This is good news. The worldwide trend for more than a century is that the countries that are now developed countries have been gaining about 2.5 years of life expectancy each decade (sometimes expressed as "six hours each day").[0]

Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing"[1] by James Vaupel, originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why,"[2] gives background on the incremental changes that have increased life expectancy. ("Period life expectancy" is what is usually reported for a whole country. But cohort life expectancy provides a better estimate of future lifespans of young people today,[3] and is still steadily on the rise around the world.) Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world.[4] It's great to hear that India is enjoying this kind of development too.

[0] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity....

[1] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2...

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_...

[3] http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1...

[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w...

Are longer lifespans better by definition? I realize fully I'm in the minority on this, and y'all can feel free to live forever, for all I care, but I wish that my personal life expectancy was about 40 years shorter than it is. That would have felt about right to me. Complete, and without too much decline. I mean, is everybody's desired lifespan just "as long as possible?"

Well, you can just kill yourself at 37, assuming you're American and pessimistically that you're male. There's no difference between that and having a "shorter" "life expectancy".

This might be one of those things that people say but when the reaper is close then they usually want to push him off a little longer and have more life. Much like money maybe.

Based on my relatively limited second-hand experience, it depends a lot on health and relationships. Some of my elderly relatives would have loved to live another 10 years, others would've been happy to have died quietly in their sleep 10 years earlier. My grandfather in particular lived to be in his mid 90s, and did not enjoy the last 10 years: outlived all his friends and his wife, couldn't really hear or see well enough to read, watch television, or carry on a conversation, could not walk, couldn't use the toilet without assistance, was on a bunch of painkillers for joint pain, etc. He was definitely of the opinion that there had been some kind of error and he was living past when his time was up.

They wouldn't have been happy to die in their sleep 10 years earlier, they would have been dead. [grammar distinction].

Whether they would have prospectively desired at the time to die in their sleep 10 years earlier, on the other hand, is something we can objectively measure... because suicide is a thing that exists. Did they?

Signs point to no.

Suicide sort of occupies a different space with a strong stigma (and in many jurisdictions, legal barriers that can go as far as involuntarily committing someone to forcibly prevent them from committing suicide). Though that's culturally variable. There are many people who would not lift a finger to avoid a heart attack if they had the ability to do so, but who still would not actively kill themselves. A fairly common in-between is elderly people who choose to stay at home rather than go to the hospital, even if what they have is potentially treatable (they sometimes also have do-not-resuscitate and no-life-support orders entered, just in case someone takes them there).

You don't want to live half your life as an over-60 geriatric, with daily pains, vocational ostracisation, inadequate income, and decreasing social relevance?

Mind you, some would bin that in with the douchey "I wouldn't want to live if I became paraplegic/deaf/blind," but I do fear that, given how crappy it is to be 75 today, it's not going to be senior Disneyland by the time I'm old. Older.

Put my brain in a jar and I might have a different perspective, but I've seen enough family members admit they're just tired and want to go when their time comes.

I'm pretty sure most over 60s aren't in pain and friendless.

My dad is over 70 and is completely fit, healthy, independent and pain free. Sure, not all old people have it so good, but with increased live expectancy comes increased quality of life at older ages

I don't understand. Our goal should be to maximize choice: people who want to live long should have the option to. The problem is that this choice is currently missing. You can always live your life as if this year is your last year.

Make an accounting for being Tired of Life, for lacking the finances for longer lifespans, for cognitive and physical decline... blah blah blah.

Young people always think we want to live longer. Somehow, our minds end up changing by the time we become old people.

> Young people always think we want to live longer. Somehow, our minds end up changing by the time we become old people.

No they don't. Old people might say they wish they'd died younger, but their actions show otherwise.

You mean their actions like having a living will that says to let them die in some circumstances, or outright filing "right to die" lawsuits? Or their attempts at suicide, which come at a rate well above those of the general population?

Those actions?

If they truly wished that they'd died younger, then they'd already be dead.

Are you honestly claiming an unsuccessful suicide attempt is an example of wanting to live? That's getting near "revealed rational preferences" in its level of sheer bullshit.

Nice strawman.

But yes, if somebody makes a failed suicide attempt, and doesn't follow up on that, I'd say that they wish to live (except for those who are left physically incapacitated due to their attempt, obviously).

Look, I apologize for the curseword, but you have to admit, in suicide as in all other actions, there are a million things that come between people's real intentions and their realized actions.

I'd say you're completely full of shit. Suicide is hard, and, contrary to the propaganda about it, takes a great deal more courage than, say, skydiving.

Yes.

[1] http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/simplified/

[2] http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

That is a sentiment I've often expressed in the phrase "I want to die before someone else has to wipe my arse."

Increasing life expectancy in places like India is mostly reduced childhood mortality, not longer lives at old age.

That would put you what, late mid 30's? early 40's at most.

So you might get to see your kids graduate high school, if you have them young enough. Very high chance their kids never meet grandma/grandpa, and they almost certainly won't be old enough to remember.

"If your child was born in the last couple of years, he or she is likely to live five years more than children born a decade ago."

Isn't this a huge misrepresentation of the statistics behind this article?

Yes, the author needs to take Statistics 101..

Thats the Times of India group. They need to take 101 in everything.

Usually, large increases in life expectancy are from reductions in infant mortality.

Medical technology has increased the maximum age of humans surprisingly little; for example Ramesses II died at the age of 90 or 91 [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_ii

Any demographers on HN? 'Life expectancy' is itself like GDP of health, a complicated scorecard that includes a lot of things. I would be real interested in an accessible breakdown of demographic ideas

'Infant mortality ratio has come down to 42 in 2012 from 58 per 1,000 live births in the 2005.'

My back-of-the-envelope has this contributing 1 year to life expectancy at birth. Additional (surviving babiesaverage lifetime)/1000 = (58-42)65/1000

"Maternal mortality ratio has declined from 301 per 100,000 live births in 2001-03 to 212 in 2007-09," the health ministry said. - I think this contributes another 4-5 months.

I'd also be interested in some related questions & gratuitous scifi-like speculations. When are we likely to see 60 year old sports stars. Bernard Hopkins seems to be intent on becoming a 50 year old undisputed boxing champion. When are we likely to see 100 year olds working productively, enjoying physical hobbies, sexually active, sexually attractive…

:)

India's demographics is extremely skewed. There are some states that have had higher life expectancy and sex ratio than countries like the US. The higher overall numbers can be attributed to the poorer states doing better over time.

Halfway there; now we just need it to go up by a decade every decade, retroactively.

Escape velocity here we come! I hope we hit this before I'm 80. I'm ok with 50 as my terminal age. Maybe even 60. I don't want to be terminal when I need a new hip every few years.

This is a story of controlling disease and decreasing childhood and infant mortality. It is not a story of life extension.

Of course - I'm just running with the singularity dream.

Now they just need more women (or less men?)

I wonder if the people are also happier.

This is obviously good news, but I guess the fight with overpopulation is over.

We're winning that fight, though it's not yet over: http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three

A quick summary is that lowering child mortality actually reduces the fertility rate, causing population growth to slow. Longer lifespans mean fewer people.

I love India!

Hey, welcome to Hacker News!

When I first came here, I was surprised that people downvoted my comments, so here's just a heads-up in case you wonder about the same: people didn't downvote your comment because they don't love India, or because they don't love that you do - they downvoted your comment because it does not meaningfully contribute to the discussion.

Additionally, some may wonder, do you completely, absolutely, love India? That seems like a rather black-and-white attitude for a forum like HN. Or are there things about India that you hate, too? Things that don't make you love it less but still could be better? Maybe some that relate to the subject of this post? That would be a place to start.

Actually - he posted something snarky about how this is no big deal considering the poverty, rape, sanitation etc issues that India has - and got majorly downvoted for that - and then seems to have edited it to something else.. While a message like "I love X" wouldnt contribute to the discussion - it's usually likely to just be ignored - but not so severely downvoted. Lastly - for the sake of the argument - "love" is anyways not black and white - so someone saying they love something doesn't mean they are making a blanket statement!

Patriotism is not something which needs to be proved on blogs or twitter.If you think poverty or rape has nothing to do with sex ratio of a country then the joke is on you.A valid argument(fact)was made,it was rubbished by "patriotic" people and I showed my patriotism.Sarcasm?

PS- the HN account is just new but I've been long time visitor and referring India as "it" respectful?

no one is saying that there are no other issues in India. However - none of what you're bringing up has to do with increased life expectancy. I'd accept this argument if it was 70 year olds going out and raping. That said - I do wish that rapists weren't born or suffered infant mortality- but then again - I'm sure there were things that went wrong in their lives that made them be as screwed up as they turned out.