16 hours ago, c912039 said:

It was the host, and not NDT, that introduced the political aspect into the discussion.

Neil Tyson clearly said "hold me back" after the host made that comment, implying that he agreed and had more to say but was careful to avoid getting political.  He has made other controversial political comments in the past. 

He was also subtly criticizing the recent RFK-supported movement to improve health through better quality food and water with his silly comment that people hundreds of years ago ate "organic" but it didn't make any difference in their lifespan. 

First, it's not just about eating organic, but more about eliminating harmful chemicals which have been added to our food and water ***during the vaunted 20th century*** which have indeed caused increased rates of cancer and other diseases.

He was also wrong about the main reason for increased lifespans recently, and didn't explain that he was quoting the *average* historical lifespan and failed to take into account deaths during child birth, and like LHookins said high infant mortality, which heavily skew the age of death lower.

Dave

Edited July 31, 2025Jul 31 by dave2013

51 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

My point is that our longer average lifespans are due *not* primarily to recent advances in surgery and drugs, but to more simple health-related knowledge about infections and bacteria and such

...

There's no need for advanced medical science of the later 20th century to make a huge difference in this regard, but we're supposed to believe that our recent and exorbitantly expensive advanced medical treatments and drugs are the main reason - not so.

I fully agree that lifestyle changes account for much of the changes. One recent example is the decline of life expectancy in the U.S., which can be linked to higher obesity rates compared to other developed nations. However, more recent medical developments have not only increased the average lifespan, but also the quality of life in later years. My mom had laser eye surgery, for instance, which meant that she was able to drive again. 

Is improving health care and technology expensive? Yes, absolutely. But what would you rather invest money in than measures that enable you to live longer, more healthy, and less dependent on foreign energy resources?

 

42 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Neil Tyson clearly said "hold me back" after the host made that comment, implying that he agreed and had more to say but was careful to avoid getting political. 

I can assure you that I am also holding back. However, I have sworn an oath to the moderators to not get involved in political debates 🙂

Peter

40 minutes ago, qqwertz said:

I can assure you that I am also holding back. However, I have sworn an oath to the moderators to not get involved in political debates 🙂

Peter

Thank you!  Please keep the politics and other stuff out of the conversation. Talking about 🦧+ 🧠 🪱 not allowed!

Oh no, the politics of the discussion about politics 🙂 

I’ve learnt to stay away from these “define what you want as political” threads … they get closed or simply make absolutely ZERO difference to anyone that already has their mind made up.  

When a debate falls back on zero independently verified data or opinion or the catch-all way out of a debate “it’s fake” or “doesn’t impact me”  … it’s lost all its mojo and interest … road to no where other than the consumption of what little time we humans have available to us on a cosmic scale (I just lost 5 minutes).

Now … let me go start a new thread that I’m fairly certain isn’t political (maybe, I hope, but ya never how it could be interpreted)…

5 hours ago, qqwertz said:

However, more recent medical developments have not only increased the average lifespan, but also the quality of life in later years.

Of course they have, but Neil Tyson was using a flawed argument to make that point.

 

5 hours ago, qqwertz said:

and less dependent on foreign energy resources

I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion on increased lifespans, but I agree that less dependence in this regard is a good thing.

Dave

9 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Of course they have, but Neil Tyson was using a flawed argument to make that point.

 

I may be misunderstanding your point, and I haven't been paying as much attention to this thread as I should, been busy... but  was it really a flawed argument when its "mostly" been scientific advances that have vastly reduced child mortality.

Advances in public health are a result of medical science educating society as to the dangers. Living standards improve due to technological advances  that increase societal wealth and provide the technology to build homes that keep us warm and dry, and technological advances come from greater scientific understanding. Medical science itself, obviously. 

Factors that have reduced child mortality, below.

"This decrease in mortality reflects a century's worth of advances in public health, living standards, medical science and technology, and clinical practice. Many infants who once would have died from prematurity, complications of childbirth, and congenital anomalies (birth defects) now survive."

Edited August 1, 2025Aug 1 by martin-w

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

I may be misunderstanding your point, and I haven't been paying as much attention to this thread as I should, been busy... but  was it really a flawed argument when its "mostly" been scientific advances that have vastly reduced child mortality.

To be fair, I'm nitpicking a bit, but I expect a scientist to be precise and accurate in his/her statements.  Neil Tyson said that half of people died before the age of 35 in 1840, which may be true, but it was mainly because a lot of babies died, not because half of children or adults died due to lack of modern medicine.  He was quoting the *average* lifespan and making it seem that half of *everyone* died before the age of 35. 

His point was that we live a lot longer now mainly because of medical technology and advancements, which I do not believe is the case.  Like I said, if people before the 20th century had simply known about clean water and food, washed their hands, and cleaned and bandaged wounds, their lifespans wouldn't have been a lot less than they are nowadays.

Modern drugs and surgery add maybe 5-10 years to one's life, which is great, but it's not 40+ years that Neil Tyson claims.

The modern medical establishment wants to sell us their expensive treatments so they can make more money.  There are extremely expensive cancer drugs now that only add about 6 months to one's life, and even that's not guaranteed. 

The stuff that really helps us live longer and healthier is much simpler and less expensive, like eating healthy and getting proper nutrition and exercising.

Dave 

5 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The stuff that really helps us live longer and healthier is much simpler and less expensive, like eating healthy and getting proper nutrition and exercising.

May Dad did absolutely NONE of that for his entire life and lived to 86 entirely thanks to medications he took … blood thinners, cholesterol meds, gall bladder removed, replacement knee, replacement hip, pace maker … he would have died in his 50’s if it weren’t for these medical treatments and procedures. 

5 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Modern drugs and surgery add maybe 5-10 years to one's life, which is great, but it's not 40+ years that Neil Tyson claims

Proof is my Dad.  I know you’ll just ignore my proof because you don’t have access to my Dad’s medical reports and his death certificate … or you’ll say it’s just a “one off” … for which I do have evidence, data, and my entire family linage that demonstrates Neil’s 40+ year claim to be accurate and even conservative.

My Dad believed water was unhealthy and regularly told me “look at the rust water causes to metal” … I kid you not.

14 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Proof is my Dad.  I know you’ll just ignore my proof because you don’t have access to my Dad’s medical reports and his death certificate … or you’ll say it’s just a “one off” … for which I do have evidence, data, and my entire family linage that demonstrates Neil’s 40+ year claim to be accurate and even conservative.

No, I won't ignore your dad's particular circumstances and how surgery saved his life and allowed him to live.  My dad only made it to 64 because he got Diabetes in his early 50s, and despite the medicines and insulin he didn't live into true old age.

I think that we only have limited power over our overall health and longevity.  Yes, eating healthy, exercising, not smoking, not doing drugs, taking various medications for blood pressure and other issues, etc. etc. likely helps one to be healthier and live longer, and in your dad's case maybe the medicines worked and maybe they didn't.   Do you know with 100% certainty that your dad would not have lived to be 75 or 80 if he had not taken those drugs?  I'm sure the doctors told you he needed them, but do you really know that they allowed him to live to 86?  No, you cannot know that for certain.  The surgery saved his life and allowed him to continue living, but beyond that there's no way to know if the drugs increased his lifespan.

From my experience there exists what I call the genetic lottery.  I have seen people who never exercised a day in their life and didn't eat healthy live to be in their 80s and 90s, and other people who were active and ate healthy only make it into their 70s.  We had a neighbor who smoked 2 packs a day all her life, and who by her own admission didn't live a healthy lifestyle, live to be 86 and die peacefully.  There are thousands of people a year who get lung cancer who have never smoked.  The human body is so complicated and there are thousands of factors that determine one's health and lifespan, and we simply don't know what all of them are nor exactly what effects and interactions they have.

Dave

 

15 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Neil Tyson said that half of people died before the age of 35 in 1840, which may be true, but it was mainly because a lot of babies died, not because half of children or adults died due to lack of modern medicine. 

 

But why did those babies die? Mostly due to factors relating to a lack of biological understanding, medical science, biological understanding, drugs to treat infection, treatments for congenital conditions. Most infant mortality reduction can be traced to better scientific understanding. Yes, perhaps he should have been more specific but it was just a conversation and the premise he was getting across was valid.

 

15 hours ago, dave2013 said:

His point was that we live a lot longer now mainly because of medical technology and advancements, which I do not believe is the case.  Like I said, if people before the 20th century had simply known about clean water and food, washed their hands, and cleaned and bandaged wounds, their lifespans wouldn't have been a lot less than they are nowadays.

 

And where does that knowledge about food, nutrition, infections due to microorganisms, come from? Science.

In terms of cleaning wounds, its true in terms of superficial injuries, but any deeper wound down to fat layers or muscle and its very difficult to avoid infection with just water and bandages.

 

15 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Modern drugs and surgery add maybe 5-10 years to one's life, which is great, but it's not 40+ years that Neil Tyson claims.

 

That's an average though. For many its vastly more than that. Averages are sometimes misleading due to the inclusion of outliers that can disproportionately impact the average making it unrepresentative of the typical value. When data is bimodal the average may not reflect the central tendency of the data.

 

15 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The stuff that really helps us live longer and healthier is much simpler and less expensive, like eating healthy and getting proper nutrition and exercising.

 

True, the impact of such is significant. 

You make some good points, and Tyson can come up with less than valid arguments from time to time, but in this case I think you've been a bit hard on him.

Edited August 2, 2025Aug 2 by martin-w

9 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Do you know with 100% certainty that your dad would not have lived to be 75 or 80 if he had not taken those drugs?  

 

Not possible to know anything with 100% certainty. Its those words, again, the ones I mentioned in the thread the other day..... liklihood, probability.

9 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 I have seen people who never exercised a day in their life and didn't eat healthy live to be in their 80s and 90s, and other people who were active and ate healthy only make it into their 70s. 

 

Yep, there are always outliers. Outliers, though, most aren't that lucky if they do everything wrong.