Last person born in the 19th century dies

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also the last person born in the Victoria Era.
Nabi Tajima of Japan died at 117 years and 260 days, the 3rd oldest person to ever live.
The oldest living person is now another Japanese woman, Chiyo Miyak at 116 years and 355 days.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Well another chapter in human history is now closed.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

F

[Illiniwek]

RIP 19th Century

[Theodore]

RIP 19th Century

[Santander]

Torie is still active.

[Mr. Smith]

RIP 19th Century

[°Leprechaun]

Perhaps life expectancy will continue to rise and if it rises at an increased rate we may have hope of
longevity escape velocity which means that if life expectancy increases at a faster rate than the rate at which people age, it will be possible to extend life thousands of years.
Whether this is possible in the 21st century remains to be seen. Currently when someone reaches the age of 100, living to 110 is very rare.

[°Leprechaun]

... although perhaps also, the possibility of suspended animation will be tried in the next 30-100 years.
Technology in the 21st century is hard to predict.

[TDAS04]

RIP 19th Century

[Sestak]

RIP 19th Century

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

[UlmerFudd]

RIP 19th Century

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps life expectancy will continue to rise and if it rises at an increased rate we may have hope of longevity escape velocity which means that if life expectancy increases at a faster rate than the rate at which people age, it will be possible to extend life thousands of years.
Whether this is possible in the 21st century remains to be seen. Currently when someone reaches the age of 100, living to 110 is very rare.

While average life expectancy has been rising, maximum lifespan has been basically holding steady.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

[Dr. MB]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

I'd consider the 1st "century" to be 1–99, 2nd to be 100–199, and so on. It's fine to have a 99-year century.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

Yes, I know that, but it still makes more sense to end the 19th century at 1899 since 1900 is when the hundreds digit changes from 8 to 9 (same goes for 1700, 1800, 2000, and so forth).  IMO, it's better to make 1 BC the first year of the first century than to shortchange every other century of years that rightfully belong to them, simply for the sake of the first.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

Yes, I know that, but it still makes more sense to end the 19th century at 1899 since 1900 is when the hundreds digit changes from 8 to 9 (same goes for 1700, 1800, 2000, and so forth).  IMO, it's better to make 1 BC the first year of the first century than to shortchange every other century of years that rightfully belong to them, simply for the sake of the first.

I don't see why the 1900's need to appropriate the name of the 20th century. For me it makes more sense that the Xth century includes the year X00. Arguably the 1900's could be called the 19th century except no one does that and words need to be shared to be useful.

[Torie]

Torie is still active.

I was born in the 18th century, but nice try.

[Virginiá]

I wonder if it is at all possible that there are still people out there who were born in the 19th century. How can we know for sure? At best, we may be able to rule it out in well-off western countries, but what about places like China, Russia et al?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If she was born in 1900, then technically she was born in the 20th century.  I know Wikipedia has the centuries beginning in the '01 year rather than the '00 year, and I think that's a bunch of nonsense.  The last person born in the 19th century was Emma Morano, an Italian woman who died just over a year ago: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/europe/emma-morano-oldest-person-dies-trnd/index.html

There is no year 0 in the calendar.  Traditionally we give the 1st century AD (and BC) a full 100 years, the same as any other rather than short-changing them a year each (or even worse, making the 1st century BC be from 101 BC to 2 BC because 1 BC is part of the 1st century AD.

Yes, I know that, but it still makes more sense to end the 19th century at 1899 since 1900 is when the hundreds digit changes from 8 to 9 (same goes for 1700, 1800, 2000, and so forth).  IMO, it's better to make 1 BC the first year of the first century than to shortchange every other century of years that rightfully belong to them, simply for the sake of the first.

I don't see why the 1900's need to appropriate the name of the 20th century. For me it makes more sense that the Xth century includes the year X00. Arguably the 1900's could be called the 19th century except no one does that and words need to be shared to be useful.

Because you have the century from 1 BC to 99 AD, which would be the first century.  That's why all the other centuries are off, and you can thank our numerical system for that.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I wonder if it is at all possible that there are still people out there who were born in the 19th century. How can we know for sure? At best, we may be able to rule it out in well-off western countries, but what about places like China, Russia et al?

It's always possible, as we only could verify a certain percentage of the world for births in the early 1900s.  But, I will say that Nabi Tajima was unusually old even for the world's oldest person (she was the third oldest ever verified at the time of death), so it's less likely than in some other situations.