Humans Have A Natural Lifespan Of Only 38 Years

[maximus otter]

Humans have a maximum natural lifespan of only 38 years, according to researchers, who have discovered a way to estimate how long a species lives based on its DNA.

Scientists at Australia's national science agency have developed a genetic 'clock' computer model that they claim can accurately estimate how long different vertebrates are likely to survive - including both living and extinct species.

Using the human genome, the researchers found that the maximum natural lifespan of humans is 38 years, which matches anthropological estimates of lifespan in early modern humans.

They found Neanderthals and Denisovans had a maximum lifespan of 37.8 years, similar to modern humans living around the same time.

The reason the life expectancy of modern humans is more than double that length is down to advances in living standards and modern medicine, according to the researchers.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...mans-genetically-hardwired-live-38-YEARS.html

maximus otter

 

[Yithian]

'Natural'.

 

[Ermintruder]

This does indeed confirm what most of us would've expected to be a key inescapable truth.

It also (substantially) explains why human teenagers have an irrepressable instinct that, given half a chance, they should be mating and running the world. That's because to a close approximation that is exactly what they've been doing for most of human history.

 

[Xanatic*]

How many animals in the wild die of old age?

 

[Timble2]

Looks to be pretty much the same as the other species of chimpanzees.

Although this is a Daily Mail report of a fairly complicated paper, which the DM has slightly sensationalised (in the Daily Mail, what never?).

 

[Frideswide]

Although this is a Daily Mail report of a fairly complicated paper, which the DM has slightly sensationalised (in the Daily Mail, what never?).

*clutches pearls*

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

Are we 'early modern humans' then?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Are we 'early modern humans' then?

The exact specification of what the study's authors meant by "early modern humans" may or may not be subject to debate. It certainly isn't spelled out in their published paper (see below). Still, I think there's a reasonably reliable interpretation of their intended meaning if one digs through their paper as well as the earlier research publications cited.

The most readily demonstrable definition for "early modern humans" (as used by these authors and their cited predecessors) is the set of humans:

- of the species Homo sapiens;
- who have lived during pre-industrial times or under pre-industrial conditions; and ...
- for whom we have sufficient demographic data by which to evaluate mortality / lifespan.

The only specific set(s) of data mentioned in any of these sources (that meets these tacit requirements) consists of demographic data recorded for certain 18th century Scandinavian rural populations and 20th century hunter-gatherers.

More simply stated ... It appears that these researchers are including humans as "early" based more on lifestyle than historical era.

Having said that ...

The most defensible answer to your query is "No", because we (who can access and read this ... ) aren't living within the constraints of a hunter-gatherer or peasant agricultural level of subsistence. The ones with a "natural" average lifespan of circa 38 years represent our forebears and certain contemporary outliers who do not benefit from the economic / medical / technical advances of (e.g.) the last two centuries.

IMHO there are other issues that mitigate the face-value solidity of these research results, but they lie beyond the scope of your query.

Anyone seriously interested in this research needs to review the published research report:

A genomic predictor of lifespan in vertebrates
Benjamin Mayne, Oliver Berry, Campbell Davies, Jessica Farley & Simon Jarman
Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 17866 (2019)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54447-w