Why are Anagathics Illegal?

[rust]

That is in fact, extremely incorrect ...

Since I do not have the time nor the wish to discuss neonate mortality
in different developed nations here, for example the huge differences
between newly developed nations like South Korea and nations which
already were high tech / high med a few decades ago, we should just
agree to disagree, I think.

Besides, since few Traveller player characters start as neonates, I think
we can safely concentrate on the life expectancy of people who made it
to the start of their first career term. :wink:

 

[rust]

... I did, many many years ago, start a very long term game with characters starting 1115 then going through the rebellion and hard times and thier children getting to inherit their ships in TNE (well whatever of thier ships were left)

Something very much like this is what I have in mind, inspired by the
campaign type of the Pendragon roleplaying game, where the players
have members of successive generations as their characters.

So, in my setting the first player characters will be some of the first co-
lonists to arrive on Pandora. Later on, when they retire, the next charac-
ters will be members of the first generation that was born on Pandora
(who, just like the players, will now know the planet and its inhabitants
rather well), and so on.

With about two adventures per game time year, it is not too difficult to
play that type of campaign. Besides, this also makes the setting feel a
bit more plausible, truly important and interesting events that require
the attention of the player characters are unlikely to happen more of-
ten than twice per year on a remote colony world, and the "off time" be-
tween the adventures is useful to found and raise families, earn money,
learn skills and all that background stuff of an adventurer's biography.

 

[DFW]

That is in fact, extremely incorrect ...

Since I do not have the time nor the wish to discuss neonate mortality
in different developed nations here, for example the huge differences
between newly developed nations like South Korea and nations which
already were high tech / high med a few decades ago, we should just
agree to disagree, I think.

Besides, since few Traveller player characters start as neonates, I think
we can safely concentrate on the life expectancy of people who made it
to the start of their first career term. :wink:

Sorry, was a bit strong there and didn't mean it to sound that way. I just know from how the US gov does its statistics from the C.D.C. The U.N. and other major developed countries may use different weighting and thus have better stats to look at.

 

[rinku]

True enough but using the standard aging rolls from 34 up every 4 years most characters will not be leading cavalry charges at 75
The average character will be ok for mental (Int, edu, soc) stats but the important physical ones will be shot by 75.

Ah, but it IS quite possible for a particular character with good stats and a moderately lucky rolls to still be in reasonable shape at 75.

Maybe not very likely, but certainly better than a healthy character dropping stone dead at 45 from a brain aneurism or heart attack (which the aging rules don't really allow for...

 

[BP]

It may not be the norm, but I have known quite a few folks who are very physically fit and able at 75... (especially if one compares them to the 'norm' here in the U.S.).

 

[aspqrz]

Indeed, average life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, mainly due to basic public health measures, enough so that most wealthy countries are in the process of either raising the age of retirement or discussing doing so.

As a note. the VAST majority of that increase has been at the bottom end (decrease in infant/childhood mortality) very little on the top end...

Well, yes. That's what averages represent. Generally speaking, however, "infant mortality" in this respect for pre-modern societies was, as I understand it, more correctly "infant and adolescent" mortality ... if you managed to hit your twenties the chances were good, unless you had the misfortune to be female, that you would survive into your late forties or even into your fifties ... and the Biblically endorsed "three score years and ten" (70) was moderately likely.

Regardless, in the last 100 years or so the increase at the top end is substantial and significant ... which is why assorted US congesscritters are rabbiting on about how Social Security is going to go bankrupt "real soon now" when there will be more retirees than working age people ... much the same argument has been made in Oz (but *our* parliamentarians are less fussed about it because they have realised that it can easily be solved by modest tax hikes ... though, of course, they b**** and moan about that, of course) ... and, as a result, the retirement age has already been raised, quite a while ago for women, and recently for all (below a minimum age, of course).

These steps would not be necessary if all of the increase was at the bottom end.

AIUI, the bottom end increases have been overwhelmingly due to basic public health measures, a significant chunk of the 50-70 increases have been likewise, but that the increases post 70 have been, are, and will certainly continue to be more expensive, relatively. However, there is a considerable and reasonable expectancy amongst the medical profession, again, AIUI, that a life expectancy of 120 is achievable "in the near future" and that *usable* life expectancy (i.e. retirement age or something similar) is going to increase proportionally ... so, at TL/13-15 it would not be unreasonable to see characters adventuring into their 70s or even 80s based on that, perhaps even into their 90s.

YMMV, of course, as Traveller Tech has never made much sense in the light of real world developments, even back in the 70s and 80s :wink:

Phil

 

[DFW]

Well, yes. That's what averages represent. Generally speaking, however, "infant mortality" in this respect for pre-modern societies was, as I understand it, more correctly "infant and adolescent" mortality ... if you managed to hit your twenties the chances were good, unless you had the misfortune to be female,

Yes, quote true.

Regardless, in the last 100 years or so the increase at the top end is substantial and significant ... which is why assorted US congesscritters are rabbiting on about how Social Security is going to go bankrupt "real soon now" when there will be more retirees than working age people ..

Actually, no. The reason is that #1, the Boomers are a HUGE demo that is reaching SS retirement at the same time (statistically boomers are less healthy that their parents were and die at a higher rate) and, #2, The SS "Fund" has no $ in it. Has zip to do with people living longer.

 

[rust]

Actually, no. The reason is that #1, the Boomers are a HUGE demo that is reaching SS retirement at the same time (statistically boomers are less healthy that their parents were and die at a higher rate) and, #2, The SS "Fund" has no $ in it. Has zip to do with people living longer.

Still, the debate mentioned by aspqrz does exist, and the people who en-
gage in it - like Senator Simpson - obviously do not share your view:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/07/michael-hiltzik-social-security-and-the-life-expectancy-myth.html

 

[CosmicGamer]

These steps would not be necessary if all of the increase was at the bottom end.

Just throwing numbers around for effect. I don't know the real statistics.

If A)X% out of Y people died before they reached the age of 30 and average life expectancy is Z.
and
B)25years later, X-10% of people died before they reached the age of 30
Then B1) 10% more people are living past 30
I suggest B2) with no other facts changing, average life expectancy is > Z
and B2) there would be more older people for which 'steps would be necessary'

In conclusion, while there may well be other factors, I believe a portion of the 'increase at the top end' are due to the 'bottom end increases'.

It may have been much more uncommon but people living long lives happened in the past long before our 'high tech' medicine. Most medicine helps prevent people from dying early and helps people live longer.

Again, no facts, but I believe the average life expectancy has increased quite a bit more rapidly than "the maximum life span".

The average life expectancy in Colonial America was under 25 years in the Virginia colony and in New England about 40% of children failed to reach adulthood.

John Adams, second president of the United States lived over 90 years. That was 1735 – 1826. I'm sure he wasn't the oldest person of his time.

EDIT:
Ramesses II, Reigned in Egypt from 1279–1213 BC and is believed to have lived for over 90 years.

 

[DFW]

Still, the debate mentioned by aspqrz does exist, and the people who engage in it - like Senator Simpson - obviously do not share your view:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/07/michael-hiltzik-social-security-and-the-life-expectancy-myth.html

Not sure what you are referring to. The myth that there is a SS Trust fund with money in it or, that increased life expectancy is the culprit for the problem with the system.

 

[DFW]

In conclusion, while there may well be other factors, I believe a portion of the 'increase at the top end' are due to the 'bottom end increases'.

That is what an analysis of the U.S. CDC statistics show.