We *do* see a long tail in the distribution. It just ends around 120. If you want to see what programmed death looks like, look at the octopus. They have programmed death. They all die in a very narrow window. And more importantly, with the octopus, you can break the death program by doing neurosurgery and removing the senescence gla…
We *do* see a long tail in the distribution. It just ends around 120. If you want to see what programmed death looks like, look at the octopus. They have programmed death. They all die in a very narrow window. And more importantly, with the octopus, you can break the death program by doing neurosurgery and removing the senescence gland. They then live about 30% longer and die from being beyond their warranty period and then their aging looks an awful lot like ours (dying from numerous causes, slow decline). The programmed aging hypothesis is largely discredited in the aging field at the moment (though there are still adherents).
Isn't natural human death also largely bimodal? People either die in their 60s of cancer, or their 90s due to damage accumulation. This does reek of programmed death in the 90s (I'm assuming cancer is not a form of programmed death).
What you say is consistent with my previous impression, but this data looks very suspect. It's smoothed in a suspicious way, with for instance at least 3 data points in the "75-84" bin. And why would the bins need to be so coarse anyway with such a large sample size?
We *do* see a long tail in the distribution. It just ends around 120. If you want to see what programmed death looks like, look at the octopus. They have programmed death. They all die in a very narrow window. And more importantly, with the octopus, you can break the death program by doing neurosurgery and removing the senescence gland. They then live about 30% longer and die from being beyond their warranty period and then their aging looks an awful lot like ours (dying from numerous causes, slow decline). The programmed aging hypothesis is largely discredited in the aging field at the moment (though there are still adherents).
Isn't natural human death also largely bimodal? People either die in their 60s of cancer, or their 90s due to damage accumulation. This does reek of programmed death in the 90s (I'm assuming cancer is not a form of programmed death).
No. It is not bimodal except for a tiny bump in infancy related to birth defects http://www.science-of-aging.com/timelines/images/gompertz-mortality-curve.jpg
What you say is consistent with my previous impression, but this data looks very suspect. It's smoothed in a suspicious way, with for instance at least 3 data points in the "75-84" bin. And why would the bins need to be so coarse anyway with such a large sample size?
It was the first google hit for gompertz mortality curve. Here is another. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Lenart/publication/334604816/figure/fig1/AS:783401053327362@1563788774854/Gompertz-and-Gompertz-Makeham-models-provide-similar-fit-A-Comparison-between-curve.ppm
These are all public data. You can pull it and make whatever bin sizes you want.