According to professional analysts, humans are living longer now than they were 100 years ago. However, I have to dispute this. It is true that modern medicine has improved greatly and cures are being discovered and treatments finely honed. BUT, what against? Take, if you will, this hypothesis. I state that if people 100 years ago had today's medical technology BUT NO OTHER CHANGES (ie; more cars, computers, etc....all the other stuff of the current modern day, basically, everything else was 100 years old) that their life expectancy would be greater than those of us living today. My theory is that the food which they ate 100 years ago was not adulterated as it is today. Essentially, they ate "clean" food. Plus, add to that they were by nature, more active. So, they absorbed little, if any, environmental pollution or additives whether by breathing or eating. This means they were on the whole, a fitter and healthier group. However, diseases still occurred and many died early without the help of today's medicine. That said, if these people of 100 years ago had NOTHING ELSE MODERN but today's medicine, they would have lived longer than people of today. Why? Because, today's medicine is basically fighting today's illnesses brought on by today's environment and adulterated food, not to mention typical sedentary live styles. In the the end this means that medicine today's is keeping unhealthier people alive longer by combating today's perceived progress of mankind. Reread this if you didn't get the first time. It will eventually sink in and then you will see the logic or non-logic of the world.