Not really, but seems to be basic statistics to me with some obvious trickery in place. My complaint is that he kinda glosses over (cut outs?) high infant mortality which would bend the curve in a not so aesthetically pleasing way. I imagine elderly mortality would do the same towards the end of the curve. People in their 80s and 90s aren't doubling mortality rates in 8 years, they're doing so practically yearly.

wikipedia: The Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality describes the age dynamics of human mortality rather accurately in the age window from about 30 to 80 years of age.

So, he cuts off the high risk childhood, teen, and 20s and everyone over 80? Yeah, that's how you get such a smooth graph. So not exactly pseudoscience, but definitely dishonest. Seems to me there are a lot of people who think nice clean graphs are 'beautiful' and try to fit in data and act pretentious about some 'mystery' link to math or the universe or somesuch. The same way every hack pop-science writer fits everything to the Fibonacci sequence. Uh, no, all this seems to say is that if youre healthy enough to hit age 30, you probably have a nice normalized mortality rate from then on to about 80.

Skipping the first 30 years and anything over 80 is the only way this "beautiful" math and "mystery" works. When we include all ages, its a pretty predictable graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_of...

Lots of craziness at first then a regular slope until the end.

What part of it sounds like pseudoscience to you?

It's 100% valid mathematics and statistics, based on verifiable observations.