Aging: Life expectancy 66 years?

[CosmicGamer]

Let me start right off by saying yes, you could take anagathics during CharGen but this thread is about normal aging so please leave that out of the aging discussion here.

Proposition:
1)The average person that does not take anagathics will have a life expectancy of 66 years.

Assumption: A average person has Str 7, Dex 7, End 7

Proof:
Term 07, Age 46, Roll 7, 7-7=0, stats reduced by 1, total 1
Term 08, Age 50, Roll 7, 7-8=-1, stats reduced by 2, total 3
Term 09, Age 54, Roll 7, 7-9=-2, stats reduced by 3, total 6
at this time stats could be Str 5, Dex 5, End 5
Term 10, Age 58, Roll 7, 7-10=-3, stats reduced by 4, total 10
Term 11, Age 62, Roll 7, 7-11=-4, stats reduced by 5, total 15
Term 12, Age 66, Roll 7, 7-12=-5, stats reduced by 6, total 21
at this time stats would be Str 0, Dex 0, End 0

on page 65

if all three physical characteristics are reduced to 0, the character is killed

Yes, in term 12 you could roll a 12 and your stats would only go down 1 point. I'm no math whiz. I think this is balanced out by the fact in term 7 you could roll a 2 and have your stats reduced by 6. If there are any Math geniuses out there, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Arguments: Even at around tech level 7 this would not be true. Here is some data from the archives for a civilization around that point of development.

Someone that makes it to age 65 should live for at least another 12 years.

 

[Klaus]

You could argue that the aging rules are for travellers, not the comfortably settled, and this represents exposure to all that cosmic radiation from all those jumps from world to world.

You could also argue that 66 is an average lifespan, given that there are more low tech worlds than high tech ones, and more worlds with taints or non-breathable atmospheres, and that the high tech folk live much longer than that.

But yeah, 66 seems a bit short to me. 100 seems a better mean. Though it has to be said that a 12 term character would be exceedingly rare, and that prior history career terms could be worse for your health than adventuring (though that seems unlikely).

In the end, this perhaps has more to do with game balance than anything else. Tis no worse than other versions of Traveller, except that losses are more likey to occur later in life than at 34 (that's a good thing, IMO).

On a slightly tangential note, if anagathics are so widespread why don't emperors reign for centuries rather than mere decades...? By rights, Arbellatra should still be on the Iridium Throne.

 

[GypsyComet]

On a slightly tangential note, if anagathics are so widespread why don't emperors reign for centuries rather than mere decades...? By rights, Arbellatra should still be on the Iridium Throne.

Like cybernetics and psionics, extreme life extension is frowned upon at a broad cultural level within the Imperium, particularly amongst the nobility. There are some worlds that flip the other way.

TNE allowed for quite a bit of lifespan extension through anagathics, but also introduced side-effects that would eventually become unavoidable.

The Vilani are naturally long-lived, getting up to 120 years comfortably before serious decrepitude sets in.

 

[Commander Drax]

You could argue that this rule only applies to travellers, not ordinary citizens that seldom experience a trip through jump space, perhaps crossing light years in a week inside jumpside stresses biological bodies, making them age slightly quickly.

Also 66 years before decrepitute is about right for manual workers in an industrial society with lots of dangerous and physically wearing occupations (coal miner/steel worker etc.)

 

[veltyen]

Proposition:
1)The average person that does not take anagathics will have a life expectancy of 66 years.

To rephrase:

The average person, who wishes to travel the universe, be regularly shot at, carries a weapon, is exposed to dangerous situations on a regular basis, spends extensive time in hospital, has a crippling high-stress mortgage... (and so on) has a life expectancy of 66 years at the age of 18 (or 14 if from a low tech world depending on ruleset).

Sounds high if anything

Serious mental illness (schizophrenia, alcholism, and other related things) reduces expected life expectancy by up to 25 years in the current day. Occupational life expectancy also varies quite extensively, a safe white collar job after a university education adds to life expectancy significantly. A barely scrapping though menial job lowers life expectancy.

Arguments: Even at around tech level 7 this would not be true. Here is some data from the archives for a civilization around that point of development.

Someone that makes it to age 65 should live for at least another 12 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy to give a spread of results. The lowest average life expectancies at birth come from places with a very high infant mortality. Traveller characters can skip that unless you force survival rolls for birth, infancy and childhood.

You are also assuming that the average population that reaches 65 has End 7 - I would argue at that point that the average (starting) End at that age would likely be higher. Those with lower stats are far more likely to have already dropped out of the population, those with higher are far more likely to still be around. Though even if you assume starting End 9 is the average at age 65 it may still not give you enough additional time to model the current day adequately.

 

[CosmicGamer]

You could argue that the aging rules are for travellers, not the comfortably settled, and this represents exposure to all that cosmic radiation from all those jumps from world to world.

You could argue that this rule only applies to travellers, not ordinary citizens that seldom experience a trip through jump space, perhaps crossing light years in a week inside jumpside stresses biological bodies, making them age slightly quickly. Also 66 years before decrepitute is about right for manual workers in an industrial society with lots of dangerous and physically wearing occupations (coal miner/steel worker etc.)

The average person, who wishes to travel the universe, be regularly shot at, carries a weapon, is exposed to dangerous situations on a regular basis, spends extensive time in hospital, has a crippling high-stress mortgage... (and so on) has a life expectancy of 66 years at the age of 18 (or 14 if from a low tech world depending on ruleset). Serious mental illness (schizophrenia, alcholism, and other related things) reduces expected life expectancy by up to 25 years in the current day. Occupational life expectancy also varies quite extensively, a safe white collar job after a university education adds to life expectancy significantly. A barely scrapping though menial job lowers life expectancy.

Look again at my first post and see that nobody dies for any reason except for aging. Throw in hardcore rules to allow for deaths and the survival roles for the various careers, adjust for possible variations in stats, % of people in each career, and so on and so on; too many variables and way beyond my ability to calculate. So my informattion is based on No accidents, no battles, no deaths during career. The figures are for people that have died from the effects of aging alone. All other deaths from earlier ages are not included, yet still the life expectancy is 66! Throwing in the other factors only exaggerates my point. Ok, maybe aging can include diseases, bad environment and such, but not the dangerous career stuff IMO. Suggesting that the life expectancy is down because of star travel / radiation exposer and that the table is for travellers and not the rest of the people; it sorta could be possible but doesn't make sense to me. If that is true, who would want to take all those years off their life and volunteer for those type of careers?

You are also assuming that the average population that reaches 65 has End 7 - I would argue at that point that the average (starting) End at that age would likely be higher. Those with lower stats are far more likely to have already dropped out of the population, those with higher are far more likely to still be around. Though even if you assume starting End 9 is the average at age 65 it may still not give you enough additional time to model the current day adequately.

I am not making any assumptions. I am using the info from the book. On what should or shouldn't be the average stat, I'm just using what the average die roll would be since its beyond my ability to calculate all the possibilities. True, I don't consider increases from conditioning that might increase stats during a career - one of the few things that might skew the results in the opposite direction but I felt it was negligible compared to all the deaths that would happen at an earlier age due to dangerous careers - which are also not calculated. In a way I am assuming that everyone lives to age 62! They then die at age 66 due to additive effects of aging. That is certainly not my opinion nor is it what happens in the game. This is just where the average to be based on my understanding of the rules and limited math abilities. I just can't calculate all the rest so stripping out everything except for aging was the only way my pea brain could point out how off I think it is. If anyone can calculate it out better, please post it.

I appreciate the comments so far, but I have not found one that I can use yet to explain this, so please keep them coming.

 

[travlar]

Normally characters would get stat increases as well, which would increase their life-span.

 

[samuelvss]

Adequate Response Already made

Look again at my first post and see that nobody dies for any reason except for aging. /QUOTE]

The points made by Klaus, Drax and veltyen seem to have flown by you without matching vectors. They are not talking about the detrimental effects of missing survival rolls, but of the detrimental effects of making them. Police are three times more likely to have a heart attack than the average Joe, and stress is in fact the greatest killer of police. They are saying that stress and other environmental factors curtail the age of travellers other than through outright morbidity; stress and other environmental factors age you quicker.

Is that conclusion necessary? No, but it is clearly rational.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Look again at my first post and see that nobody dies for any reason except for aging.

The points made by Klaus, Drax and veltyen seem to have flown by you without matching vectors. They are not talking about the detrimental effects of missing survival rolls, but of the detrimental effects of making them. Police are three times more likely to have a heart attack than the average Joe, and stress is in fact the greatest killer of police. They are saying that stress and other environmental factors curtail the age of travellers other than through outright morbidity; stress and other environmental factors age you quicker.

Is that conclusion necessary? No, but it is clearly rational.

And sorry to say, it's still flying by me or what I'm thinking isn't coming out in text properly.

Maybe I can make it even simpler.

Lets exclude all other careers.

My figures still apply to the Entertainer who is an Artist spending their days writing or sculpting.

Normally characters would get stat increases as well, which would increase their life-span.

I do acknowledge that this is not within my figures but as mentioned, I think it is easily ignored because I do not have anybody dying for any reason at all before the age of 66. I thought that I was being awfully generous saying that the life expectancy was 66 and I'm a little surprised at the reactions so far. All those earlier deaths would really drag that 66 down further but I have no way of calculating it with my limited skills.

 

[veltyen]

My figures still apply to the Entertainer who is an Artist spending their days writing or sculpting.

Poor example there.

Artists tend to have an extremely low life expectancy as a group due to tendencies in regard to drug use, risk behaviour, and income.

I am not making any assumptions. I am using the info from the book. On what should or shouldn't be the average stat, I'm just using what the average die roll would be since its beyond my ability to calculate all the possibilities. True, I don't consider increases from conditioning that might increase stats during a career - one of the few things that might skew the results in the opposite direction but I felt it was negligible compared to all the deaths that would happen at an earlier age due to dangerous careers - which are also not calculated. In a way I am assuming that everyone lives to age 62! They then die at age 66 due to additive effects of aging. That is certainly not my opinion nor is it what happens in the game. This is just where the average to be based on my understanding of the rules and limited math abilities. I just can't calculate all the rest so stripping out everything except for aging was the only way my pea brain could point out how off I think it is. If anyone can calculate it out better, please post it.

One of the comments you made had to do with modelling the increased life expectancy at age X.

If the average life expectancy is 66 at birth, then the life expectancy (by necessity) of someone who has reached age 30 is going to be greater then +36, which is going to be smaller then the expected life span of someone who has reached 60. This implies that people with lower stats (or are just plain unlucky) have already dropped from the group.

The deaths by dangerous careers isn't exactly part of it. A modern day soldier or police officer has a lowered life expectancy. This is not from death in the line of duty (ie. a failed survival roll) but from tendencies towards problematic lifestyle behaviours. Increased stress, drug abuse, psychosis and so on.

Lastly you are looking at the system for generating characters. It isn't supposed to model average people, it is supposed to model interesting people.

If you really want to model the average life expectancy as modeled from the tables you need to weight all the appropriate stats, find what each will die at and intergrate them back into a cohesive whole. For the reasons mentioned above this won't be any more meaningful, or give you any greater zeitgeist, then what you have already done.

 

[BlackBat242]

In the late 1980s, the US Navy published the results of a study on life expectancy of USN retirees compared to civilian retirees. The results were "interesting".

Note that this compares those who worked most of their adult life, and were still around to retire.

The average civilian population retired between 65 & 70, and lived about 10 more years, making a total of 75-80.

Of those who retired from the USN at 20-25 years (45-55 years of age), additional life span was about 20 years... for a total of 65-75.

Those who retired at 30-35 (55-65) lived about 5 more years... for a total of 60-70.

Those who retired at 40 (60-65) lived about 2 more years. This was the highest category with sufficient numbers to be statistically meaningful.


So yes, our current life-spans aren't that good.

That said, the system as shown in the original post does seem broken... unless you assume that that is for TL 9... and increase the start-point for aging as the "average TL experienced" increases.

TL 12 should see an average life-span (of those who reach 50+) nearing 100, and TL 15 should see 120.

Max lifespans (excluding rare cases) should be 100, 120, 140.

 

[far-trader]

Using the aging crisis table to factor mortality is flawed, unless of course you admit it's entirely possible to make the aging crisis roll every time and be immortal...

 

[far-trader]

There Can Be Only One!

OK, I thought I recalled something about Medical skill for aging crisis and now I had a chance to look it up. Immortality may actually be in the cards, er, dice

...at least in Traveller

Aging Crisis: If, as a result of aging, a characteristic is
reduced to zero, the character is considered to have had an
aging crisis and become quite ill. A basic saving throw of 8+
applies to avoid death (subject to a DM for the expertise of
any attending medical skill).

So a Doctor with Medical-6 will guarantee you always avoid death due to aging crisis. And that shouldn't be impossible to find. Of the forty Doctors generated in Supplement 7 five have Medical-5, and one of those is a prodigy with just 3 terms. Be easy enough to raise that to Medical-6 and you're set for life. The Doctor's life that is. So you'll want to train a replacement/standby too.

If the character survives,
recovery is made immediately (under slow drug, which
speeds up the body chemistry). The character ages (one die
equals the number of months in added age under slow drug)
immediately, but also returns to play without delay. The
characteristic which was reduced to zero automatically
becomes 1. This process occurs each time (and for each
characteristic) a characteristic is reduced to zero. In the
event that slow drug is not available, the individual is
incapacitated for the number of months indicated if the
basic throw of 8+ is successful.

And so Immortality is achieved.

Now that won't do of course, we must have some limit.

Perhaps the lower end of the maximum lifespan could be based on a perfect human specimen with 15's across the board (physically) and presume each aging roll is failed. That puts the lower end of the maximum lifespan at 78 years. Sounds reasonable.

And for an average maximum lifespan let's say the same perfect human specimen is twice* as lucky and makes one-half of the aging rolls. That would put the middle of the lifespan at 120 years. That sounds good too.

Then finally for the upper end of the maximum lifespan let's allow our perfect human specimen double* his luck again and make three-quarters of the aging rolls. That puts the absolute lifespan at 174 years. Yep, I like that too.

So, barring Anagathics (which halt the aging clock during use) the best your wonder Doctor with Medical-6+ can do is keep you around for 174 years. Unless you're really really really lucky and actually make a lot of those aging rolls to avoid losing points.

* yeah, yeah, not the actual statistical value

 

[CosmicGamer]

If you really want to model the average life expectancy as modeled from the tables you need to weight all the appropriate stats, find what each will die at and intergrate them back into a cohesive whole.

No thanks, I realy don't. I was not trying to do a life expectancy. I do not have the desire or skills to do so. I had a scientist character get decimated by aging (had low physical stats) and decided to look at what the effects would be on average. I thought the figure was low and thought I'd post my findings here. At no point do I say my figures are accurate, in fact one of my purposes for the post was to see if someone could give more math to show why the figure would be different.

Artists tend to have an extremely low life expectancy as a group due to tendencies in regard to drug use, risk behaviour, and income.

If Artist isn't a good example can you pick one for me? Is every single profession going to causes increased wear and tear on the physical body? Are you saying that for Traveller "adventurers" the average should be less that 66 in your opinion (again I'm not having anyone die from anything but aging so the real figure would be less).

If the average life expectancy is 66 at birth, then the life expectancy (by necessity) of someone who has reached age 30 is going to be greater then +36, which is going to be smaller then the expected life span of someone who has reached 60. This implies that people with lower stats (or are just plain unlucky) have already dropped from the group.

ah, and here I let all those people stay alive. That is just one more of the many things I left out on purpose because I had no math for it. Add it into the mix and the average life expectancy goes down even further. How low do you think it should be?

The deaths by dangerous careers isn't exactly part of it. A modern day soldier or police officer has a lowered life expectancy. This is not from death in the line of duty (ie. a failed survival roll) but from tendencies towards problematic lifestyle behaviours. Increased stress, drug abuse, psychosis and so on.

Don't care for the idea that the guys in blue that are out there to protect me are a bunch of stressed, drug using, head cases but I guess it could be true. In fact here are some figures someone posted to back up shorter lifespans for the military type.

In the late 1980s, the US Navy published the results of a study on life expectancy of USN retirees compared to civilian retirees. The results were "interesting".

Note that this compares those who worked most of their adult life, and were still around to retire.

The average civilian population retired between 65 & 70, and lived about 10 more years, making a total of 75-80.

Of those who retired from the USN at 20-25 years (45-55 years of age), additional life span was about 20 years... for a total of 65-75.

Those who retired at 30-35 (55-65) lived about 5 more years... for a total of 60-70.

Those who retired at 40 (60-65) lived about 2 more years. This was the highest category with sufficient numbers to be statistically meaningful.

So yes, our current life-spans aren't that good.

Don't expect it to get any better. 65-75, 60-70, I find that 2 year life expectancy for the 40 year retirees a bit astonishing, but they still lived 62-67 years. Those figures are right there with the 66 I came up with for whatever time period MGT is set in. Just like me, those figures don't show people dying earlier on. 1980 is aprox TL7, right? Thanks BlackBat for the data. In a hushed voice "I'll give you that $10 for backing me up later"

 

[CosmicGamer]

... Medical skill for aging crisis... ...and makes one-half of the aging rolls. That would put the middle of the lifespan at 120 years....

So, barring Anagathics (which halt the aging clock during use) the best your wonder Doctor with Medical-6+ can do is keep you around for 174 years. Unless you're really really really lucky and actually make a lot of those aging rolls to avoid losing points.

Sorry FT, I cut your quote to shreds. My last post was long and people can click the link to go back to read it.

Yes, absolutely, lets keep Anagathics out of this discussion.

Yes to Medical skill for aging crisis. Correct me if I am wrong, the stat is only brought up from 0 to 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, an aging crisis is for a single stat going to 0 not multiple stats. I can quote this from the book so no correcting this one

if all three physical characteristics are reduced to 0, the character is killed

One question I have is what happens if 2 stats get to 0?

 

[veltyen]

At no point do I say my figures are accurate, in fact one of my purposes for the post was to see if someone could give more math to show why the figure would be different.

Ah. No help there then.

If Artist isn't a good example can you pick one for me? Is every single profession going to causes increased wear and tear on the physical body? Are you saying that for Traveller "adventurers" the average should be less that 66 in your opinion (again I'm not having anyone die from anything but aging so the real figure would be less).

Professions that I would expect to have a greater then normal life expectancy:

Personal carer.
Faceless bureaucrat.
Sportsperson (though probably due to increased physical stats).
Idle rich.

For military and other high stress careers I would expect some physical deterioration from the previous mentioned reasons. Safe, moderately well paid, white collar I would expect to have a slightly higher life span. On the other hand having looked for these details online they appear to be remarkably hard to pin down.

Don't care for the idea that the guys in blue that are out there to protect me are a bunch of stressed, drug using, head cases but I guess it could be true.

Drug using is a reference for a tendency towards alcoholism among police. High rate of suicide points to high-stress as well. Just hope that your local IA and PU are strong, and there is a reasonable internal watch for worrying factors.

 

[robject]

Isn't it interesting that these kinds of discussions don't seem to crop up in other games...

This topic may have been done to death on the TML. Anyone done a search on this?

Regarding the "idle" rich (hey is that a misnomer?): I suspect that enough of them get killed in various ways to bring their averages in line...

 

[CosmicGamer]

This topic may have been done to death on the TML. Anyone done a search on this?

Sorry for my synapse misfire. What is TML? I may be slapping my forehead when I hear the answer. D'oh!

 

[far-trader]

The TML is the "Traveller Mailing List". It's the reason the internet was created

Here's a FAQ (though I'm not sure how current it is*):

http://www.downport.com/traveller/tml/tml-faq.html

* not very I guess, the subscribe link is wrong, there was a shakeup a while back, I still get the digests but most go unread and I haven't any saved to get a link from

 

[GypsyComet]

The TML's archives, particularly the really old ones, are far more useful than the current list, which is suffering from a lengthy and nasty bout of "been there, argued about that, wake me up when its over".