{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014646053702196907, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.180904522613066, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is There a Limit to Human Life Expectancy?

The analysis and prediction of life expectancy trends hold an important role in many aspects of our society. On a macro level, governments rely on life expectancy data to make decisions about public welfare programs, health care, retirement age, and pension programs. On an individual level, many people take life expectancy data into account when planning their retirements and making decisions about their future. Currently, two main schools of thought dominate the debate on the trajectory of life expectancy trends. The Olshansky School argues that global human life expectancy is reaching its absolute limit and predicts that a worldwide plateau in life expectancy will soon be reached. The Vaupel School, however, believes that such a plateau is nowhere in sight, and that humans possess no biological barrier that will prevent life expectancy from increasing indefinitely. In this commentary, I build upon the evidence generated by the Vaupel School by introducing socioeconomic factors into the debate and I argue that with consistent  improvements to medical technology and general prosperity we will not encounter a biological limit to human life expectancy in our lifetimes.