http://www.buzzfeed.com/samir/then-and- ... -we-die-to
How We Died In 1900 Vs How We Die Today
@Chad: death must have its cause.
Peope have to die of something. Note that death rate per 100,000 has almost halved, meaning we get much, much older. Most cancer happens at old age. Some cancer can be prevented (by not smoking, by some vaccines, by not getting HIV, by eating healthy, exercising, and not being obese), but the older you get, the higher the risk that one of your cells gets off the track and becomes a cancer cell.
A cell's DNA has to acquire multiple mutations to have that cell become cancerous. Being exposed to carcenogenic substances like tobacco smoke really doesn't help, so those should be avoided. But things like UV-light (which you need to make vitamin D) and cell replication processes (which happen all the time in your body, even as an adult) can also cause DNA damage. Most damage is repaired. And most remaining damage is harmless because it is in a part of junk DNA, or in a part of the DNA that is not active in that type of cell. But... the damage could occur somewhere in the DNA where it has an effect on a protein that is active in your cell. Most of the times, it will mean that the cell functions less well, and maybe it will just die or sit there being pretty useless. But if the damage occurred in a protein that stimulates your cell to divide and multiply, you are on the path to trouble. (and even then, more mutations are needed before you have cancer: the cells need to acquire the capabilities to evade the immune system, to ignore "stop growing, you're squishing me" signals from the surrounding area, to invade the surrounding tissue, need to become able to travel through the body and make metastases elsewhere).
It is a process of chance, and the older you get, the more time has passed for the exactly wrong series of events to occur somewhere in your body.
Peope have to die of something. Note that death rate per 100,000 has almost halved, meaning we get much, much older. Most cancer happens at old age. Some cancer can be prevented (by not smoking, by some vaccines, by not getting HIV, by eating healthy, exercising, and not being obese), but the older you get, the higher the risk that one of your cells gets off the track and becomes a cancer cell.
A cell's DNA has to acquire multiple mutations to have that cell become cancerous. Being exposed to carcenogenic substances like tobacco smoke really doesn't help, so those should be avoided. But things like UV-light (which you need to make vitamin D) and cell replication processes (which happen all the time in your body, even as an adult) can also cause DNA damage. Most damage is repaired. And most remaining damage is harmless because it is in a part of junk DNA, or in a part of the DNA that is not active in that type of cell. But... the damage could occur somewhere in the DNA where it has an effect on a protein that is active in your cell. Most of the times, it will mean that the cell functions less well, and maybe it will just die or sit there being pretty useless. But if the damage occurred in a protein that stimulates your cell to divide and multiply, you are on the path to trouble. (and even then, more mutations are needed before you have cancer: the cells need to acquire the capabilities to evade the immune system, to ignore "stop growing, you're squishing me" signals from the surrounding area, to invade the surrounding tissue, need to become able to travel through the body and make metastases elsewhere).
It is a process of chance, and the older you get, the more time has passed for the exactly wrong series of events to occur somewhere in your body.
According to the World Health Organization something like 93% of cancer has environmental causes. We can control things like whether we smoke, but the things we can't control (plastic, toxic mining, dioxin in every mother's breast milk, etc) are increasing exponentially. The approach here in the US of letting corporations poison us to death while pushing "prevention" like having your breasts irradiated (which causes cancer) often and funding the heck out of research to cure a 93% preventable disease is ass backwards.
-
Christopherjart
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:03 am
- Contact:
According to some research cancer has gone up so much since 1900 because we eat so much more meat and dairy than they did then. The "Forks over Knives" movie/documentary explains that issue.
Its possible people smore more now too. I heard cigarette companies increase the nicotine content to make them more addictive.
Cardiovascular disease deaths could easily be explained by people living older means more build up of bad stuff + more food that causes that bad stuff. Not many vegetarians die of heart attacks.
Its possible people smore more now too. I heard cigarette companies increase the nicotine content to make them more addictive.
Cardiovascular disease deaths could easily be explained by people living older means more build up of bad stuff + more food that causes that bad stuff. Not many vegetarians die of heart attacks.
As DutchGirl said, we must die from something.
The chart shows how much things have changed with relatively minor technological innovations. Now imagine what will happen when we apply Moore's-law-evolving-innovation to our current causes of death. Solving one problem and further lengthening life will continue to create whole new problems that we can barely imagine right now.
The zombie apocalypse is on the horizon. Absolutely terrifying.
The chart shows how much things have changed with relatively minor technological innovations. Now imagine what will happen when we apply Moore's-law-evolving-innovation to our current causes of death. Solving one problem and further lengthening life will continue to create whole new problems that we can barely imagine right now.
The zombie apocalypse is on the horizon. Absolutely terrifying.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
>>Absolutely terrifying.
It's heartbreaking when a person's body gives out before their brain, but I find it terrifying that technology can keep a person's body alive after their brain effectively stops functioning (and I don't just mean brain dead). I fear this will happen more and more frequently because of what you describe Ego.
It's heartbreaking when a person's body gives out before their brain, but I find it terrifying that technology can keep a person's body alive after their brain effectively stops functioning (and I don't just mean brain dead). I fear this will happen more and more frequently because of what you describe Ego.
@jennypenny
" I find it terrifying that technology can keep a person's body alive after their brain effectively stops functioning (and I don't just mean brain dead). I fear this will happen more and more frequently"
I share your concern.
But science is not only working on making our bodies work longer, it's also searching for solutions to keep the brain working. Let's hope Alzheimer's Disease will prove curable in our lifetime.
" I find it terrifying that technology can keep a person's body alive after their brain effectively stops functioning (and I don't just mean brain dead). I fear this will happen more and more frequently"
I share your concern.
But science is not only working on making our bodies work longer, it's also searching for solutions to keep the brain working. Let's hope Alzheimer's Disease will prove curable in our lifetime.
Marius, what you described is a new form of cancer on a broader scale. Reproduction without natural apoptosis.
Carl Sagan called this era our technological adolescence. We are smart enough and powerful enough to take actions but not always smart enough to anticipate the full consequences of those actions.
Consider that more than half of all people in 1900 died of infections, many of them in childhood. Now consider that in the past sixty years those kids survived thanks to antibiotics. Not only did they survive, many passed on the genetic material that would have been extinguished in pre-antibiotic times.
Despite that, in my lifetime (mid forties) human life expectancy has increased almost ten years. Is it safe to assume that with technological advances we can extrapolate that increase for the next few generations? If so, what does that mean for society?
It means I am not yet middle age.... yipee!
It also means I've got to find ways to pay for that long life.... yikes!
Carl Sagan called this era our technological adolescence. We are smart enough and powerful enough to take actions but not always smart enough to anticipate the full consequences of those actions.
Consider that more than half of all people in 1900 died of infections, many of them in childhood. Now consider that in the past sixty years those kids survived thanks to antibiotics. Not only did they survive, many passed on the genetic material that would have been extinguished in pre-antibiotic times.
Despite that, in my lifetime (mid forties) human life expectancy has increased almost ten years. Is it safe to assume that with technological advances we can extrapolate that increase for the next few generations? If so, what does that mean for society?
It means I am not yet middle age.... yipee!
It also means I've got to find ways to pay for that long life.... yikes!
The source article for the pic is available at nejm.org for free for all. It's an easy read, not very technical, and I thought it was a reasonably good article.
@Chad, as others have noted, although the cancer rate has tripled, life expectancy has gone from about 47 to 78. Currently over 70% of cancer deaths occur in the over 65 population. Also, our ability to diagnose is much better now, so presentations that might have previously been labelled as senility, neuropathy, etc... might be labelled cancer today.
@Chad, as others have noted, although the cancer rate has tripled, life expectancy has gone from about 47 to 78. Currently over 70% of cancer deaths occur in the over 65 population. Also, our ability to diagnose is much better now, so presentations that might have previously been labelled as senility, neuropathy, etc... might be labelled cancer today.
@Ego "Marius, what you described is a new form of cancer on a broader scale. Reproduction without natural apoptosis." (...) Is it safe to assume that with technological advances we can extrapolate that increase for the next few generations? If so, what does that mean for society?"
We would have to reduce our reproduction. But we need to do that *anyway*, as world population already exceeds the planet's carrying capacity.
If scientific progress makes it possible to live longer, that simply means we'll need to reduce our reproduction *some more*.
For me the choice between reproducing less and a long life or death (be it of natural aging or of the consequences of overpopulation) is easy... My choice is already made, I have no kids and I've had minor surgery.
Aubrey de Grey once said:
"We will have to decide whether to have a low birth rate or a high death rate.
The high death rate will of course arise from simply rejecting these [anti aging] therapies in favor of carrying on having a lot of kids."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ
We would have to reduce our reproduction. But we need to do that *anyway*, as world population already exceeds the planet's carrying capacity.
If scientific progress makes it possible to live longer, that simply means we'll need to reduce our reproduction *some more*.
For me the choice between reproducing less and a long life or death (be it of natural aging or of the consequences of overpopulation) is easy...
My choice is already made, I have no kids and I've had minor surgery.Aubrey de Grey once said:
"We will have to decide whether to have a low birth rate or a high death rate.
The high death rate will of course arise from simply rejecting these [anti aging] therapies in favor of carrying on having a lot of kids."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ
In 1900 life expectancy for men was 46.3, for women, 48.3 years old. Middle age being 23, and 24. There was no refrigeration in a lot of cases, sewage systems, water purification, simply keeping germ carrying insects and flies and mosquitoes out of the house. There were some pain killers, antibiotics really did not exist, various inoculations against killer diseases such as rubella, flu and so on did not exist. There were also horrible epidemics that wiped out large amounts of people. Think tuberculosis.
Cancer and heart disease are chronic diseases related to age. These charts do not point out the ages at which the people who died are at. Were these statistics this way because people live longer healthier lives but eventually succumb to diseases of old age and chronic misuse of the body (i.e. smoking, obesity?)
If in 1900 people lived until 78 years old would they also be dying mainly of cancer? I wonder.
Cancer and heart disease are chronic diseases related to age. These charts do not point out the ages at which the people who died are at. Were these statistics this way because people live longer healthier lives but eventually succumb to diseases of old age and chronic misuse of the body (i.e. smoking, obesity?)
If in 1900 people lived until 78 years old would they also be dying mainly of cancer? I wonder.