropriate sub-articles of covering specific mythologies. If the religion (recently renamed longevity myths) section is removed and covered in the appropriate articles this article then stands a valid article covering historical and scientific aspects of longevity without resorting to fantasy.

"The justification for covering all significant views comes from Wikipedia policy. ". That would apply to the mythology/religion/fantasy/fiction section(s) if it/they were present, not to the article as a whole if its sticks to factual documented information. The Bible is not a reliable source for claims of longevity.

Do you agree to go to mediation? Jooler (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why longevity myths could not be summarized or consensus reached on such a summary. I have no objection if somebody wants to edit the section considerably (and have suggested ways to do that). Since so far nobody has even tried to do it, it seems premature to declare such attempts a failure.

NPOV applies whether material is present or not. (Leaving something out is a common NPOV problem.)

The Bible is a reliable source for stories which have had wide influence on western society. (As noted the sourcing of the section could be better - support with secondary sources, etc.)

Mediation seems premature ("When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above,")Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#formal mediation. As the issue seems to be interpretation of WP:NPOV, asking for editorial assistance or asking at the policy noticeboard might be more appropriate. If you think it is more a content question perhaps requesting input from related wikiprojects or a topical RFC? Zodon (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"NPOV applies whether material is present or not." - we're not talking about a "significant view" of the actual subject of longevity as a condition of the human species and life on Earth in general, but ancient mythology that has no bearing on reality.

"The Bible is a reliable source for stories which have had wide influence on western society.", but clearly not to the actual longevity of the human species in the real world, which is what this article is about.

"related wikiprojects or a topical RFC?" - the related wikiproject for this article being Medicine, clearly a scientific discipline, which is the whole crux of the issue.

With this section removed the article is completely scientific. There are no cultural discussions outside of this section and the cultural references of this section are clearly biased towards the Judeo-Christian world-view, and I think are unlikely to be improved upon. Your hope that the section on religion will be improved and become filled up by summaries of significant myths from various cultures about people and creatures that were allegedly long-lived is clearly a non-starter. The cultural bias in this section (and indeed the history section was) appears to have been around for a significant period of time, and indeed, when I first encountered this article I thought I had accidentally stumbled upon a Conservapedia article. The religion/mythology section is inappropriate to a serious encyclopaedia article about a scientific concept and completely misplaced in this article. Jooler (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent]A large number of peoples have regarded these stories as significant, even today there are many people who claim to believe that everything in the Bible is literal truth. Given the wide spread of these beliefs it is hard to see that they don't represent significant views on the subject. History and "Society and Culture" are both typical sections suggested for coverage in WP:MEDMOS. Medicine articles shouldn't just cover current medical views of the topic - but what people did or thought about it in the past, and what people do and think today. Zodon (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion. Thanks for requesting a third opinion. After reviewing your individual arguments, as well as the content of that section in context of the whole article, I would like to make the following suggestion: The section on longevity myths should remain but be considerably shorter. Clearly, myths about longevity exist, and as per WP:MEDMOS and other policies/guidelines, warrants some discussion. However, the section here should briefly summarize the existence of longevity myths and direct the reader to the longevity myths article, rather than go into any details about any particular myths (or studies done on worm telomeres!) Content should be moved over as appropriate and one or two paragraphs should be sufficient about the existence of these myths and perhaps with some sensitivity to the fact that many people (from many cultures) believe these to be accurate representations of human longevity. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a few days, so feel free to ask follow up questions, if needed, and continue your discussion. You may also consider further steps to dispute resolution, if necessary. Thanks, (EhJJ)^TALK 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Did a very rough summary of longevity myths, moved all the bible material to that article. Still needs sources, etc. But hopefully an improvement. Zodon (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Colombia

The longevity in Colombia is the 75 years old, and Colombia is of the "third world". --190.93.144.10 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shortest lived organisms

Re: Non-human biological longevity: well why no links to help us find the shortest lived organisms? Jidanni (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

third world

the use of first, second and third world, are not been use any longer. this are connotations from de cold war period. so please use the name developing countries and developed countries. or is possible divided by regions.

similar to what i was thinking - regardless, Uruguay is not a third world country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.171.222 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Indented line actually i stand corrected according to the article on the 'Third World'. Anyway the point is it is misleading and no longer in use. Perhaps it should be 'developing countries'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.171.222 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Long-lived Individuals

Contrary to this article [at 2000 Z 2011 09 17] the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenarian#Verified_supercentenarians_over_115-year-old lists over twenty people who have exceeded 115 years of age, with verification [also a small number where thetre is some real doubt over their verification]. Autochthony wrote - 2011 09 17 21oo Z 86.129.157.202 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity closed

An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1