IELTS Charlie

Your Guide to IELTS Band 7

IELTS Model Essay: Increased Life Expectancy

In this post, I’m going to write an IELTS Writing Task 2 model essay in response to this question about increased life expectancy from Test 2 of  The Official Cambridge Guide To IELTS :

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

One of the consequences of improved medical care is that people are living longer and life expectancy is increasing.

Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own  knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

Let’s go through my 4 Step Approach to essay planning:

  • Analyse The Question
  • Decide My Position
  • Generate My Ideas
  • Develop My Ideas

I’ll write these 4 steps out in full, so you can see my thinking. Obviously, you won’t have time to write all this down when you plan your essay, but you will have time to think the 4 steps through in your head. In fact, Steps 2 to 4 might happen together, if you think deeply enough about your views.

IELTS Model Essay Living Longer

Step 1: Analyse The Question

The first thing to do is analyse the question.

TWO things are mentioned here: (1) “people are living longer” and (2) “life expectancy is increasing”. However, these are not two separate issues; I think life expectancy is mentioned to emphasise the fact that this will continue into the future, so it’s a long-term issue.

Now, I don’t want to die, so living longer only has advantages to me, but the question isn’t about ME, it’s about people in general; society.

So let’s  reword the question , so it’s clearer: do the advantages of living longer outweigh the disadvantages for society?

Step 2: Decide My Position (What Do I Think?)

So, what do I REALLY think about this issue? In other words, what’s my position on this issue?

Clearly – if you REALLY think about this issue – there are BOTH advantages AND disadvantages to living longer for society, so you should discuss both advantages and disadvantages of you want to write a well-developed response (and have a chance of getting a Band 8 for TR).

On the whole, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages , because we can do more with our lives, BUT only if living longer means being healthier for longer, and being able to pay for retirement.

Step 3: Generate My Ideas (Why Do I Think This?)

Now let’s expand my position – why do I take this position? This is really just an expansion of the position I outlined above, into 4 main ideas .


  • A longer retirement means more opportunities for recreational pursuits – (assuming they have the health and money to pay for it.)
  • Grandparents can help to look after and offer advice to their grandchildren, making life easier for parents.


  • Older people are more likely to suffer from health problems, especially chronic health problems such as diabetes and back pain.
  • If older people don’t work, they need a larger pension to pay for their longer retirement.

Step 4: Develop My Ideas

Next, I’m going to develop my ideas using a logical structure. This will give me a clear essay plan.

Introduction :

  • people are living longer, and can expect to live longer, because of improved health care. Seems like a good thing, but are there any disadvantages of this trend?

Body Paragraph 1: Advantages

  • Main Idea 1:  more time to be active and useful
  • Explanation 1 : opportunities for activities, hobbies
  • Explanation 2 : more people to look after our younger generation

Body Paragraph 2: Disadvantages

  • Main Idea: Both these advantages depend on good health and money.
  • Explanation 1 : older people more likely to have poor health; health care costs
  • Example : chronic health problems (diabetes, muscle pain)
  • Explanation 2 : pension funds may be limited. Who will pay?
  • advantages greater, but they depend on health and wealth.

So, all I need to do now is expand these notes into full sentences and link them together!

So here’s my essay:

My Model Essay

Over the last half century, life expectancy across the world has been rising as a result of better quality healthcare. This means that today we have an ageing population. On the face of it, living longer seems to be a good thing – after all, nobody really want to die! – but a decent old age depends on health and wealth.

Many people in their seventies and eighties, and even older, are able to enjoy a long and fulfilling retirement. They can travel to new destinations and get involved in a wide range of hobbies and activities that were impossible while working and bringing up a family. Those with grandchildren may also be able to help young, busy parents with such tasks as collecting children from school; moreover, they could share their life experiences with the younger generation.

But while there are tremendous benefits to increased life expectancy, they depend, to an extent, on being healthy and having money. Older people are more likely to suffer from medical problems, especially chronic illnesses like diabetes and muscle pain, which can seriously restrict the kinds of activities they do. This also means increased health care costs, for both individuals and society. In addition, if older people aren’t working, they will have to rely on savings and pensions to pay for their lifestyle, but many older people simply won’t have been able to save enough for a long old age.

Overall then, I feel that the benefits of living older are clear, but these must be balanced against the implications for health and money. If living longer simply means chronic health complaints and grinding poverty for a longer time, it is questionable as to whether it is an advantage at all.

I hope my model essay helps to show you how to write at a Band 8 or Band 9 level. If you think others will find this essay useful, please share it.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

a short essay about life expectancy

About the author

Charlie is a former IELTS Examiner with 25 years' teaching experience all over the world. His courses, for both English language learners and teachers, have been taken by over 100,000 students in over 160 countries around the world.

IELTS® is a registered trademark of Cambridge English Language Assessment, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. By using this website, you agree that you fully understand that is not affiliated, approved or endorsed by Cambridge English Language Assessment, the British Council, or IDP Education Australia.

Unit 22489, PO Box 6945, London, W1A 6US, United Kingdom

© IELTSCharlie

Privacy Overview

Discover the 7 STEPS to BAND 7 in IELTS Writing Task 2

IELTS Podcast

IELTS academic task 1 sample essay 15: average life expectancy per country

Home  »  Academic writing task 1 sample essays & answer  » IELTS academic task 1 sample essay 15: average life expectancy per country


In the graph above, average life expectancy (in years) is compared for six countries: Monaco, the United States, the Philippines, Laos, Rwanda, and South Africa.

The graph organizes the country from longest life expectancy to shortest, left to right. Individuals in Monaco have the longest life expectancy, well over 84 years. Next highest is the United States, with a life expectancy around 75 years. The Philippines is third highest, Laos is fourth, and Rwanda second to last. All of these have a life expectancy of more than 52 years. Of the six countries surveyed here, only South Africa has a life expectancy lower than this.

In summary, life expectancies from this survey of six countries vary widely. That of Monaco (with the highest life expectancy) approaches twice that of South Africa (with the lowest life expectancy). In this graph, Europe and the US have the longest life expectancies, Asia is in the middle, and the African countries have the shortest life expectancies.

(162 words)

For more IELTS academic task 1 questions, click here.

  • Free Essay Band Score Evaluation
  • Sign up to claim your free IELTS materials
  • Jump to Band 7 or it’s Free
  • IELTS Writing Evaluation
  • IELTS Band Score Calculator
  • Book Your Online IELTS Test
  • Sample Topic Answers
  • Useful Sentences
  • Sample Task 2 Questions 2022
  • Introduction to Paraphrasing
  • Model Band 9 Essay
  • Five Band 9 Words
  • Model Band 7 Essay
  • Differences Band 9 vs Band 7 Essay
  • Band 6.5 Essay
  • Academic Collocations
  • Topic Sentences
  • Discuss Both Views
  • Tutorial: To What Extent Essays
  • Paraphrasing Introductions
  • Essay Structures
  • Essay Plans
  • Describe a Pie Chart
  • Using Percentages
  • Map Vocabulary
  • Describe Flow Charts
  • Describe a Bar Chart
  • How to get Band 9
  • AT 1 Sample Questions 2022
  • Describe a Graphic
  • GT Task 1 Questions 2022
  • IELTS Vocabulary
  • Google Play / Podcasts
  • Apple Podcast
  • Android App
  • Task 2 Sample Questions
  • AT 1 Questions

Company addresses: HK Office: BW ENGLISH SERVICES HK Ltd, Unit 2512, 25/F, Langham Place Office Tower, 8 Argyle Street, Mongkok, Hong Kong UK Office: BW ENGLISH SERVICES, 120 High Road, East Finchley, N29ED, London, England, United Kingdom ​+44 20 3951 8271 ($1/min).

a short essay about life expectancy

Oxford Martin School logo

"Life Expectancy" – What does this actually mean?

How is life expectancy calculated and what does it mean what’s the difference between period and cohort life expectancy.

Life expectancy has doubled in all world regions . What does this mean exactly?

Despite its importance and prominence in research and policy, it is surprisingly difficult to find a simple yet detailed description of what “life expectancy” actually means. In this section, we try to fill this gap.

The term "life expectancy" refers to the number of years a person can expect to live. By definition, life expectancy is based on an estimate of the average age that members of a particular population group will be when they die.

In practice, however, things are often more complicated:

One important distinction and clarification is the difference between cohort and period life expectancy.

The cohort life expectancy is the average life length of a particular cohort – a group of individuals born in a given year. When we can track a group of people born in a particular year, many decades ago, and observe the exact date in which each one of them died then we can calculate this cohort's life expectancy by simply calculating the average of the ages of all members when they died.

You can think of life expectancy in a particular year as the age a person born in that year would expect to live if the average age of death did not change over their lifetime.

It is of course not possible to know this metric before all members of the cohort have died. Because of that, statisticians commonly track members of a particular cohort and predict the average age-at-death for them using a combination of observed mortality rates for past years and projections about mortality rates for future years.

An alternative approach consists in estimating the average length of life for a hypothetical cohort assumed to be exposed, from birth through death, to the mortality rates observed at one particular period – commonly a year. This approach leads to what is known as ' period life expectancy ' and it is the much more commonly used life expectancy metric. It is the definition used by most international organizations, including the UN and the World Bank, when reporting 'life expectancy' figures. Period life expectancy estimates do not take into account how mortality rates are changing over time and instead only reflects the mortality pattern at one point in time. Because of this, period life expectancy figures are usually different to cohort life expectancy figures.

An example to illustrate the measurement of life expectancy

Since period life expectancy estimates are ubiquitous in research and public debate, it is helpful to use an example to flesh out the concept. Let's consider the map showing life expectancy—specifically period life expectancy—at birth in 2005. You can hover the mouse over a country to display the corresponding estimate.

For Japan, we can see that life expectancy in 2005 was 82.3 years. This means that a hypothetical cohort of infants living through the age-specific mortality of Japan in 2005 could expect to live 82.3 years, under the assumption that mortality patterns observed in 2005 remain constant throughout their lifetime. But if life expectancies are increasing the reality for a cohort born then is that the cohort life expectancy is higher than that period life expectancy. We see this in the data: if you move the slider below the map forward, you'll see that in 2019 the period life expectancy in Japan was 84.6 years, which means that mortality patterns in Japan did improve in the period 2005-2019.

In general, the commonly-used period life expectancies tend to be lower than the cohort life expectancies, because mortality rates were falling over the course of modern development.

Life expectancy is an average

An important point to bear in mind when interpreting life expectancy estimates is that very few people will die at precisely the age indicated by life expectancy, even if mortality patterns stay constant.

For example, very few of the infants born in South Africa in 2009 will die at 52.2 years of age, as per the figures in the map above. Most will die much earlier or much later, since the risk of death is not uniform across the lifetime. Life expectancy is the average.

In societies with high infant mortality rates many people die in the first few years of life; but once they survive childhood, people often live much longer. Indeed, this is a common source of confusion in the interpretation of life expectancy figures: It is perfectly possible that a given population has a low life expectancy at birth, and yet has a large proportion of old people.

Commonly we study life expectancy at birth, but life expectancy at higher ages are also relevant

Given that life expectancy at birth is highly sensitive to the rate of death in the first few years of life, it is common to report life expectancy figures at different ages, both under the period and cohort approaches. For example, the UN estimates that the (period) global life expectancy at age 15 in 2005 was 73.6 years . This means that the group of 15-year-old children alive around the world in 2005 could expect to live another 63.6 years (i.e. until the age of 73.6), provided that mortality patterns observed in 2005 remained constant throughout their lifetime.

Finally, another point to bear in mind is that period and cohort life expectancy estimates are statistical measures, and they do not take into account any person-specific factors such as lifestyle choices. Clearly, the length of life for an average person is not very informative about the predicted length of life for a person living a particularly unhealthy lifestyle.

How is life expectancy calculated?

In practical terms, estimating life expectancy entails predicting the probability of surviving successive years of life, based on observed age-specific mortality rates. How is this actually done?

Age-specific mortality rates are usually estimated by counting (or projecting) the number of age-specific deaths in a time interval (e.g. the number of people aged 10-15 who died in the year 2005), and dividing by the total observed (or projected) population alive at a given point within that interval (e.g. the number of people aged 10-15 alive on 1 July 2015).

To ensure that the resulting estimates of the probabilities of death within each age interval are smooth across the lifetime, it is common to use mathematical formulas, to model how the force of mortality changes within and across age intervals. Specifically, it is often assumed that the proportion of people dying in an age interval starting in year x and ending in year n+x corresponds to:

where m(n,x) is the age-specific mortality rate as measured in the middle of that interval (a term often referred to as the 'central death rate' for the age interval). 1

Once we have estimates of the fraction of people dying across age intervals, it is simple to calculate a 'life table' showing the evolving probabilities of survival and the corresponding life expectancies by age. Here is an example of a life table from the US , and this tutorial from MEASURE Evaluation explains how life tables are constructed, step by step (see Section 3.2 'The Fergany Method').

Period life expectancy figures can be obtained from 'period life tables' (i.e. life tables that rely on age-specific mortality rates observed from deaths among individuals of different age groups at a fixed point in time). And similarly, cohort life expectancy figures can be obtained from 'cohort life tables' (i.e. life tables that rely on age-specific mortality rates observed from tracking and forecasting the death and survival of a group of people as they become older).

For some countries and for some time intervals, it is only possible to reconstruct life tables from either period or cohort mortality data. As a consequence, in some instances—for example in obtaining historical estimates of life expectancy across world regions —it is necessary to combine period and cohort data. In these cases, the resulting life expectancy estimates cannot be simply classified into the 'period' or 'cohort' categories.

What else can we learn from 'life tables'?

Life tables are not just instrumental to the production of life expectancy figures (as noted above), they also provide many other perspectives on the mortality of a population. For example, they allow for the production of 'population survival curves', which show the share of people who are expected to survive various successive ages. This chart provides an example, plotting survival curves for individuals born at different points in time, using cohort life tables from England and Wales.

a short essay about life expectancy

At any age level in the horizontal axis, the curves in this visualization mark the estimated proportion of individuals who are expected to survive that age. As we can see, less than half of the people born in 1851 in England and Wales made it past their 50th birthday. In contrast, more than 95% of the people born in England and Wales today can expect to live longer than 50 years.

Since life expectancy estimates only describe averages, these indicators are complementary, and help us understand how health is distributed across time and space. In our entry on Life Expectancy you can read more about related complementary indicators, such as the median age of a population.

The underlying assumption is that the force of mortality is constant within each age interval. The seminal reference introducing this method is Fergany (1971) "On the Human Survivorship Function and Life Table Construction," Demography8(3):331-334).

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

IELTS Practice.Org

IELTS Practice Tests and Preparation Tips

  • Band 9 IELTS Essays

Band 9 essay sample: The advantages and disadvantages of longevity

by Manjusha Nambiar · Published September 2, 2015 · Updated April 21, 2024

In most developed countries the average life expectancy is constantly increasing. Discuss the positive and negative aspects of this trend.

Sample essay

Thanks to advancements in medical research and improved quality of living people are living longer. This is definitely a positive trend, but it has some negative aspects too.

Everyone wants to live longer. We are constantly searching for new ways to add a few more years to our life. Longer life expectancy is considered as a symbol of better life and prosperity. Generally speaking, people in the developed world have greater life expectancy than those in poor countries. This is not surprising, though. Rich people have access to better life care and hence they live longer.

When people live longer they get an opportunity to fulfill their wishes and obligations. They will be able to serve the society with their experience and wisdom. They will also be able to spend more years with their family. Cultures all over the world regard longevity as a blessing. After all, longevity is the pursuit of most people. When they people live longer they will be able to contribute to the society in many ways. They can guide the youth with their wisdom.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages to living longer. Aged people may require care. If they have none to take care of them at home, they will have to go to an old age home. Families and governments have to spend a lot of money on providing healthcare and insurance to aged people. When people live longer, there will be an increase in the population of seniors. Since most of them are not capable of working or earning money, they can have an adverse impact on the economy. Also an increase in the population will result in the faster depletion of natural resources.

After analysing the situation, it is not hard to see that longevity is a fortune. It has some negative impacts on the economy and the environment. However, governments and communities can do many things to deal with this situation.

Tags: band 9 essay sample

a short essay about life expectancy

Manjusha Nambiar

Hi, I'm Manjusha. This is my blog where I give IELTS preparation tips.

  • Next story  Band 9 essay sample: Children should spend more time outdoor playing games
  • Previous story  Writing tips from a candidate who got band 7

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Academic Writing Task 1
  • Agree Or Disagree
  • Band 7 essay samples
  • Band 8 Essay Samples
  • Band 8 letter samples
  • Discuss Both Views
  • Grammar exercises
  • IELTS Writing
  • Learn English
  • OET Letters
  • Sample Essays
  • Sample Letters
  • Writing Tips

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

IELTS Practice

a short essay about life expectancy

Live Expectancy in the United States Essay

Introduction, main objectives.

Over the last several decades, life expectancy in the United States has not kept pace with other high-income countries. The US has ranked between 29 and 32 places worldwide between 2007 and 2012, which is below the majority of other developed and industrialized countries (Avendano & Kawachi, 2014). In addition to this, recent reports have been concluding that Americans experience higher injury, disease, and health-damaging behaviors compared to other countries (Avendano & Kawachi, 2014).

This problem remains unresolved despite the US having a good concentration of wealth in the country, which could have positively contributed to the increase of life expectancy. Therefore, despite the country’s potential, there is a lack of resources and solutions that can increase equality among the population to ensure that everyone receives the necessary degree of healthcare and prologues life expectancy.

Causes of death in the US have significantly contributed to the increased mortality in the country. For example, mortality from infectious diseases, childbirth, pregnancy complications, transport incidents, and homicide, are higher in the US than in the majority of other OECD countries (Avendano & Kawachi, 2014). In addition to the mentioned fatal causes, Americans have a higher prevalence of low birth weight, injuries from traffic incidents, poor mental health, and HIV prevalence. Thus, poor health outcomes of the population are the result of several broad mechanisms that contribute to high mortality rates.

Quality of medical care and public health systems, as well as access to healthcare insurance, individual behaviors, social and demographic factors, as well as physical and environmental factors all, contribute to high mortality rates. Socioeconomic inequality, as well as racial disparities, are particularly important to note because the United States has a high concentration of diverse groups and populations, which, because of their ‘low’ status, cannot receive the necessary level of care. Inequality of health persists in wealthy countries because of the segregation of groups based on race and religion, thus increasing health inequities among underserved populations (Cheng & Goodman, 2015).

Social differences in health are considered inequities because they perpetuate an unfair distribution of not only healthcare resources but also risks and behaviors that increase the likelihood of individuals getting diagnosed with adverse conditions or getting injured.

Therefore, the connections between health and race and ethnicity cannot be doubted when it comes to discussing mortality rates in the United States. The persistence of health differences that are based on people’s nationality, ethnicity, and other social factors raises concerns in terms of morality, thus distributing the notion of unfairness and injustice in society (Arcaya, Arcaya, & Subramanian, 2015). As health is considered a human right protected by the United Nations General Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there should be more attention given to health disparities in the US to increase life expectancy and overcome barriers that prevent some social groups from getting the quality of healthcare that they deserve.

While many see people’s poor health as a combination of behaviors, choices, and genetic predispositions, it is essential to understand that social processes are far more important when considering populations at large. Despite being a wealthy country with a myriad of resources to accommodate the population, the United States still has lower life expectancy than comparable countries worldwide. Strong legislative efforts are required to overcome this problem, with a specific focus placed on the elimination of health disparities.

Arcaya, M. C., Arcaya, A. L., & Subramanian, S. V. (2015). Inequalities in health: Definitions, concepts, and theories. Global Health Action, 8 , 27106.

Avendano, M., & Kawachi, I. (2014). Why do Americans have shorter life expectancy and worse health than do people in other high-income countries? Annual Review of Public Health, 35 , 307-325.

Cheng, T., & Goodman, E. (2015). Race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status in research on child health. Pediatrics, 135 (1), 225-237.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, August 11). Live Expectancy in the United States.

"Live Expectancy in the United States." IvyPanda , 11 Aug. 2021,

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Live Expectancy in the United States'. 11 August.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Live Expectancy in the United States." August 11, 2021.

1. IvyPanda . "Live Expectancy in the United States." August 11, 2021.


IvyPanda . "Live Expectancy in the United States." August 11, 2021.

  • Gender Differences in Life Expectancy
  • Life Expectancy and Fertility Rate Connection
  • Gendered Patterns in Organizations/Redressing Gendered Institutional Inequity
  • Social Generations in Australia
  • Early Sexualization Issue Solving
  • Social and Economic Inequality in the United States
  • The Secret by Rhonda Byrne: Book Analysis
  • Gangs in Prison: Black Guerrilla Family
  • Share full article

a short essay about life expectancy

The Health Issue

How Humanity Gave Itself an Extra Life

Between 1920 and 2020, the average human life span doubled. How did we do it? Science mattered — but so did activism.

Credit... Aaron Tilley for The New York Times. Set design by Kyle Bean.

Supported by

By Steven Johnson

  • Published April 27, 2021 Updated July 21, 2021

In September 1918, a flu virus began spreading through Camp Devens, an overcrowded military base just outside Boston. By the end of the second week of the outbreak, one in five soldiers at the base had come down with the illness. But the speed with which it spread through the camp was not nearly as shocking as the lethality. “It is only a matter of a few hours then until death comes,” a camp physician wrote. “It is horrible. One can stand it to see one, two or 20 men die, but to see these poor devils dropping like flies sort of gets on your nerves. We have been averaging about 100 deaths per day.”

The devastation at Camp Devens would soon be followed by even more catastrophic outbreaks, as the so-called Spanish flu — a strain of influenza virus that science now identifies as H1N1 — spread around the world. In the United States, it would cause nearly half of all deaths over the next year. In what was already a time of murderous war, the disease killed millions more on the front lines and in military hospitals in Europe; in some populations in India, the mortality rate for those infected approached 20 percent. The best estimates suggest that as many as 100 million people died from the Great Influenza outbreak that eventually circled the globe. To put that in comparison, roughly three million people have died from Covid-19 over the past year, on a planet with four times as many people.

a short essay about life expectancy

There was another key difference between these two pandemics. The H1N1 outbreak of 1918-19 was unusually lethal among young adults, normally the most resilient cohort during ordinary flu seasons. Younger people experienced a precipitous drop in expected life during the H1N1 outbreak, while the life expectancies of much older people were unaffected. In the United States, practically overnight, average life expectancy plunged to 47 from 54; in England and Wales, it fell more than a decade, from a historic height of 54 to an Elizabethan-era 41. India experienced average life expectancies below 30 years.

Imagine you were there at Camp Devens in late 1918, surveying the bodies stacked in a makeshift morgue. Or you were roaming the streets of Bombay, where more than 5 percent of the population died of influenza in a matter of months. Imagine touring the military hospitals of Europe, seeing the bodies of so many young men simultaneously mutilated by the new technologies of warfare — machine guns and tanks and aerial bombers — and the respiratory violence of H1N1. Imagine knowing the toll this carnage would take on global life expectancy, with the entire planet lurching backward to numbers more suited to the 17th century, not the 20th. What forecast would you have made for the next hundred years? Was the progress of the past half-century merely a fluke, easily overturned by military violence and the increased risk of pandemics in an age of global connection? Or was the Spanish flu a preview of an even darker future, in which some rogue virus could cause a collapse of civilization itself?

Both grim scenarios seemed within the bounds of possibility. And yet, amazingly, neither came to pass. Instead, what followed was a century of unexpected life.

The period from 1916 to 1920 marked the last point in which a major reversal in global life expectancy would be recorded. (During World War II, life expectancy did briefly decline, but with nowhere near the severity of the collapse during the Great Influenza.) The descendants of English and Welsh babies born in 1918, who on average lived just 41 years, today enjoy life expectancies in the 80s. And while Western nations surged far ahead in average life span during the first half of the last century, other nations have caught up in recent decades, with China and India having recorded what almost certainly rank as the fastest gains of any society in history. A hundred years ago, an impoverished resident of Bombay or Delhi would beat the odds simply by surviving into his or her late 20s. Today average life expectancy in India is roughly 70 years.

In effect, during the century since the end of the Great Influenza outbreak, the average human life span has doubled. There are few measures of human progress more astonishing than this. If you were to publish a newspaper that came out just once a century, the banner headline surely would — or should — be the declaration of this incredible feat. But of course, the story of our extra life span almost never appears on the front page of our actual daily newspapers, because the drama and heroism that have given us those additional years are far more evident in hindsight than they are in the moment. That is, the story of our extra life is a story of progress in its usual form: brilliant ideas and collaborations unfolding far from the spotlight of public attention, setting in motion incremental improvements that take decades to display their true magnitude.

Another reason we have a hard time recognizing this kind of progress is that it tends to be measured not in events but in nonevents: the smallpox infection that didn’t kill you at age 2; the accidental scrape that didn’t give you a lethal bacterial infection; the drinking water that didn’t poison you with cholera. In a sense, human beings have been increasingly protected by an invisible shield, one that has been built, piece by piece, over the last few centuries, keeping us ever safer and further from death. It protects us through countless interventions, big and small: the chlorine in our drinking water, the ring vaccinations that rid the world of smallpox, the data centers mapping new outbreaks all around the planet. A crisis like the global pandemic of 2020-21 gives us a new perspective on all that progress. Pandemics have an interesting tendency to make that invisible shield suddenly, briefly visible. For once, we’re reminded of how dependent everyday life is on medical science, hospitals, public-health authorities, drug supply chains and more. And an event like the Covid-19 crisis does something else as well: It helps us perceive the holes in that shield, the vulnerabilities, the places where we need new scientific breakthroughs, new systems, new ways of protecting ourselves from emergent threats.

How did this great doubling of the human life span happen? When the history textbooks do touch on the subject of improving health, they often nod to three critical breakthroughs, all of them presented as triumphs of the scientific method: vaccines, germ theory and antibiotics. But the real story is far more complicated. Those breakthroughs might have been initiated by scientists, but it took the work of activists and public intellectuals and legal reformers to bring their benefits to everyday people. From this perspective, the doubling of human life span is an achievement that is closer to something like universal suffrage or the abolition of slavery: progress that required new social movements, new forms of persuasion and new kinds of public institutions to take root. And it required lifestyle changes that ran throughout all echelons of society: washing hands, quitting smoking, getting vaccinated, wearing masks during a pandemic.

It is not always easy to perceive the cumulative impact of all that work, all that cultural transformation. The end result is not one of those visible icons of modernity: a skyscraper, a moon landing, a fighter jet, a smartphone. Instead, it manifests in countless achievements, often quickly forgotten, sometimes literally invisible: the drinking water that’s free of microorganisms, or the vaccine received in early childhood and never thought about again. The fact that these achievements are so myriad and subtle — and thus underrepresented in the stories we tell ourselves about modern progress — should not be an excuse to keep our focus on the astronauts and fighter pilots. Instead, it should inspire us to correct our vision.

I. Cracking Through the Ceiling

The first life-expectancy tables were calculated in the late 1600s, during the dawn of modern statistics and probability. It turned out to be one of those advances in measurement that transform the thing being measured: By following changes in life expectancy over time, and comparing expected life among different populations, it became easier to detect inequalities in outcomes, perceive long-term threats and track the effects of promising health interventions more accurately. Demographers now distinguish between life expectancies at different ages. In a society with very high infant mortality, life expectancy at birth might be 20, because so many people die in the first days of life, pulling the overall number down, while life expectancy at 20 might easily be in the 60s. The doubling of life expectancy over the past century is a result of progress at both ends of the age spectrum: Children are dying far less frequently, and the elderly are living much longer. Centenarians are projected to be the fastest-growing age group worldwide.

One strange thing about the story of global life expectancy is how steady the number was for almost the entirety of human history. Until the middle of the 18th century, the figure appears to have rarely exceeded a ceiling of about 35 years, rising or falling with a good harvest or a disease outbreak but never showing long-term signs of improvement. A key factor keeping average life expectancy low was the shockingly high rates of infant and childhood mortality: Two in five children perished before reaching adulthood. Human beings had spent 10,000 years inventing agriculture, gunpowder, double-entry accounting, perspective in painting — but these undeniable advances in collective human knowledge failed to move the needle in one critical category: how long the average person could expect to live.

The first hint that this ceiling might be breached appeared in Britain during the middle decades of the 18th century, just as the Enlightenment and industrialization were combining to transform European and North American societies. The change was subtle at first and largely imperceptible to contemporary observers. In fact, it was not properly documented until the 1960s, when a historical demographer named T.H. Hollingsworth analyzed records dating back to 1550 and discovered a startling pattern. Right around 1750, after two centuries of stasis, the average life expectancy of a British aristocrat began to increase at a steady rate, year after year, creating a measurable gap between the elites and the rest of the population. By the 1770s, the British elite were living on average into their mid-40s; by the middle of Queen Victoria’s reign, they were approaching a life expectancy at birth of 60.

Those aristocrats constituted a vanishingly small proportion of humanity. But the demographic transformation they experienced offered a glimpse of the future. The endless bobbing of the previous 10,000 years had not only taken on a new shape — a more or less straight line, steadily slanting upward. It also marked the beginning of a measurable gap in health outcomes. Before 1750, it didn’t matter whether you were a baron or a haberdasher or a hunter-gatherer: Your life expectancy at birth was going to be in the 30s. All their wealth and privilege gave European elites no advantage whatsoever at the elemental task of keeping themselves — and their children most of all — alive.

The best way to appreciate the lack of health inequalities before 1750 is to contemplate the list of European royalty killed by the deadly smallpox virus in the preceding decades. During the outbreak of 1711 alone, smallpox killed the Holy Roman emperor Joseph I; three siblings of the future Holy Roman emperor Francis I; and the heir to the French throne, the grand dauphin Louis. Smallpox would go on to take the lives of King Louis I of Spain; Emperor Peter II of Russia; Louise Hippolyte, sovereign princess of Monaco; King Louis XV of France; and Maximilian III Joseph, elector of Bavaria.

How, then, did the British elite manage that first sustained extension in average life span? The classic story of health progress from the age is Edward Jenner’s invention of the smallpox vaccine, which ranks alongside Newton’s apple and Franklin’s kite among the most familiar narratives in the history of science. After noticing that exposure to a related illness called cowpox — often contracted by dairy workers — seemed to prevent more dangerous smallpox infections, Jenner scraped some pus from the cowpox blisters of a milkmaid and then inserted the material, via incisions made with a lancet, into the arms of an 8-year-old boy. After developing a light fever, the boy soon proved to be immune to variola, the virus that causes smallpox. As the first true vaccination, Jenner’s experiment was indeed a watershed moment in the history of medicine and in the ancient interaction between humans and microorganisms. But Jenner’s triumph did not occur until May 1796, well after the initial takeoff in life expectancy among the British elite. The timing suggests that an earlier innovation was most likely driving much of the initial progress, one that originated far from the centers of Western science and medicine: variolation.

No one knows exactly when and where variolation, a kind of proto-vaccination that involves direct exposure to small amounts of the virus itself, was first practiced. Some accounts suggest it may have originated in the Indian subcontinent thousands of years ago. The historian Joseph Needham described a 10th-century variolater, possibly a Taoist hermit, from Sichuan who brought the technique to the royal court after a Chinese minister’s son died of smallpox. Whatever its origins, the historical record is clear that the practice had spread throughout China, India and Persia by the 1600s. Enslaved Africans brought the technique to the American colonies. Like many great ideas, it may have been independently discovered multiple times in unconnected regions of the world. It is possible, in fact, that the adoption of variolation may have temporarily increased life expectancies in those regions as well, but the lack of health records make this impossible to determine. All we can say for certain is that whatever increase might have happened had disappeared by the time countries like China or India began keeping accurate data on life span.

Variolation made it to Britain thanks to an unlikely advocate: a well-bred and erudite young woman named Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. A smallpox survivor herself, Montagu was the daughter of the Duke of Kingston-Upon-Hull and wife of the grandson of the first Earl of Sandwich. As a teenager, she wrote poetry and an epistolary novel; in her early 20s, she struck up a correspondence with the poet Alexander Pope. She crossed paths with variolation thanks to an accident of history: Shortly after her successful recovery from smallpox, her husband, Edward Wortley Montagu, was appointed ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. In 1716, after spending her entire life in London and the English countryside, Mary Montagu moved her growing family to Constantinople, living there for two years.

Montagu immersed herself in the culture of the city, visiting the famous baths and studying Turkish. In her explorations, she came across the practice of variolation and described it in enthusiastic letters back to her friends and family in England: “The Small Pox — so fatal and so general amongst us — is here rendered entirely harmless, by the invention of engrafting.” In March 1718, she had her young son engrafted. After a few days of fever and an outbreak of pustules on both arms, Montagu’s son made a full recovery. He would go on to live into his 60s, seemingly immune to smallpox for the rest of his life. He is generally considered the first British citizen to have been inoculated. His sister was successfully inoculated in 1721, after Montagu and her family returned to London. Over the next few years, inspired by Montagu’s success, the Princess of Wales inoculated three of her children, including her son Frederick, the heir to the British throne. Frederick would survive his childhood untouched by smallpox, and while he died before ascending to the throne, he did live long enough to produce an heir: George William Frederick, who would eventually become King George III.

Thanks in large part to Mary Montagu’s advocacy, variolation spread through the upper echelons of British society over the subsequent decades. It remained a controversial procedure throughout the century; many of its practitioners worked outside the official medical establishment of the age. But the adoption of variolation by the British elite left an indelible mark in the history of human life expectancy: that first upward spike that began to appear in the middle of the 1700s, as a whole generation of British aristocrats survived their childhoods thanks at least in part to their increased levels of immunity to variola. Crucially, one Englishman inoculated during that period was Edward Jenner himself, who received the treatment as a young child in 1757; decades later, as a local doctor, he regularly inoculated his own patients. Without a lifelong familiarity with variolation, it is unlikely that Jenner would have hit upon the idea of injecting pus from a less virulent but related disease.

As Jenner would later demonstrate, vaccination improved the mortality rates of the procedure; patients were significantly more likely to die from variolation than from vaccination. But undeniably, a defining element of the intervention lay in the idea of triggering an immune response by exposing a patient to a small quantity of infected material. That idea had emerged elsewhere, not in the fertile mind of the country doctor, musing on the strange immunity of the milkmaids, but rather in the minds of pre-Enlightenment healers in China and India and Africa hundreds of years before. Vaccination was a truly global idea from the beginning.

The positive trends in life expectancy among the British elites in the late 1700s would not become a mass phenomenon for another century. Variolation and vaccination had spread through the rural poor and the industrial working classes during that period, in part thanks to political and legal campaigns that led to mandatory vaccination programs. But the decline of smallpox was overwhelmed by the man-made threats of industrialization. For much of the 19th century, the overall balance sheet of scientific and technological advances was a net negative in terms of human health: The life-span benefits of one technological advance (variolation and vaccines) were quickly wiped out by the costs of another (industrialization).

In 1843, the British statistician William Farr compared life expectancies in three parts of England: rural Surrey, metropolitan London and industrial Liverpool. Farr found that people in Surrey were enjoying life expectancies close to 50, a significant improvement over the long ceiling of the mid-30s. The national average was 41. London, for all its grandeur and wealth, was still stuck at 35. But Liverpool — a city that had undergone staggering explosions in population density, because of industrialization — was the true shocker. The average Liverpudlian died at 25.

The mortality trends in the United States during the first half of the 19th century were equally stark. Despite the widespread adoption of vaccination, overall life expectancy in the United States declined by 13 years between 1800 and 1850. In 1815, about 30 percent of all reported deaths in New York were children under 5. By the middle of the century, it was more than 60 percent.

One culprit was increasingly clear. In May 1858, a progressive journalist in New York named Frank Leslie published a 5,000-word exposé denouncing a brutal killer in the metropolis. Malevolent figures, Leslie wrote, were responsible for what he called “the wholesale slaughter of the innocents.” He went on, “For the midnight assassin, we have the rope and the gallows; for the robber the penitentiary; but for those who murder our children by the thousands we have neither reprobation nor punishment.” Leslie was railing not against mobsters or drug peddlers but rather a more surprising nemesis: milk.

Drinking animal milk — a practice as old as animal domestication itself — has always presented health risks, from spoilage or by way of infections passed down from the animal. But the density of industrial cities like New York had made cow’s milk far deadlier than it was in earlier times. In an age without refrigeration, milk would spoil in summer months if it was brought in from far-flung pastures in New Jersey or upstate New York. Increased participation from women in the industrial labor force meant that more infants and young children were drinking cow’s milk, even though a significant portion of dairy cows suffered from bovine tuberculosis, and unprocessed milk from these cows could transmit the bacterium that causes the disease to human beings. Other potentially fatal illnesses were also linked to milk, including diphtheria, typhoid and scarlet fever.

How did milk go from being a “liquid poison” — as Frank Leslie called it — to the icon of health and vitality that it became in the 20th century? The obvious answer begins in 1854, when a young Louis Pasteur took a job at the University of Lille in the northern corner of France, just west of the French-Belgian border. Sparked by conversations with winemakers and distillery managers in the region, Pasteur became interested in the question of why certain foods and liquids spoiled. Examining samples of a spoiled beetroot alcohol under a microscope, Pasteur was able to detect not only the yeast organisms responsible for fermentation but also a rod-shaped entity — a bacterium now called Acetobacter aceti — that converts ethanol into acetic acid, the ingredient that gives vinegar its sour taste. These initial observations convinced Pasteur that the mysterious changes of both fermentation and spoilage were not a result of spontaneous generation but rather were a byproduct of living microbes, and that insight, which would eventually help provide the foundation of the germ theory of disease, led Pasteur to experiment with different techniques for killing those microbes before they could cause any harm. By 1865, Pasteur, now a professor at the École Normal Supérieure in Paris, had hit upon the technique that would ultimately bear his name: By heating wine to around 130 degrees Fahrenheit and then quickly cooling it, he could kill many of the bacteria within, and in doing so prevent the wine from spoiling without substantially affecting its flavor. And it is that technique, applied to milk all around the world, that now saves countless people from dying of disease every single day.

Understanding that last achievement as a triumph of chemistry is not so much wrong as it is incomplete. One simple measure of why it is incomplete is how long it took for pasteurization to actually have a meaningful effect on the safety of milk: In the United States, it would not become standard practice in the milk industry until a half century after Pasteur conceived it. That’s because progress is never a result of scientific discovery alone. It also requires other forces: crusading journalism, activism, politics. Pasteurization as an idea was first developed in the mind of a chemist. But in the United States, it would finally make a difference thanks to a much wider cast of characters, most memorably a department-store impresario named Nathan Straus.

Born in the kingdom of Bavaria in 1848, Straus moved with his family to the American South, where his father had established a profitable general store. By the 1880s, Straus and his brother Isidor had become part owners of Macy’s department store in Manhattan. Straus had long been concerned about the childhood mortality rates in the city — he had lost two children to disease. Conversations with another German immigrant, the political radical and physician Abraham Jacobi, introduced him to the pasteurization technique, which was finally being applied to milk almost a quarter of a century after Pasteur developed it. Straus saw that pasteurization offered a comparatively simple intervention that could make a meaningful difference in keeping children alive.

One major impediment to pasteurization came from milk consumers themselves. Pasteurized milk was widely considered to be less flavorful than regular milk; the process was also believed to remove the nutritious elements of milk — a belief that has re-emerged in the 21st century among “natural milk” adherents. Dairy producers resisted pasteurization not just because it added an additional cost to the production process but also because they were convinced, with good reason, that it would hurt their sales. And so Straus recognized that changing popular attitudes toward pasteurized milk was an essential step. In 1892, he created a milk laboratory where sterilized milk could be produced at scale. The next year, he began opening what he called milk depots in low-income neighborhoods around the city, which sold the milk below cost. Straus also funded a pasteurization plant on Randall’s Island that supplied sterilized milk to an orphanage there where almost half the children had perished in only three years. Nothing else in their diet or living conditions was altered other than drinking pasteurized milk. Almost immediately, the mortality rate dropped by 14 percent.

Emboldened by the results of these early interventions, Straus started an extended campaign to outlaw unpasteurized milk, an effort that was ferociously opposed by the milk industry and its representatives in statehouses around the country. Quoting an English doctor at a rally in 1907, Straus told an assembled mass of protesters, “The reckless use of raw, unpasteurized milk is little short of a national crime.” Straus’s advocacy attracted the attention of President Theodore Roosevelt, who ordered an investigation into the health benefits of pasteurization. Twenty government experts came to the resounding conclusion that pasteurization “prevents much sickness and saves many lives.” New York still wavered, and in 1909, it was instead Chicago that became the first major American city to require pasteurization. The city’s commissioner of health specifically cited the demonstrations of the “philanthropist Nathan Straus” in making the case for sterilized milk. New York finally followed suit in 1912. By the early 1920s, three decades after Straus opened his first milk depot on the Lower East Side — more than half a century after Pasteur made his namesake breakthrough — unpasteurized milk had been outlawed in almost every major American city.

II. The Great Escape

The fight for pasteurized milk was one of a number of mass interventions — originating in 19th-century science but not implemented at scale until the early 20th century — that triggered the first truly egalitarian rise in life expectancy. By the first decade of the 20th century, average life spans in England and the United States had passed 50 years. Millions of people in industrialized nations found themselves in a genuinely new cycle of positive health trends — what the Nobel-laureate economist Angus Deaton has called “the great escape” — finally breaking through the ceiling that had limited Homo sapiens for the life of the species. The upward trend continued after the brief but terrifying firestorm of the Spanish flu, driven by unprecedented declines in infant and childhood mortality, particularly among working-class populations. From 1915 to 1935, infant-mortality rates in the United States were cut in half, one of the most significant declines in the history of that most critical of measures. For every hundred human beings born in New York City for most of the 19th century, fewer than 60 would make it to adulthood. Today 99 of them do.

One reason the great escape was so egalitarian in scope is that it was propelled by infrastructure advances that benefited the entire population, not just the elites. Starting in the first decades of the 20th century, human beings in cities all around the world began consuming microscopic amounts of chlorine in their drinking water. In sufficient doses, chlorine is a poison. But in very small doses, it is harmless to humans but lethal to the bacteria that cause diseases like cholera. Thanks to the same advances in microscopy and lens making that allowed Louis Pasteur to see microbes in wine and milk, scientists could now perceive and measure the amount of microbial life in a given supply of drinking water, which made it possible by the end of the 19th century to test the efficacy of different chemicals, chlorine above all else, in killing off those dangerous microbes. After conducting a number of these experiments, a pioneering sanitary adviser named John Leal quietly added chlorine to the public reservoirs in Jersey City — an audacious act that got Leal sued by the city, which said he had failed to supply “pure and wholesome” water as his contract had stipulated.

After Leal’s successful experiment, city after city began implementing chlorine disinfectant systems in their waterworks: Chicago in 1912, Detroit in 1913, Cincinnati in 1918. By 1914, more than 50 percent of public-water customers were drinking disinfected water. These interventions turned out to be a lifesaver on an astonishing scale. In 1908, when Leal first started experimenting with chlorine delivery in Jersey City, typhoid was responsible for 30 deaths per 100,000 people. Three decades later, the death rate had been reduced by a factor of 10.

The rise of chlorination, like the rise of pasteurization, could be seen solely as another triumph of applied chemistry. But acting on those new ideas from chemistry — the painstaking effort of turning them into lifesaving interventions — was the work of thousands of people in professions far afield of chemistry: sanitation reformers, local health boards, waterworks engineers. Those were the men and women who quietly labored to transform America’s drinking water from one of the great killers of modern life to a safe and reliable form of hydration.

The increase in life expectancy was also enhanced by the explosion of vaccine development during this period — and the public-health reforms that actually got those vaccines in people’s arms. The whooping-cough vaccine was developed in 1914, tuberculosis in 1921, diphtheria in 1923 — followed, most famously, by Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine in the early 1950s.

The curious, almost counterintuitive thing about the first stage of the great escape is that it was not meaningfully propelled by medical drugs. Vaccines could protect you from future infections, but if you actually got sick — or developed an infection from a cut or surgical procedure — there was very little that medical science could do for you. There was no shortage of pills and potions to take, of course. It’s just that a vast majority were ineffective at best. The historian John Barry notes that “the 1889 edition of the Merck Manual of Medical Information recommended one hundred treatments for bronchitis, each one with its fervent believers, yet the current editor of the manual recognizes that ‘none of them worked.’” If a pharmacist in 1900 was looking to stock his shelves with medicinal cures for various ailments — gout, perhaps, or indigestion — he would be likely to consult the extensive catalog of Parke, Davis & Company, now Parke-Davis, one of the most successful and well-regarded drug companies in the United States. In the pages of that catalog, he would have seen products like Damiana et Phosphorus cum Nux, which combined a psychedelic shrub and strychnine to create a product designed to “revive sexual existence.” Another elixir by the name of Duffield’s Concentrated Medicinal Fluid Extracts contained belladonna, arsenic and mercury. Cocaine was sold in an injectable form, as well as in powders and cigarettes. The catalog proudly announced that the drug would take “the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent” and “render the sufferer insensitive to pain.”

Today, of course, we think of medicine as one of the pillars of modern progress, but until quite recently, drug development was a scattershot and largely unscientific endeavor. One critical factor was the lack of any legal prohibition on selling junk medicine. In fact, in the United States, the entire pharmaceutical industry was almost entirely unregulated for the first decades of the 20th century. Technically speaking, there was an organization known as the Bureau of Chemistry, created in 1901 to oversee the industry. But this initial rendition of what ultimately became the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was toothless in terms of its ability to ensure that customers were receiving effective medical treatments. Its only responsibility was to ensure that the chemical ingredients listed on the bottle were actually present in the medicine itself. If a company wanted to put mercury or cocaine in their miracle drug, the Bureau of Chemistry had no problem with that — so long as it was mentioned on the label.

Medical drugs finally began to have a material impact on life expectancy in the middle of the 20th century, led by the most famous “magic bullet” treatment of all: penicillin. Just as in the case of Jenner and the smallpox vaccine, the story of penicillin traditionally centers on a lone genius and a moment of surprising discovery. On a fateful day in September 1928, the Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming accidentally left a petri dish of Staphylococcus bacteria next to an open window before departing for a two-week vacation. When he returned to find a blue-green mold growing in the petri dish, he was about to throw it away, when he noticed something strange: The mold appeared to have stopped the bacteria’s growth. Looking at the mold under a microscope, Fleming saw that it was literally breaking down the cell walls of the bacteria, effectively destroying them. Seventeen years later, after the true magnitude of his discovery had become apparent, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

Like many stories of scientific breakthroughs, though, the tale of the petri dish and the open window cartoonishly simplifies and compresses the real narrative of how penicillin — and the other antibiotics that quickly followed in its wake — came to transform the world. Far from being the story of a lone genius, the triumph of penicillin is actually one of the great stories of international, multidisciplinary collaboration in the history of science. It also represents perhaps the most undersung triumph of the Allied nations during World War II. Ask most people to name a top-secret military project from that era involving an international team of brilliant scientists, and what most likely would spring to mind is the Manhattan Project. In fact, the race to produce penicillin at scale involved all the same elements — only it was a race to build a genuinely new way to keep people alive, not kill them.

For all Fleming’s perceptiveness in noting the antibacterial properties of the mold, he seemed to have not entirely grasped the true potential of what he stumbled upon. He failed to set up the most basic of experimental trials to test its efficacy at killing bacteria outside the petri dish. It took two Oxford scientists — Howard Florey and Ernst Boris Chain — to turn penicillin from a curiosity to a lifesaver, and their work didn’t begin for more than a decade after Fleming’s original discovery. By then, global events had turned the mold from a mere medical breakthrough into a key military asset: War had broken out, and it was clear that a miracle drug that could reduce the death rate from infections would be a major boost to the side that was first able to develop it.

With the help of a biochemist and brilliant laboratory engineer named Norman Heatley, Florey and Chain had built an elaborate contraption that could convert, in the span of an hour, 12 liters of broth filled with the penicillin mold into two liters of penicillin medication. By early 1941, after experiments on mice, Florey and Chain decided they were ready to try their new treatment on an actual human. In a nearby hospital they found a police constable named Albert Alexander, who had become “desperately and pathetically ill” — as one of the Oxford scientists wrote — from an infection acquired from a rose-thorn scratch. Alexander’s condition reminds us of the kind of grotesque infections that used to originate in the smallest of cuts in the era before antibiotics; already he had lost his left eye to the bacteria, and the other had gone blind. The night after Heatley visited Alexander in the hospital, he wrote in his diary, “He was oozing pus everywhere.”

Within hours of receiving an initial dose of penicillin, Alexander began to heal. It was like watching a reverse horror movie: The man’s body had been visibly disintegrating, but suddenly it switched directions. His temperature settled back to a normal range; for the first time in days, he could see through his remaining eye. The pus that had been dripping from his scalp entirely disappeared.

As they watched Alexander’s condition improve, Florey and his colleagues recognized they were witnessing something genuinely new. “Chain was dancing with excitement,” a colleague would write of the momentous day; Florey was “reserved and quiet but nonetheless intensely thrilled by this remarkable clinical story.” Yet for all their genius, Florey and Chain had not yet solved the problem of scale. In fact, they had such limited supplies of penicillin that they took to recycling the compound that had been excreted in Alexander’s urine. After two weeks of treatment, they ran out of the medicine entirely; Alexander’s condition immediately worsened, and on March 15 the policeman died. His remarkable, if temporary, recovery had made it clear that penicillin could battle bacterial infections. What was less clear was whether anyone could produce enough of it to make a difference.

To solve the scale problem, Florey turned to the Americans. He wrote to Warren Weaver, the visionary head of the Rockefeller Foundation, explaining the promising new medicine. Weaver recognized the significance of the finding and arranged to have the penicillin — and the Oxford team — brought over to the United States, far from the German bombs that began raining down on Britain. On July 1, 1941, Florey and Heatley took the Pan Am Clipper from Lisbon, carrying a locked briefcase containing a significant portion of the world’s penicillin supply. In America, the team was quickly set up with a lab at the Department of Agriculture’s Northern Regional Research Laboratory in Peoria, Ill. The project quickly gained the support of U.S. military officials, who were eager to find a drug that would protect the troops from deadly infections — and of several American drug companies, including Merck and Pfizer.

It might seem strange that Florey and Heatley were set up in an agricultural lab when they were working on a medical drug. But Peoria turned out to be the perfect spot for them. The agricultural scientists had extensive experience with molds and other soil-based organisms. And the heartland location had one meaningful advantage: its proximity to corn. The mold turned out to thrive in vats of corn steep liquor, which was a waste product created by making cornstarch.

While the scientists experimented with creating larger yields in the corn steep liquors, they also suspected that there might be other strains of penicillin out in the wild that would be more amenable to rapid growth. At the same time, U.S. soldiers and sailors collected soil samples around the globe — Eastern Europe, North Africa, South America — to be shipped back to the American labs for investigation. An earlier soil search in the United States had brought back an organism that would become the basis for streptomycin, now one of the most widely used antibiotics in the world. In the years immediately after the end of the war, Pfizer and other drug companies would go on to conduct major exploratory missions seeking out soil samples everywhere, from the bottoms of mine shafts to wind-borne samples gathered with the aid of balloons. In the end Pfizer collected a staggering 135,000 distinct samples.

The search for promising molds took place closer to home as well. During the summer months of 1942, shoppers in Peoria grocery stores began to notice a strange presence in the fresh produce aisles, a young woman intently examining the fruit on display, picking out and purchasing the ones with visible rot. Her name was Mary Hunt, and she was a bacteriologist from the Peoria lab, assigned the task of locating promising molds that might replace the existing strains that were being used. (Her unusual shopping habits ultimately gave her the nickname Moldy Mary .) One of Hunt’s molds — growing in a particularly unappetizing cantaloupe — turned out to be far more productive than the original strains that Florey and Chain’s team had tested. Nearly every strain of penicillin in use today descends from the colony Hunt found in that cantaloupe.

Aided by the advanced production techniques of the drug companies, the United States was soon producing a stable penicillin in quantities sufficient to be distributed to military hospitals around the world. When the Allied troops landed on the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944, they were carrying penicillin along with their weapons.

Penicillin, alongside the other antibiotics developed soon after the war ended, triggered a revolution in human health. Mass killers like tuberculosis were almost entirely eliminated. People stopped getting severe infections from simple cuts and scrapes, like the rose-thorn scratch that killed Albert Alexander. The magical power of antibiotics to ward off infection also opened the door to new treatments. Radical surgical procedures like organ transplants became mainstream.

The antibiotics revolution marked a more general turning point in the history of medicine: Physicians now had genuinely useful drugs to prescribe. Over the subsequent decades, antibiotics were joined by other new forms of treatment: the antiretroviral drugs that have saved so many H.I.V.-positive people from the death sentence of AIDS, the statins and ACE inhibitors used to treat heart disease and now a new regime of immunotherapies that hold the promise of curing certain forms of cancer for good. Hospitals are no longer places we go to die, offering nothing but bandages and cold comfort. Routine surgical procedures rarely result in life-threatening infections.

Those medical breakthroughs were also propelled by the statistical breakthrough of randomized controlled trials (R.C.T.s), developed for the first time in the late 1940s, that finally allowed researchers to test the efficacy of experimental treatments or detect health risks from dangerous pollutants. The methodology of the R.C.T. then allowed private companies and government agencies to determine empirically whether a given drug actually worked. In the early 1960s, Congress passed the landmark Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments, which radically extended the demands made on new drug applicants. The amendments introduced many changes to the regulatory code, but the most striking one was this: For the first time, drug companies would be required to supply proof of efficacy. It wasn’t enough for Big Pharma to offer evidence that they had listed the right ingredients on the label. They had to show proof — made possible by the invention of the R.C.T. — that their supposed cures actually worked.

III. The Great Equalizing

The decade following the initial mass production of antibiotics marked the most extreme moment of life-span inequality globally. In 1950, when life expectancy in India and most of Africa had barely budged from the long ceiling of around 35 years, the average American could expect to live 68 years, while Scandinavians had already crossed the 70-year threshold. But the post-colonial era that followed would be characterized by an extraordinary rate of improvement across most of the developing world. The gap between the West and the rest of the world has been narrowing for the past 50 years, at a rate unheard-of in demographic history. It took Sweden roughly 150 years to reduce childhood mortality rates from 30 percent to under 1 percent. Postwar South Korea pulled off the same feat in just 40 years. India nearly doubled life expectancy in just 70 years; many African nations have done the same, despite the ravages of the AIDS epidemic. In 1951, the life-span gap that separated China and the United States was more than 20 years; now it is just two.

The forces behind these trends are complex and multivariate. Some of them involve increasing standards of living and the decrease in famine, driven by the invention of artificial fertilizer and the “green revolution”; some of them involve imported medicines and infrastructure — antibiotics, chlorinated drinking water — that were developed earlier. But some of the most meaningful interventions came from within the Global South itself, including a remarkably simple but powerful technique called oral rehydration therapy.

One endemic disease that kept life expectancies down in low-income countries was cholera, which kills by creating severe dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, caused by acute diarrhea. In some extreme cases, cholera victims have been known to lose as much as 30 percent of their body weight through expelled fluids in a matter of hours. As early as the 1830s, doctors had observed that treating patients with intravenous fluids could keep them alive long enough for the disease to run its course; by the 1920s, treating cholera victims with IV fluids became standard practice in hospitals. By that point, though, cholera had become a disease that was largely relegated to the developing world, where hospitals or clinics and trained medical professionals were scarce. Setting up an IV for patients and administering fluids was not a viable intervention during a cholera outbreak affecting hundreds of thousands of people in Bangladesh or Lagos. Crowded into growing cities, lacking both modern sanitation systems and access to IV equipment, millions of people — most of them small children — died of cholera over the first six decades of the 20th century.

The sheer magnitude of that loss was a global tragedy, but it was made even more tragic because a relatively simple treatment for severe dehydration existed, one that could be performed by nonmedical professionals outside the context of a hospital. Now known as oral rehydration therapy, or O.R.T., the treatment is almost maddeningly simple: give people lots of boiled water to drink, supplemented with sugar and salts. (Americans basically are employing O.R.T. when they consume Pedialyte to combat a stomach bug.) A few doctors in India, Iraq and the Philippines argued for the treatment in the 1950s and 1960s, but in part because it didn’t seem like “advanced” medicine, it remained a fringe idea for a frustratingly long time.

That finally changed in 1971, after Bangladesh’s fight for independence from Pakistan sent a flood of refugees across the border into India. Before long, a vicious outbreak of cholera had arisen in the crowded refugee camps outside Bangaon. A Johns Hopkins-educated physician and researcher named Dilip Mahalanabis suspended his research program in a Kolkata hospital lab and immediately went to the front lines of the outbreak. He found the victims there pressed against one another on crowded hospital floors coated in layers of watery feces and vomit.

Mahalanabis quickly realized that the existing IV protocols were not going to work. Only two members of his team were even trained to deliver IV fluids. “In order to treat these people with IV saline,” he later explained, “you literally had to kneel down in their feces and their vomit.”

And so Mahalanabis decided to embrace the low-tech approach. Going against standard practice, he and his team turned to an improvised version of oral rehydration therapy. He delivered it directly to the patients he had contact with, like those sprawled bodies on the floor of the Bangaon hospital. Under Mahalanabis’s supervision, more than 3,000 patients in the refugee camps received O.R.T. therapy. The strategy proved to be an astonishing success: Mortality rates dropped by an order of magnitude, to 3 percent from 30 percent, all by using a vastly simpler method of treatment.

Inspired by the success, Mahalanabis and his colleagues started a widespread educational campaign, with fieldworkers demonstrating how easy it was for nonspecialists to administer the therapy themselves. “We prepared pamphlets describing how to mix salt and glucose and distributed them along the border,” Mahalanabis later recalled. “The information was also broadcast on a clandestine Bangladeshi radio station.” Boil water, add these ingredients and force your child or your cousin or your neighbor to drink it. Those were the only skills required. Why not let amateurs into the act?

In 1980, almost a decade after Bangladeshi independence, a local nonprofit known as BRAC devised an ingenious plan to evangelize the O.R.T. technique among small villages throughout the young nation. Teams of 14 women, each accompanied by a cook and a male supervisor, traveled to villages, demonstrating how to administer oral saline using only water, sugar and salt. The pilot program generated encouraging results, and so the Bangladeshi government began distributing oral hydration solutions in hundreds of health centers, employing thousands of workers.

The Bangladeshi triumph was replicated around the world. O.R.T. is now a key element of UNICEF’s program to ensure childhood survival in the Global South, and it is included on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines. The Lancet called it “potentially the most important medical advance of the 20th century.” As many as 50 million people are said to have died of cholera in the 19th century. In the first decades of the 21st century, fewer than 66,000 people were reported to have succumbed to the disease, on a planet with eight times the population.

Of all the achievements that brought the great escape to the entire world, though, one stands out: the vanquishing of smallpox. After thousands of years of conflict and cohabitation with humans, the naturally occurring variola major virus infected its last human being in October 1975, when the telltale pustules appeared on the skin of a Bangladeshi toddler named Rahima Banu. (A less deadly cousin of the virus, variola minor, was eliminated in Somalia two years later.) Banu lived on Bhola Island, on the coast of Bangladesh, at the mouth of the Meghna River. Officials from the World Health Organization were notified of the case and sent a team to treat the young girl. With local field workers, they vaccinated 18,150 individuals who lived within a 1.5-mile radius of her house. She survived her encounter with the disease, and the vaccinations on Bhola Island kept the virus from replicating in another host.

Four years later, after an extensive global search for lingering outbreaks, a commission of scientists signed a document on Dec. 9, 1979, certifying that smallpox had been eradicated. In May of the following year, the World Health Assembly officially declared that “the world and all its peoples have won freedom from smallpox” and paid tribute to all the nations “which by their collective action have freed mankind of this ancient scourge.” It was a truly epic achievement, one that required a mix of visionary thinking and on-the-ground fieldwork spanning dozens of different countries. Dec. 9, 1979 should be commemorated with the same measure of respect that we pay to the moon landing: a milestone in the story of human progress.

The original advocates for vaccination, back in Edward Jenner’s age, dreamed of wiping the smallpox virus off the face of the earth. On the eve of his first term as president, Thomas Jefferson wrote about removing smallpox from “the catalog of evils.” But in the early 1800s, the fight against variola was progressing on a patient-by-patient basis. Eradicating smallpox entirely on a global scale was a technical impossibility. What moved smallpox eradication from an idle fantasy to the realm of possibility?

One key factor was a scientific understanding about the virus itself. Virologists had come to believe that variola could survive and replicate only inside human beings. Many viruses that cause disease in humans can also infect animals — think of Jenner’s cowpox. But variola had lost the ability to survive outside human bodies; even our close relatives among the primates are immune. This knowledge gave the eradicators a critical advantage over the virus. A traditional infectious agent under attack by a mass vaccination effort could take shelter in another host species — rodents, say, or birds. But because variola had abandoned whatever original host brought it to humans, the virus was uniquely vulnerable to the eradication campaign. If you could drive the virus out of the human population, you could truly wipe it off the face of the earth.

Scientific innovations also played a crucial role in the eradication projects. A C.D.C. consultant named William Foege promoted a “ring vaccination” technique that helped clear smallpox from infected areas without having to vaccinate every single person. The invention of the “bifurcated” needle allowed fieldworkers to use what was called a multiple-puncture vaccination technique. Like O.R.T., the bifurcated needle was much less technologically advanced than its predecessor: the expensive “jet injectors” that were previously used in mass vaccination efforts. It also required less than a quarter of the amount of vaccine as earlier techniques, an essential attribute for organizations trying to vaccinate millions of people around the world. And like O.R.T., it democratized the field, making it easier for nonspecialists to perform vaccinations. Another crucial asset was a heat-stable vaccine, developed around 1950, that could be stored for 30 days unrefrigerated, an enormous advantage in distributing vaccines to small villages that often lacked refrigeration and electricity.

But another key breakthrough was the development of institutions like the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. themselves.

Starting in the mid-1960s, the W.H.O. — led by a C.D.C. official, D.A. Henderson — worked in concert with hundreds of thousands of health workers, who oversaw surveillance and vaccinations in the more than 40 countries still suffering from smallpox outbreaks. The idea of an international body that could organize the activity of so many people over such a vast geography, and over so many separate jurisdictions, would have been unthinkable at the dawn of the 19th century.

But as with chlorination and oral rehydration therapy, smallpox eradication was a triumph of bottom-up organization. Just locating smallpox outbreaks in countries as vast as India, in an age without cellphones and the internet and in many cases electricity, was a feat of staggering complexity. The ring-vaccination approach offered a more efficient use of the vaccine — as opposed to simply vaccinating the entire population — but officials still needed to find the cases to build the ring around.

In India alone, that kind of surveillance work required thousands of district health personnel, and more than a hundred thousand fieldworkers, overcoming challenging physical conditions and local resistance to do their work. And even that wasn’t a big enough labor force to track every single outbreak in the country. Eventually the eradicators decided to widen their surveillance network further, by offering a reward to anyone who reported a smallpox case. (The reward money increased steadily as the smallpox caseload dropped, ultimately reaching the equivalent of $1,000.) The wide-network approach proved to be a spectacular success. Outbreaks dropped precipitously during the last four months of 1974: 2,124 to 980 to 343 to 285. During the final stages of the project, fieldworkers would visit each of the country’s 100 million households — once a month in endemic states, once every three months throughout the rest of the country — to trace the remaining spread of the virus.

Eradication was ultimately as dependent on that wide network as much as the bifurcated needle or any other technological advance. Smallpox eradication might have been originally dreamed up in the headquarters of public-health institutions in Atlanta and Geneva, but it took an army of villagers to make it a reality.

IV. The Edge of Eight Billion

It is fitting that what is arguably the most impressive feat in the history of health revolved around smallpox, because the very first breakthroughs that made a material difference in extending our lives — variolation and vaccination — were also attempts to lessen the threat of that terrible disease. But the list of new ideas that propelled the great escape is long and varied. Some of them took the form of tangible objects: X-ray machines, antiretroviral drugs. Some of them were legal or institutional in nature: the creation of the Food and Drug Administration, seatbelt laws. Some of them were statistical breakthroughs: new ways of tracking data, like the invention of R.C.T.s, which finally allowed us to determine empirically if new treatments worked as promised, or proved a causal link between cigarettes and cancer. Some of them were meta-innovations in the way that new treatments are discovered, like the development of “rational drug design,” which finally moved drug development from the Fleming model of serendipitous discovery to a process built on the foundations of chemistry.

Looking forward, how likely is it that humans can continue their runaway growth in life expectancy? It’s by no means a given that we can. The infection count of the Covid-19 pandemic is still growing; even before the outbreak, the United States had experienced a significant rise of opioid overdoses and suicides — the so-called deaths of despair — which contributed to decreased life expectancies for the country for three years straight, the longest period of decline since the end of the Spanish flu. As the current pandemic has made clear, substantial health gaps still exist between different socioeconomic groups and nations around the world. (Provisional data suggests that African-Americans lost close to three years of expected life in 2020, while the country as a whole lost one year.)

The truth is the spike in global population has not been caused by some worldwide surge in fertility. What changed is people stopped dying.

And paradoxically, the epic triumph of doubling life expectancy has created its own, equally epic set of problems for the planet. In 1918, there were fewer than two billion human beings alive in the world, and today there are nearly eight billion. Demagogues sometimes rant about irresponsible birthrates in developing-world countries, but the truth is the spike in global population has not been caused by some worldwide surge in fertility. In fact, people are having fewer babies per capita than ever. What changed over the past two centuries, first in the industrialized world, then globally, is that people stopped dying — particularly young people. And because they didn’t die, most then lived long enough to have their own children, who repeated the cycle with their offspring. Increase the portion of the population that survives to childbearing years, and you’ll have more children, even if each individual has fewer offspring on average. Keep their parents and grandparents alive longer, and the existing population swells as the surviving generations stack up. Repeat that pattern all over the world for four or five generations, and global population can grow to eight billion from two billion, despite declining fertility rates.

All those brilliant solutions we engineered to reduce or eliminate threats like smallpox created a new, higher-level threat: ourselves. Many of the key problems we now face as a species are second-order effects of reduced mortality. For understandable reasons, climate change is usually understood as a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution, but had we somehow managed to adopt a lifestyle powered by fossil fuels without reducing mortality rates — in other words, if we had invented steam engines and coal-powered electrical grids and automobiles but kept global population at 1800 levels — climate change would be much less of an issue. There simply wouldn’t be enough humans to make a meaningful impact on carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Runaway population growth — and the environmental crisis it has helped produce — should remind us that continued advances in life expectancy are not inevitable. We know from our recent history during the industrial age that scientific and technological progress alone do not guarantee positive trends in human health. Perhaps our increasingly interconnected world — and dependence on industrial livestock, particularly chickens — may lead us into what some have called an age of pandemics, in which Covid-19 is only a preview of even more deadly avian-flu outbreaks. Perhaps some rogue technology — nuclear weapons, bioterror attacks — will kill enough people to reverse the great escape. Or perhaps it will be the environmental impact of 10 billion people living in industrial societies that will send us backward. Extending our lives helped give us the climate crisis. Perhaps the climate crisis will ultimately trigger a reversion to the mean.

No place on earth embodies that complicated reality more poignantly than Bhola Island, Bangladesh. Almost half a century ago, it was the site of one of our proudest moments as a species: the elimination of variola major, realizing the dream that Jenner and Jefferson had almost two centuries before. But in the years that followed smallpox eradication, the island was subjected to a series of devastating floods; almost half a million people have been displaced from the region since Rahima Banu contracted smallpox there. Today large stretches of Bhola Island have been permanently lost to the rising sea waters caused by climate change. The entire island may have disappeared from the map of the world by the time our children and grandchildren celebrate the centennial of smallpox eradication in 2079.

What will their life spans look like then? Will the forces that drove so much positive change over the past century continue to propel the great escape? Will smallpox turn out to be just the first in a long line of threats — polio, malaria, influenza — removed from Jefferson’s “catalog of evils”? Will the figurative rising tide of egalitarian public health continue to lift all the boats? Or will those momentous achievements — all that unexpected life — be washed away by an actual tide?

Steven Johnson’s article is excerpted from his 13th book, “Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer.” Johnson is also a host of a four-part PBS/BBC series of the same title airing this month.

An earlier version of this article misidentified Norman Heatley's professional field. He was a biochemist by training, not an engineer.

How we handle corrections


  • Type 2 Diabetes
  • Heart Disease
  • Digestive Health
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Diet & Nutrition
  • Supplements
  • Health Insurance
  • Public Health
  • Patient Rights
  • Caregivers & Loved Ones
  • End of Life Concerns
  • Health News
  • Thyroid Test Analyzer
  • Doctor Discussion Guides
  • Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
  • Lipid Test Analyzer
  • Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
  • What to Buy
  • Editorial Process
  • Meet Our Medical Expert Board

Differences Between Human Life Span and Expectancy

The human lifespan is the maximum number of years an individual from the human species can live based on observed examples. Though this definition of lifespan may seem simple enough, it is often confused with other common concepts in the study of the aging , life, and death of living organisms.

In order to better understand the human lifespan, let's dive a little deeper into the concept and its important distinctions from other commonly used terms.

Human Life Span vs. Human Life Expectancy

The term lifespan is most commonly confused with another important concept: life expectancy . While both terms relate to the number of living years, they actually define very different concepts. While the term lifespan refers to the maximum number of years an individual can live, life expectancy refers to an estimate or an average number of years a person can expect to live. Most simply put, life expectancy can be attributed to and impacted by an individual and their personal health history, genetics, and lifestyle, whereas lifespan holds for all living humans.

For example, a person's life expectancy is affected by personal factors like family history, environment, diet, and even age and sex. One person's life expectancy might be different from your life expectancy and it may even change over time. Your life spans, however, are one in the same. We all share it as members of the same species. So what is the human life span?

What Is the Human Life Span?

Given that the human lifespan is defined by the longest observed human life from birth to death, it is a figure that has changed over the years . For humans, the current accepted maximum lifespan is 122 years. This age was achieved by Jeane Louise Calment of France. Calment lived from February 21, 1875, to August 4, 1997, until she was exactly 122 years and 164 days old. Remarkably, Calment remained relatively healthy and mentally intact until her 122nd birthday.

Though there have certainly been claims of longer lives, none of the claims were acceptably documented and verified.

Closing the Gap Between Life Expectancy and Life Span

With the United State's average life expectancy currently hovering at around 79 years, the age to which most Americans can expect to live is still forty-four years younger than the human lifespan  . So how do we close that gap and elongate our lives? There will always be factors that are out of our individual control like our inherited genes, but we shouldn't discount the impact of those that we can control. It is generally understood that closing the gap between life expectancy and lifespan can be done through healthier living, less exposure to toxins, the prevention of chronic illnesses, and a little bit of luck.

Wilhelm P. Jeanne Calment: Validation of the Duration of Her Life . Validation of Exceptional Longevity. Odense University Press. ISBN 87-7838-466-4

United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2019  (PDF). 10 December 2019.

By Mark Stibich, PhD Mark Stibich, PhD, FIDSA, is a behavior change expert with experience helping individuals make lasting lifestyle improvements.

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

  • Skip to content
  • Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

  • IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts writing task 2 sample 255 - in the developed world, average life expectancy is increasing, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, in the developed world, average life expectancy is increasing. what problems will this cause for individuals and society suggest some measures that could be taken to reduce the impact of ageing populations..

a short essay about life expectancy

IELTS Materials

  • IELTS Bar Graph
  • IELTS Line Graph
  • IELTS Table Chart
  • IELTS Flow Chart
  • IELTS Pie Chart
  • IELTS Letter Writing
  • IELTS Essay
  • Academic Reading

Useful Links

  • IELTS Secrets
  • Band Score Calculator
  • Exam Specific Tips
  • Useful Websites
  • IELTS Preparation Tips
  • Academic Reading Tips
  • Academic Writing Tips
  • GT Writing Tips
  • Listening Tips
  • Speaking Tips
  • IELTS Grammar Review
  • IELTS Vocabulary
  • IELTS Cue Cards
  • IELTS Life Skills
  • Letter Types

IELTS Mentor - Follow Twitter

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Copyright Notice
  • HTML Sitemap

a short essay about life expectancy

  • study guides
  • lesson plans
  • homework help

Life Expectancy Short Essay Assignments

Life Expectancy by Dean Koontz

1. What is so incredible about the predictions made by Josef in the hospital?

2. What remarkable things does Josef tell Rudy?

(read all 60 Short Essay Questions and Answers)

View Life Expectancy Essay Topics


Follow BookRags on Facebook

a short essay about life expectancy

Business Enquiries

Perfect Essay

Support team is ready to answer any questions at any time of day and night

a short essay about life expectancy

Research papers can be complex, so best to give our essay writing service a bit more time on this one. Luckily, a longer paper means you get a bigger discount!

1035 Natoma Street, San Francisco

This exquisite Edwardian single-family house has a 1344 Sqft main…

Our Top Proficient Writers At Your Essays Service

Viola V. Madsen

Read what our clients have to say about our writing essay services!

Estelle Gallagher

The writers of PenMyPaper establish the importance of reflective writing by explaining its pros and cons precisely to the readers. They tend to ‘do my essay’ by adding value to both you (enhancing your knowledge) and your paper.

Dr.Jeffrey (PhD)

Get Professional Writing Services Today!

Get a free quote from our professional essay writing service and an idea of how much the paper will cost before it even begins. If the price is satisfactory, accept the bid and watch your concerns slowly fade away! Our team will make sure that staying up until 4 am becomes a thing of the past. The essay service is known for providing some of the best writing, editing, and proofreading available online. What are you waiting for? Join our global educational community today!

260 King Street, San Francisco

Updated Courtyard facing Unit at the Beacon! This newly remodeled…

Finished Papers


  1. The Rise in Life Expectancy Essay Example

    a short essay about life expectancy

  2. Life Is Beautiful Descriptive And Summary Essay Examples- 200, 500, 300

    a short essay about life expectancy

  3. Healthy life expectancy is shorter i…: English ESL worksheets pdf & doc

    a short essay about life expectancy

  4. Life expectancy

    a short essay about life expectancy

  5. Short Essay About Good Life

    a short essay about life expectancy

  6. short essay 2.docx

    a short essay about life expectancy


  1. Video Essay “Life Goes On”

  2. Essay Life without inventions project

  3. Comparison: What Shortens Life

  4. Essay Life in a Village in English✍️✍️,#Linesonlifeinavillage#paragraphvillage

  5. Short Essay on (What's Life?)

  6. Essay on Life Problems in English Short Essay 10 lines Life Problem eng


  1. IELTS Model Essay: Increased Life Expectancy

    In this post, I'm going to write an IELTS Writing Task 2 model essay in response to this question about increased life expectancy from Test 2 of The Official Cambridge Guide To IELTS:. You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write about the following topic: One of the consequences of improved medical care is that people are living longer and life expectancy is increasing.

  2. Task 1 Sample essay about life expectancy

    Home » Academic writing task 1 sample essays & answer » IELTS academic task 1 sample essay 15: average life expectancy per country. In the graph above, average life expectancy (in years) is compared for six countries: Monaco, the United States, the Philippines, Laos, Rwanda, and South Africa. The graph organizes the country from longest life ...

  3. Life Expectancy

    It's a common misconception that life expectancy has only increased because of declines in child mortality.. This is part of what happened. Child mortality used to be high and contributed significantly to short lifespans in the past, and it has declined greatly over time.. But, especially in recent decades, child mortality declines have contributed much less to increasing life expectancy 8 ...

  4. "Life Expectancy"

    Despite its importance and prominence in research and policy, it is surprisingly difficult to find a simple yet detailed description of what "life expectancy" actually means. In this section, we try to fill this gap. The term "life expectancy" refers to the number of years a person can expect to live. By definition, life expectancy is based ...

  5. Life expectancy

    The expectation of life at birth is the most efficient index of the general level of mortality of a population. In ancient Greece and Rome the average life expectancy was about 28 years; in the early 21st century life expectancy averaged about 78 years in most industrialized countries. In countries with a high rate of HIV infection, however ...

  6. What is Life Expectancy?

    36536. So the average life expectancy, e x =Total/No. of people=36536/1000= 36.536 years. For the sake of simplicity, we began with 1000 individuals. The numbers that determine the outcome are in column C, the death rates. In this hypothetical example, 1000 people are born, marked age 0. 30% die in the first year, so only 700 appear in the ...

  7. Essay On Life Expectancy

    761 Words4 Pages. Women have a longer life expectancy than men on average. Even in past years, women have lived longer than men. The average life expectancy for men was 46.3 years and for women was 48.3 years in 1900. Average life expectancy for men increased to 65.6 years and 71.1 years for women in 1950 (Life Expectancy).

  8. Band 9 essay sample: The advantages and disadvantages of longevity

    In most developed countries the average life expectancy is constantly increasing. Discuss the positive and negative aspects of this trend. Sample essay. Thanks to advancements in medical research and improved quality of living people are living longer. This is definitely a positive trend, but it has some negative aspects too.

  9. Life expectancy

    Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in various countries of the world in 2019, ... This finding contradicts papers dating from 2002 and earlier that attribute the male sex to higher in-utero mortality rates. Among the smallest premature babies (those under 2 pounds (910 grams)), females have a higher survival rate. At the other extreme ...

  10. Live Expectancy in the United States

    Why do Americans have shorter life expectancy and worse health than do people in other high-income countries? Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 307-325. Cheng, T., & Goodman, E. (2015). Race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status in research on child health. Pediatrics, 135(1), 225-237. Rate. Print. This essay, "Live Expectancy in the United ...

  11. How the Human Life Span Doubled in 100 Years

    Despite the widespread adoption of vaccination, overall life expectancy in the United States declined by 13 years between 1800 and 1850. In 1815, about 30 percent of all reported deaths in New ...

  12. Life Expectancy From Prehistory to 1800 to Today

    The Future. In some ways, life expectancy has not changed all that much from 1800 to what it is today. Setting aside infant and child mortality, the average lifespan for women and men of the mid-Victorian era was 73 and 75 respectively. By comparison, in 2021, the average life expectancy for females in the United States was 79 while the average ...

  13. Differences Between Human Life Span and Expectancy

    While both terms relate to the number of living years, they actually define very different concepts. While the term lifespan refers to the maximum number of years an individual can live, life expectancy refers to an estimate or an average number of years a person can expect to live. Most simply put, life expectancy can be attributed to and ...

  14. Lifespan and Healthspan: Past, Present, and Promise

    Lifespan or Life Expectancy. Perhaps the greatest human accomplishment of the past century was the remarkable increase in life expectancy. In a century the world changed markedly from having almost no countries with life expectancy more than 50 years to having many countries with a life expectancy of 80 years as life expectancy almost doubled in the long-lived part of the world.

  15. Life Expectancy as a Vital Mortality Indicator: Global Measurement

    Get your custom essay on. " Life Expectancy as a Vital Mortality Indicator: Global Measurement Standards ". This essay will discuss two reasons that affect the indicator in developing countries and the possible solutions. Health conditions are usually a vital contributing factor of liveability. The World Health Organization (1948) defines ...

  16. IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

    Sample Answer 1: In the modern world, the expected life of an individual is gradually increasing. Many people think that the trend is a positive development, but it has caused some problems for many countries. The following essay will discuss the effect of this positive trend, and some of the ways that could be considered in addressing the problem.

  17. Life Expectancy Essay ⋆ Essays on Controversial Topics ⋆ EssayEmpire

    Life expectancy usually declines with age. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2003 life expectancy at birth for both men and women of all races in the United States was 77.5 years. At age 65, life expectancy was 18.4 years; at age 75, 11.8 years; and at age 85, 6.8 years. These calculations imply a 65-year-old could ...

  18. ᐅ Essays On Life Expectancy Free Argumentative, Persuasive

    Life expectancy is a measure of how long a person is expected to live. It is calculated by taking the average life expectancy of a group of people and then subtracting the number of years that person has already lived.For example, if the average life expectancy of a group of people is 80 years, and a person in that group is already 30 years old, then that person's life expectancy would be 50 ...

  19. PDF Longevity Risk: An Essay

    To stay focused on longevity and insurance against longevity, in this essay we restrict longevity risk's definition to running out of assets due to a longer than expected lifespan. The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Sections 2 through 4 review the literature on the three themes, respectively.

  20. Life Expectancy Short Essay Assignments

    This comprehensive lesson plan includes 30 daily lessons, 180 multiple choice questions, 20 essay questions, 20 fun activities, and more - everything you need to teach Life Expectancy!

  21. Short Essay About Life Expectancy

    Short Essay About Life Expectancy - Total orders: 9156. Writing experience: 3 years. Research Paper. 435 ... Short Essay About Life Expectancy, Optician Sample Resume, Essay On How To Tame A Wild Tongue Gloria Anzaldua, Research Paper Series Of Question Samples, Financial Analyst Objectives Resume, Ocr English Language Literature Coursework ...

  22. Short Essay About Life Expectancy

    Short Essay About Life Expectancy, Book Review Writing Frames, Comment Rdiger Une Conclusion De Dissertation Philosophique, A Good Thesis For A Rose For Emily, Short Speech Of Teacher, Best Article Editing Website Online, Cover Letter For Field Research Assistant 2062

  23. Short Essay On Life Expectancy

    In order to make a good essay, you need to have a perfect understanding of the topic and have the skills of a writer. That is why the company EssaysWriting provides its services. We remove the responsibility for the result from the clients and do everything to ensure that the scientific work is recognized. Short Essay On Life Expectancy -.