Biologists have doubted the existence of the limit of human life

© AP Photo / Antonio Calanni, File the Oldest inhabitant of the earth Emma Morano died in April of this year at the age of 117 yearsBiologists have doubted the existence of the limit of human life© AP Photo / Antonio Calanni, File

Canadian researchers re-analyzed the changes in lifetime of the most long-lived people on Earth over the last 50 years and came to the conclusion that humanity has not yet reached the limit of the biologists from the United States said last year, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

«It is very difficult to predict how long people will live in the distant future, if this limit exists. Three hundred years ago, many people lived very long by modern standards. If someone said that one day their descendants will be able to live 100 years, they would have thought we were crazy,» said Siegfried Hekimi (Siegfried Hekimi) from McGill University in Montreal (Canada).

The typical duration of human life is not some constant value before the birth of civilization, she was between 20 to 30 years and then rose steadily with the development of science and medicine. Today people live more than 60 years in most countries of the world, and over 80 years in Japan and in other developed countries with high quality of life and excellent medicine.

On the other hand, for many organisms there is a maximum age at which most animals die from old age. In recent years, scientists actively debated whether it is for a person. In October last year us researchers showed that a similar maximum age, perhaps, equal 100-115 years, quite modest by the standards of the age of several biblical characters.

Hekimi and his colleagues cross-checked these findings, re-analyzing the statistics on life expectancy the most long-lived people in the US, the UK, France and Japan, from 1968 to the present day.

They used the same methodology as the authors statements about the existence of the limit of life — they were not interested in the number of deaths of people of a certain age, and that where the most notable decline in the number of deaths of people when comparing data in earlier and later years.

If the limit of life, this «hump of survival,» as it is called by scientists, is smoothly and continuously move in the direction of a more advanced age. If it exists, the «hump» to stop at a certain point and will not move on.

The lifting of the end of eternity

The problem, according to Hekimi, is that the number of centenarians who were selected for the analysis of American biologists, it was too small in order to be able to make definite conclusions. In addition, the authors of these statements have divided the dataset into two unequal parts, the period before 1994 and after, and only last for a much shorter period of time played a significant role in the quest for limit of life.

Hekimi and his colleagues have expanded the dataset and proanalizirovani it as a whole, not dividing it into arbitrary segments. This analysis showed that growth and average and maximum life expectancy has not stopped during this time, and that American researchers were able to detect not the limit of life, and the traces of fluctuation in the maximum lifespan.

For example, something like Hekimi and his colleagues found at the beginning of this time span, from 1968 to 1980 when the maximum life expectancy also remained in place or even falling as in the last two decades. Accordingly, we can say that we have not yet reached the limit of life or that it does not exist in principle, the scientists conclude.

In turn, the discovery of the «limit of life» is not agreed with the findings Hekimi and his colleagues and said that their opponents are using the wrong methods of statistical analysis and incorrectly believe that the statistics on the maximum duration of life is subject to the same mathematical rules as sets of completely random values. Therefore, according to Yana Viga (Jan Vijg) and his colleagues from the University of new York(USA), their conclusions remain true, and the criticism Hekimi and his colleagues unaddressed and incorrectly.