Persisting with this to try to justify your obviously incorrect interpretation of the hypothesis is just silly. I’m not suggesting that falling death rates from medical advances and safety advances would necessarily move exactly in lockstep, but finding that they had fallen by similar amounts over any given period would surely not be remarkable, it would not be prefaced with “here’s a weird statistic”.
The suggestion was clearly that the death rate (not the proportion of deaths) from accidental causes had not fallen at all, that it had remained roughly constant over historical time, which is counterintuitive.
Nitpick: One could imagine a situation where the creation of a safety standard (say, helmets) creates the assumption that everyone is properly complying and wearing a helmet, and then anyone who is not complying is in even more danger.
But unless no one is complying but everyone acts as if everyone is complying this should be a relatively small and self selecting factor.
To me that would be very remarkable and weird. I still strongly suspect that if I spent the energy looking at other cultures and time periods it is not true. It would again be really a strange thing to my read if it was true. Even that it is true just over these time periods in both the UK and the US strikes me as hard to believe.
But you seem to getting strangely huffy over this so what evs. I can drop my obviously not understanding what is straightforward to you.
Anyway. To the op. There is work on molecular mechanisms of aging and it is very possible that major breakthroughs will occur over the next several decades. To some degree a scary prospect.
I’m also of the mind to want to improve my healthspan much more than my lifespan. Both likely both would be the result of any breakthroughs but at what impact to society?
You think it would be very remarkable and weird that in a society with improving technology, we would have medical advances and safety improvements?
I bent over backwards to acknowledge that perhaps one phrase was ambiguous without context. If you really want to persist, my honest opinion is that the meaning was abundantly clear, and your interpretation of the hypothesis made no sense whatsoever.
Personally, I think all this is nonsense. Certainly there are ways to live a healthy life that should see you well into old age but, at the end of the day, you can’t ever really know.
If someone told you that if you only ever ate sprouts for the rest of your life you’d live six months longer would you do it? If you are 90 maybe but probably not if you are 50. And eating sprouts for all meals won’t necessarily guarantee a long life (just using “sprouts” as an example…please don’t go on about whether you can actually live by eating sprouts only).
Certainly we can eat in more healthy ways that are overall good for us but I also think there are limits to how much benefit we get from it. Living longer is great but I also want to enjoy life. I think there is a balance to be struck on this (and start by avoiding processed foods…cook with fresh ingredients).
and you ain’t guaranteed the results … eating sprouts for 15 years and then be hit by a green truck full of sprouts on a pedestrian crossing at age 32 is a tough cookie, when your fat alcoholic brother might well get into his 70ies.
I’m puzzled why diet pseudoscience is your model for the best we can hope to achieve in living longer and better. Why not - if someone told you a simple one-off painless vaccination would save you completely from the horrible disease that killed your grandparents, would you do it?
Because I have to eat a few meals every day. That is different than a once every six-months vaccine. It impacts how you live. Not to mention enjoying life. I enjoy meals with friends and family and enjoy eating. I do not enjoy getting vaccinated and do not do that with friends and family. I get vaccinated, but I do not enjoy it.
But how is that supposed to demonstrate that this is “all nonsense”? It’s certainly true that if the only way to live longer were to stick a needle in your eye every ten minutes, I wouldn’t be participating. But you already take for granted many ways to live longer than previous generations that don’t have these drawbacks. Why do you imagine that any future advances would only involve things like eating sprouts at every meal? I don’t get what point you’re trying to make.
It’s not demonstrating anything because there is no definitive science that says stabbing yourself in the eye will add 12 months to your life.
Make no mistake, there are unhealthy diets and healthy diets are worthwhile. But how far can you take that?
In general, eat healthy, get at least moderate exercise and you (general “you”) should be in a good place health-wise. Go ahead and enjoy some birthday cake even if it is not strictly “healthy” for you.
This is not a hill I will die on. You do you when it comes to your diet. Eat vegan and only organic if you want and that makes you happy.
I think you have little control over any malady listed in the OP other than your diet. What do you think you can do to avoid problems like heart disease or diabetes? Do you have control over lung cancer other than not smoking? What about Parkinson’s or blood cancer? (all listed in the OP)
Any book telling you how to avoid such problems is almost guaranteed to be some pseudo-science fad. Diet and exercise is the only thing you have control over. I suppose you could move to a place that has better air quality and decent water. What else can you do?
I’m just scratching my head that you seem to be dismissing the myriad ways that technology has extended our lifespan, and you just want to talk about how fad diets are pseudoscience.