I don't mention biotech for a vey important reason: that good , common sense techniques can prolong life as easily if not better. Biotech is there for the tails. I believe the article clearly states that and cites all of the relevant statistics
By contrast, techniques that reverse aging damage would allow biological humans to survive for many centuries. Nothing on your list comes close.
In short, your comment is also a lie.
Calorie restriction is not realistic for most people but all of my techniques are
That sentence fails to rise to the level of coherence. What are "the things that increase aging"? What is their usual velocity? How much do they increase aging? What's the relationship between their velocity and the speed of aging?
If you mean "all of the techniques slow the processes of aging", you're absolutely wrong. Exercise accelerates your metabolism, which accelerates some of the known aging processes. Of the other 11, most have no known connection to aging at all.
> Calorie restriction is not realistic for most people but all of my techniques are
Caloric restriction is easier for many people than quitting smoking, having sex, sleeping a lot, avoiding hospitals, or avoiding accidents.
Also true: nothing mentioned in your article can do as well as calorie restriction and exercise.
But calorie restriction and exercise cannot enable a person to live much longer. It helps you reach what will be your maximum optimal natural life span under today's medical technology, which might be a century if you are exceptionally fortunate.
The thing that will determine your life span is none of the above, however. It is future medical technology. Therefore the thing happening today that most greatly determines your future longevity is the level of investment and progress in the right sorts of technological development.
This is a stark change from the 50s or the 70s. There, no amount of foreseeable technological progress was going to impact the future life course of a 40 year old to the same degree as exercise and calorie restriction. Today, however, whether you die at 80 or whether you life for hundreds of years is absolutely a function of the degree to which rejuvenation biotechnology is realized over the next two to three decades.
This degree of realization can be swayed, now, today, by sufficiently motivated individuals. Such as the people who founded the SENS Foundation, or the Methuselah Foundation, or who persuade million-dollar donations into fundamental research into the repair of biochemical damage that drives aging.
This is an important era, and to focus on health in the sense that your parents did is to bury your head in the sand.
By the way, I looked up lung cancer rates in the US and the UK, and they've both been going down quite significantly among men, who were at a higher risk to begin with, and rising slowly among women -- a trend which has tapered off more recently.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/trends.htm
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/inci...
Looking at correlations between smoking rates and lung cancer rates in various countries, there's strong evidence that most of the mortality gap between men and women can be explained by the greater prevalence of smoking among men: