TThe news was not good for people who planned to live forever. First came Dr Saul Newman’s research into supercentenarians – those aged 110 or over. In a paper entitled “Supercentenarian and remarkable age records show patterns suggestive of clerical errors and pension fraud”Newman reported that high concentrations of presumably extremely old people occurred implausibly in places with the highest rates of poverty—a predictor of the worst health—and without birth certificates. In the US, the number of supercentenarians decreased by between 69% and 82%, depending on the state, when birth certificates were introduced.
For anyone who spends a fortune on jasmine tea and nattō by following the Okinawa dietNewman’s research also challenged the notion of “blue zones,” indicating high error and fraud rates in those mythical, much-admired areas with high concentrations of centenarians. In 2010, more than 230,000 Japanese centenarians turned out to be missing, imaginary, clerical errors, or dead; in Greece, 72% of census-reported centenarians were discovered to be dead in 2012 (“or, depending on your perspective, committing pension fraud”). Throw the daikon! Ban Greek beans! (Not really: they’re still good for you, just not “live to 120” good.)
But we will live longer than our grandparents, won’t we? About that: we may be reaching peak longevity. New research the analysis of international demographic data points to the “limited lifespan hypothesis” (which asserts that we are approaching the upper limit of human lifespan) can be correct. There is apparently “no evidence to support the proposition that most newborns today will live to be 100”. “We suggest that as long as we live now is about as long as we will live,” study leader S Jay Olshansky, told the New York Times.
At first blush it seems disappointing, especially the super-old ones are probably not as old as previously thought, or indeed alive. I always enjoy reading about their drinks, chocolate spot and smoke antics. It must be especially unwelcome to Silicon Valley’s longevity community. “Professional Rejuvenation Athlete” Bryan Johnson would be furious if he wasn’t far too busy masticating his compost pile from a breakfast while wearing an infrared hat to notice (I looked a video of his morning routine recently and immediately lost my own will to live).
But could these long-lived bombs actually be good news, and not just because I feel a hateful satisfaction imagining the self-absorbed biohacking billionaires hiding on a hi-tech? Accepting that no hack will make us immortal can help us focus on how to make our finite lives better by tackling our real problems. This includes the one most likely to shorten all of our life expectancies: the climate. Even from a purely selfish perspective, why would you want to be confined to 120 in the servants’ quarters of a billionaire’s bunker complex, explaining to your surviving great-grandchild what a bird was while doling out the family ration of wormgrass? And if you’re the billionaire in question, what’s the appeal of living forever on a dying planet? How about doing something about it, rather than trying to turn yourself into a (freakishly long-lived) bald mole rat?
It might help us to focus on quality, not quantity as well – something we struggle with. New British research suggests today’s 50- to 70-year-olds are on board greater risk of chronic disease and disability than their predecessors, with rising rates of cancer, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This is staggering, given all the medical advances of the postwar period. “These worrying trends could lead to younger generations spending more years in poor health and living with disability,” said Laura Gimeno, lead author of the study.
In addition, research last year reported that one in five adults over 65 in England feel lonelya condition that itself often leads to poor physical and mental health. England is not special in this: with an aging, atomized population, 68,000 people are expected to die in Japan’s cold “lonely death epidemic” this year.
We don’t want to die, but we have allowed our world to become a place in which aging is an unattractive, even terrifying, prospect. Maybe we can do better if we focus our energy on ensuring that everyone can be here for a good time, not a (very) long time?
