#1

If you are between 22 and 45, you have a lower life expectancy than boomers.

1 Like
Life Expectancy in the USA (Bad and Getting Worse)
#2

Do you feel there’s less stress in Hong Kong than in the U.S.?

1 Like
#3

I’ve been following this trend for some time. Part of the explanation seems to be that advances in medicine, lifestyle, and public health have already captured much of the ‘low-hanging fruit’ for extending healthspan. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

For nearly two decades, many nations—especially the U.S.—have experienced a populist movement with a strong anti-science strain. Vaccination rates have declined sharply. At the same time, technological change has fractured what was once a relatively unified, science-based system of public health information into countless competing sources, not all committed to evidence, accuracy, or even logic.

Meanwhile, those same technologies have reshaped daily life. For many young people, screens—first computers, then smartphones—have displaced physical play and outdoor activity as primary forms of engagement. On top of this, food industries, using advanced science and marketing, have engineered highly profitable but metabolically damaging products that promote inflammation, especially when combined with sedentary lifestyles.

Taken together, these forces help explain why younger generations are not seeing the same longevity gains their parents did. This is an odd development in light of the fact that there are so many reasons why the post-baby boomer generations should be living longer. The air, water and food are generally cleaner. Foods have fewer toxic metals. Our abilities to treat diseases have advanced.

4 Likes
#4

There is more choice, more individual control, more access to technology and medical resources and more options. In such environments, the importance of individual judgement is sharply increased. We have much greater power in our hands, for good or ill when it comes to health. There are more food choices, more supplements, medications, therapies, interventions and more available knowledge. All that power translates into greater potential lifespan and healthspan, or alternatively, into more ways we can harm ourselves. It’s the grenade in the hand problem. A monkey with a grenade is likekely to come to a dire end, whereas a brave explorer so armed might get further than ever.

Sadly the dropping lifespan stats seem to say most of us are monkeys with a grenade.

All this power puts a premium on individual judgement. The gap between the judgement haves and have nots continues to widen. When all of humanity was living in caves, we all had pretty similar options and similar outcomes. Now that we have infinite tools and options to pick from, we have the opportunity to excel or not depending on individual ability.

It’s not easy. Look at our site. We are a group explicitely dedicated to the sharing of information and refining approaches to health/lifespan. And look at the vast differences of opinions and practices. We all have access to the same information, and mostly the same tools. So how come we so often are at odds over our approaches? Obviously luck, genes and circumstance affect the outcomes, but it’ll all come out in the wash - our judgements will determine our outcomes - biology is a ruthless taskmaster. You can pick right, or wrong. You’ll get to find out which you picked in the end.

Merely having access to information and the tools to save your life is not enough. We’ve seen this during the height if Covid. Many people with ready access information and to low cost or cost free tools decided one way or another and many lives were lost or saved. Your judgement matters. And even after all that, many still persist in their beliefs - even on this site. One of my favorite Andy Warhol sayings - “you can’t tell people anything”. On this site we try to tell each other - and sometimes we even succeed.

5 Likes
#5

I’m with you a good bit of the way @CronosTempi but can’t agree that the disagreements that form many discussions here are model or even base cases of what we are discussing. For the most part, the disagreements we see here can be characterized as rational positions taken on unsettled science. Such positions are polar opposites of, for example, positions taken against the overwhelming net benefits of vaccines. You likely did not intend this to be the case and I may have my inference engine turned up too high but your language seemed to draw a parallel from the discussion topic to differences in judgment expressed in rapamycin.news.

3 Likes
#6

I see it as there’s more choice and less individual control. I also believe that individual control will keep diminishing. Thank you @DeStrider for bringing it up. Gives much food for thought.

1 Like
#7

I do think there is also an issue to be looked at relating to the mtDNA situation at conception. (ie babies being born older). It won’t be the only thing, but it is something that would have this sort of effect.

5 Likes
#8

Phthalates, microplastics, forever chemicals, processed foods

1 Like
#9

Hong Kong is quite stressful, especially for children as the academic system is quite rigorous. However, Hong Kongers are generally healthier and live longer.

2 Likes
#10

I wish the academic system were as rigorous in the U.S. as it is in China.

2 Likes
#11

Agreed. I read this today, which is sobering: Big tech has transformed the classroom – and parents are right to be worried | Velislava Hillman | The Guardian

Children sit at screens making PowerPoint slides or clicking through apps such as Dr Frost or Quizlet. Lessons are often punctuated by pop-up adverts and cookie-consent banners – the gateway to surveillance and profiling. Others chase Duolingo streaks, supposedly learning French, scramble coins or fight for leaderboard spots on Blooket.

Agreed. I read that if you are American and reach 70 years old, you’ll most likely reach 90 years old. There’s a cavernous gap between haves and have-nots, and it seems to only be getting worse. The basic workers now have less rights than ever. It’s a gig economy for many people. A lot of people die or throw away their longevity while young - from suicide, addictions (including to food). In the US data, there are comparatively a lot of deaths in younger people. I think it’s a very brutal society as a whole.

I disagree with this part. I think in many ways we’re actually becoming more homogenous. Access to information increases, but what we access is increasingly controlled by a handful of people. Cultures are also becoming more shared, especially in younger people. I also think a lot of the “infinite tools and options” are a false choice. In reality, a few massive companies now dictate the vast amount of what you eat, what you believe, and what you do. i.e. you can choose a restaurant but they’re all using the same Costco cooking oil. I think people on this forum will likely pride themselves on being independent thinkers, which may be true, but IMO nobody is truly immune to this because we all live in a society.

2 Likes
#12

I think you are overestimating this moment in time as some unique period; it’s always been this way with different classes, with different opportunities and quality of education and the resulting differences in outcomes: differences in individual judgment. There’s also long line of genetic influence with assortative mating (e.g college age students meeting each other there). The difference is the wealth every class has is substantially increased and anyone can get into a good college without necessarily being part of a specific class. But I don’t think any class is particularly better or worse than the other and it’s the individual level that matters.

I’m not sure you can convince a tarot/astrology girl that picking stocks that way isn’t a good idea, for example. It’s in their jeans, or education, or other environmental factors. Lovely over tea I’m sure, however, as I said, not particularly better or worse than the other.

Likewise if they believe 5G causing all kinds of issues, problems with the COVID vax, statins are a scam, etc… Different people. Does that make sense?

#13

Good conversation. I think we’re living through a unique period in several important respects.

In the U.S., the bifurcation of income distribution began in the 1980s, when changes in tax law shifted a larger share of the burden to the middle class. Since then, we’ve had repeated rounds of tax reductions favoring the wealthy, alongside a proliferation of loopholes that only the wealthy can exploit. The net result in 2025 is a degree of inequality greater than what we saw in the Gilded Age. That inequality is not just financial—it translates directly into disproportionate health burdens for the poor and the lower middle class.

Information flow has changed just as dramatically and that too has health implications. In the 1980s, most people drew their news from three or four sources, all of which relied on the same professional reporting networks. Today, there are hundreds of outlets, and a significant share of the population gets nearly all of its news from Meta or “X,” where distortions and outright fabrications are common—especially in matters of health. The erosion of a shared factual base undermines both individual decision-making and collective public health.

The U.S. has always produced a wide spread of incomes, but the change in scale is striking. In 1980, the ratio of median worker to CEO pay was about 42:1—a figure already seen as excessive. In 2025, that ratio is estimated at more than 290:1.

As wage stagnation has left the middle class essentially flat for forty years, trust in institutions has fractured as well. The disaffected class is large, and its alienation extends to government and health care alike. The absence of a broadly shared sense of truth or common perspective is, in my lifetime, unprecedented.

4 Likes
#14

image

#15

I agree with this. Platforms curate what we see, shape opinions, behaviors and choices we make.

4 Likes
#16

1st world societies have FAFO’d, some more than others but there are many ways to FA and they all seem to be at play these days.

1 Like
#17

I think you’re avin a larf, guvnor. First, wrt. information - the amount of information we have today is vastly greater than ever before, from the simple accumulation of documented knowledge through time, that’s obvious. It’s also obvious that we today have vastly greater access to information - and vastly more people have access to it, at vastly less cost, with powerful search tools to make it absurdly easy to FIND and ACCESS - like having a gigantic army of librarians at your beck and call (1950’s and that librarian in that one library don’t compare). In no small part due to the internet. The internet allows us to access immense amounts of information that was previously stored behind priviledged access silos - today we can see films and documentaries and listen to music that would have been impossible to access before youtube and the internet. Vastly more documents have been scanned and made accessible through the internet, academic papers published through open source, plos, and the others through sci-hub and the like. It cannot even be compared to the era where you got all your info through libraries and subscription journals. Today anyone with an internet connection has access to it ALL at a drop of a hat at no cost. At least in the West - even in places like Russia you today have more access for the enterprising individual than during Stalin’s time. If you can’t afford an internet connection, go get free wi-fi in most cities.

More information - by orders of magnitude. Which is what my claim was. More access - by orders of magnitude, at lower (often zero) cost - please compare that to the era of not long ago when the internet didn’t exist.

Access to information increases, but what we access is increasingly controlled by a handful of people.

You’re taking the pi$$. To start off, you are contradicting yourself - if access to information increases (and it demonstrably does), then it, you know, increases. Ahem. Both information increases, and access to it increases. And no, it is not controlled “by a handful of people” - this is a facile talking point with zero thought behind it. The exact opposite is true. Today it is harder than ever to controll access to information - there are ever more avenues to access it and fewer and fewer choke points. Even China with it’s vast control network of firewalls and censors is awash in a lot more information, and more access and fewer successful controls than back in the days of Mao with the little red book. It’s ABSURD to claim otherwise. I think you just need to look at history a tiny bit and see when it was that there was the least control to the access of information - and it’s abundantly obvious that it’s TODAY.

“In reality, a few massive companies now dictate the vast amount of what you eat, what you believe, and what you do. i.e. you can choose a restaurant but they’re all using the same Costco cooking oil.”

I can only conclude that this is some kind of performance art. No, companies don’t control what you eat. Absurd. Today there is more access to more kinds of food from more places than ever before in history - at your convenience. Real food, unprocessed by any company. Flown in from all over the world. Grown all over the world. Dizzying variety. Real food. Not processed. Your local supermarket has vastly more choices from more sources than ever before in the past. We’re a global village. No, you don’t have to use Costco cooking oil. You can buy any oil you wish, imported, or not, or order from online sellers all over the world. It’s absurd, bordering on the insane to claim that a person back in 1950 whether in Manhattan or no-place Idaho had more food (or information!) or choices in food sources or even restaurants than a person living today - or any goods for that matter. That’s insane. Companies “dictating what you believe”? I cannot believe that there’s a company out there that dictated that you believe that absurdity about dictating what you believe - shame on that company that so bamboozeled relaxdemeatball! The exact opposite is true. Companies and advertising agencies have less and less power and less and less reach - that’s in fact a cliche, the market has fragmented to such a degree that no company or advertising agency can comfortably reach majorities as back in the day of three TV channels and a homogenous population. They are compelled to narrowcast to smaller and smaller groups, and it’s harder and harder to have a Walter Cronkite or Auntie BBC gain attention from majorities - instead there is insane fragmention of a million sources of information all competeing for our attention. You sir, are putting on a Opposite Day show, I suspect.

“I think people on this forum will likely pride themselves on being independent thinkers, which may be true, but IMO nobody is truly immune to this because we all live in a society.”

Oh, I see, it is an Opposite Day show you are putting on. Because the reality is exactly the opposite. Today it is easier than ever to be an independent thinker - easier than it’s ever been in the history of Mankind. In fact, that’s a common complaint - people have access to so many contradictory sources of information that they often end up in extremely strange rabbit holes and with very bizarre beliefs. The problem is not amount of information - more than ever. The problem is not access to information - more than ever. The problem is not control of the information or goods - less choke points than ever. The problem is not fewer choices - more than ever. The problem is JUDGMENT as I said to start with. If you have poor judgment, you might become an “independent thinker” who is just a kook. You have access to thousands of peptides and drugs out there (compare to 1950, lol), and millions of claims - but many don’t have the judgment and ability to parse it all and sift the wheat from the chaff. The problem is the vast chasm between those who have good judgment, who know how to evaluate information and make choices and those who are lacking in that department and fall into the clutches of cults and influencers and TikTok and Meta. Not information, control, or access - individual judgment, and for that, my friend, there is no substitution. Exactly as I stated, before you took us all on this bizarre tangent of Opposite Day cavalcade. Whew. We have more information and access to it and more choices than ever, but you need judgment to make sense and good use of it all. It comes down to JUDGMENT. And I continue to stand behind that statement 100%.

1 Like
#18

It think it’s a symptom of believing the marketing about the all powerful advertising industry, cambridge analytica, intellectuals in the 21st century really love this stuff about the bad puppet master in the shadows pulling the strings with weaponized science and data and believing individual judgement being long gone.

People being whims to their desires and just scrolling tiktok zombies with a gig delivery of fast food meal laying in their sofa with a toilet attached as they get more and more obese and inflammed with “mitochondrial challenges” . There’s really not much evidence for these claims. They make for great reading in The Guardian and O Economista , though.

2 Likes
#19

Exactly. And then people fall for these memes and repeat them mindlessly, even if these clearly contradict the evidence right in front of their eyes. How can anybody believe that boomers during their heyday had more information, and it was easier to access and there were more sources of information with less control - mass media - a few TV channels, radio stations, some newspapers and libraries… and that’s it! I remember, because I was there! I lived through it! Born in 1958, lived through the 60’s with clear memories, 70’s at the uni and 80’s and then going into the 90’s the rise of computers and the WWW and internet. I remember how old school information acquisition worked - waiting forever for a book, hoping the uni had access through exchanges. Digging through musty papers. Consulting with prof. X or finding out that doctor Y unfortunately just died recently. Looking through the few studies performed. Being on an exchange program and working with academics in other countries.

And TODAY?? It’s insane. The growth of information, the amount of science done, the access to information and the ease of access is only increasing - first you had to have access to a university library system, then the www on a hulking computer, and now a whole world of information is right in your pocket - iPhone, Samsung whatnot. And more is coming. It’s like a different era and universe. It’s commonly referred to as a “firehose” of information. The problem is not amount nor access - we’re drowning in information, choices and available goods. This places a premium on curation, editing, discrimination, discernement, filtering, classification - in other words, JUDGMENT.

As a boomer myself, I’ve lived through the era of restricted information, fewer options, lack of diversity of opinion, sources and weltanschauung. The same handful of authorities and opinion makers. I was there. You won’t tell me it was a richer more diverse world compared to today - that would be completely insane.

But guess what. The conspiratorial thinking existed back in the past as well. Shadowy organizations controlling everyone. Advertising companies determining your most intimate choices. “They” pulling strings, behind the scenes. Nothing new. Only the names change - “banks”, “Jews”, “freemasons”, “illuminati”, “google”, “meta”, “tiktok”. Combine that with regular moral panics and you have the same suspicion of technology that has animated the superstitious since time immemorial. Go read the complaints against “writing”, “books”, “schools”, “newspapers”, “telegraph”, “movies”, “telephone”, “radio”, “TV”, whatever was around - I bet you there were those at the time who looked with suspicion upon those who drew on cave walls. Majick I tell you! The Evil Eye! Mind Control! Ultra!

We are all slaves to shadowy controlling forces, a few “they” are in charge, we’re brainwashed, and to think you are not brainwashed is proof you are even more brainwashed! Gah.

Tiresome rubbish.

3 Likes
#20

There is a psychological problem that people tend to be persuaded by the first argument they consider then reject contrary arguments

Hence if the first thing the algorithm serves up (if they are using algorithmic systems) is drivel they stick to it.

That is indeed a judgment problem for which there is no easy solution.

3 Likes