Living to 120 is becoming an imaginable prospect::undefined
Just give me something for the pain and let me die
Living to 120 is becoming an imaginable prospect
Submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/09/28/living-to-120-is-becoming-an-imaginable-prospect
Comments
Psaldorn@lemmy.world 1 year ago
AureumTempus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
[deleted]lloram239@feddit.de 1 year ago
Whatever makes you live to 120 will probably improve the quality of life at 80. And if you are bored of it, take a trip on the euthanasia coaster.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 1 year ago
Who thinks that is even remotely desirable?
sebinspace@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Average life expectancy is, what, 75 years? I’m 31, so rough estimate, I have 44 years left, and that’s not nearly enough time to conquer the galaxy
Tangent5280@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Your goals are both legal to aspire to, and possible.
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
That’s life expectancy from birth. Once you’ve made it to your 30s it’s probably more like 85
vidarh@lemmy.stad.social 1 year ago
Average life expectancy in the US is ca 80, a few years above that in most of Europe, and highest in Japan, Macau, Hong Kong, at 84-85 years (this is across everyone - typically there’s a 3-4 year spread between men and women, so e.g. Hong Kong is 83.2 for men and 87.9 for women)
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
After seeing my parents lose mobility as they age, I don’t know why I’d want to live even longer with a broken body.
Duranie@lemmy.film 1 year ago
I work in hospice and see a variety of conditions. Some people in their 60’s with significant mobility issues that are chronically exhausted, but then there’s the patients in their 90’s who just recently started cutting back on social events and activities due to injury/illness.
Seeing these differences was why I started roller skating (again) at 49 and increased other activities to keep my ass moving and challenge my coordination and balance. I want to get everything I can out of this life.
maporita@unilem.org 1 year ago
You can’t control how or even if you will arrive at old age but you can swing the odds dramatically in your favor by the choices you make when you are younger. Eat healthily, avoid hard drugs and tobacco, drink alcohol only in moderation and get plenty of excercise that consists of four categories: resistance (aerobic), VO2 max (anaerobic), strength and stability.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Healthy people with good genes that have relatives who are mentally fit up to thier last days. And people who think that all the money being dumpped into longevity by billionaires will increase the amount of time people in general can maintain a decent quality of life. And then me, who is curious about how the world changes over long periods of time and just wants to be there to see it. And maybe see a breakthrough that somehow keeps us alive even longer. Death is so final.
ViciousTangerine@lemmings.world 1 year ago
Soon it will be possible to cling to the broken shell of what you once were, a mere vessel for arthritis pain and bittersweet memories of a time when you used to be able to walk to the bathroom. Hooray!
kava@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The point isn’t just extending a vegetative state but a livable state. If life expectancy expands to 85, then you live comfortably until 65 or so. That means you can more or less be physically active just fine.
Look up on Google images old grandpa bodybuilders. There are 70 year olds that are stronger than majority of young men.
If life expectancy shifts upwards to 120 presumably the age of comfort also expands to 100, or what have you. Then it’s a slow deterioration until 120 where you’re basically a zombie.
My great grandma died this year at 100 and she was only a zombie from like 95. Until that point she was walking by herself and giving speeches, hosting parties, etc. 96 she caught dengue fever and lived, but was weakened. Then she caught covid a year later and lived, but was further weakened.
The final nail in the coffin was her falling and breaking her hip in January of this year. She was dead about a month later.
kava@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I want to live as long as possible because I want to know what humans discover. What is the fundamental nature of reality? Will we find life in the cosmos? Will we explore other planets? What is the secret behind the brain and consciousness? What maths is left to be discovered? How will human society develop? Will we fall into authoritarian surveillance states or break free into a post-scarcity classless utopia?
So many curiosities sometimes I wish I was like a vampire, just floating around the world forever seeing what happens.
ozmot@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I want to live long enough to see society deteriorate into nothing more than a roaming band of cannibalistic motorcycle mutants.
AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
I see the quality of life people have when they start approaching 100, and lemme tell you I wouldn’t want an extra 20 years of that. Living in the US sucks for healthcare, you’re gonna be miserable if you live that long.
ago@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And it sucks because usually when your that old you can’t do much besides sit. Sucks that are body’s don’t last long.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You need to learn more about what a blue zone is.
JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It why would you want to
MonkRome@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I would happily live 500 years if I could keep the quality of life prior to old age. The issue isn’t a number, it’s what your life is like in those last 20 years. I can’t imagine we will regularly get to 120 without slowing the aging process, which would improve quality of life.
JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’ve not been enjoying the last 30 all that much, I don’t think I want another 90 or nearly that far even
the_third@feddit.de 1 year ago
My dad died a few days ago. In the last months he told me more than one “I could use three lives to do all that I’m interested in”.
Siegfried@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m sorry for your loss
triclops6@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Sorry for your loss
GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Because a world in which people live to 80 tend to live well till 65, And a world in which people can live to 120 might open up the possibility of living well to 90.
Stretching out life expectancies tends to stretch out the length of quality time too.
arin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
We should just die at 30 again huh?
JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m 30 now, having a hard time looking at the next 40-50 and thinking I want that. Definitely not 90
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Let’s see if we make life expectancy consistently go up again before we start talking about 120. I could just as easily see it fall to 60 before going up to 120.
Coach@lemmy.world 1 year ago
…for the ultrarich.
WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Yeah the quality of my Healthcare is decreasing
calypsopub@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Living that long would break the economy. I’m retired on a fixed income, and my planning was based on living no longer than age 90. After that, my savings will be depleted, I will live on social security alone. When I imagine young people having another 30 years to pay for social security per person, it’s just broken. We would need to work until age 95 instead of 65. What would be the point?
sebinspace@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Think we should moved towards post-scarcity first…
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Man, if only we had some sort of military funding to divert to social programs…
pdxfed@lemmy.world 1 year ago
We spend as much as the top 10 countries combined on defense.
Infrastructure - dangerously old Healthcare - non-existent Education- death spiral Social health - All measures worse every year
Don’t know, we tried nothing and are out of ideas thanks to the vice grip of lobbies and bribes Eisehower himself warned about.
vidarh@lemmy.stad.social 1 year ago
We would not.
The extra amount you need as life expectancy increases diminishes with each extra year. E.g. let’s assume (for each of calculation only; you can just scale it up linearly) that you need 10k/year on top of social security to live off in retirement. If your savings is 100k, and you only get a 5% return every year, you’ll run out after about 15 years. Hence a typical lifetime annuity bought at age 65 will be around that in the US because it matches up with current US life expectancy (it won’t deviate much elsewhere).
So that’s for living to roughly 80. Here’s how it’ll play out as you approach 120:
85: ~20% more 90: ~38% more 95: ~52% more 100: ~62% more 105: ~70% more 110: ~77% more 115: ~82% more 120: ~86% more
As you can see, the curve flattens out. It flattens out because you’re getting closer and closer to have sufficient money that the returns can sustain you perpetually (at a 5% return, which is pretty conservative, at $200k, you can perpetually take out $10k, and no further increase in life expectancy will change that).
Now, that of course is not in any way an insignificant increase, but if we assume 40 working years, $100k is about $850/year additional investment + compounding investment return at 5%. $186k is around $1550/year compounding.
But here’s the thing, if you work 10 years longer, you grow it disproportionately much, because you delay starting to take money out, and you need less, while you get the compounding investment return of ten more years, and that drives down the yearly savings you need to make back down to around $850/year.
So an increase of 40 years of life expectancy “just” requires 10 more years of work to fully fund it assuming the same payment in during the later years. But here’s the thing: Most people have far higher salaries towards the end of their careers, even inflation-adjusted, so most people would be able to fund 40 more years with far less than 10 extra years of work.
(Note that if you already were on track for your pensions to last you to 90, if you were pre-retirement now, you’d “only” need about 35% extra savings to have enough until 120, because you’d get returns from a higher base, so the extra savings or extra years of work needed over what you managed would be even lower)
These all work on averages btw. - due to differences in health, this is where we really want insurance/state pensions rather than relying on individual contributions.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t problems to deal with. Especially if the life expectancy grows fast enough that it “outpaces” peoples ability to adjust. But it’s thankfully not quite as bad as having to add another 30 years of work.
frezik@midwest.social 1 year ago
Most of our financial advice for retirement has a hidden assumption that there is a large number of working age people helping not just social security, but also the stock market. A standard retirement portfolio will have a mix of t-bonds, stock market holdings, and a few other sectors.
We’d be looking at a scenario where there are a lot of small investors (a few million dollars is small on this scale), but proportionately fewer workers making use of that investment.
A US Millennial working today is going to need to be a 401k millionaire to retire with something comparable to their current standard of living. Most are going to fall short of that before we even talk about adding on extra life span.
kava@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Economy is about to break soon anyway. Technology increasing to a point of killing a dangerous amount of jobs combined with a declining birth rate…
We’re gonna have to do something in the next couple decades. There’s really no other option unless the elites want chaos… and they don’t.
Also, the point would be that you live longer. I know a lot of people hate their jobs but not everyone does. I wouldn’t mind getting another 30 years.
Clbull@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think things are gonna get really ugly in the next twenty years.
We’re nearing a point where artificial intelligence can replace a lot of white collar and logistical jobs, which would skyrocket unemployment rates and lead to widespread riots.
Don’t get me started on what a leftist pipe dream universal basic income is. The guaranteed income UBI would give would either bankrupt our economy or be such a pittance that nobody could live off of it
And before you suggest automation and wealth taxes would pay for UBI… good luck with that. We can’t even get the rich to pay their fair share of taxes right at this moment.
Given how much politicians serve the rich, I think they’d sooner sic the military on protesters than actually cave in to the demands of the masses.
bob_wiley@lemmy.world 1 year ago
[deleted]kava@lemmy.world 1 year ago
My great grandma died at 101 earlier this year. She had ran out of money a while ago, but she had so many descendants at that point that everyone took turns caring for her. One of her daughters lived with her and the other 6~7 children all pitched in.
She never had to stay at a home. That’s a nice thing about being old as shit, assuming you had at least some children. Your descendants exponentially increase allowing you to draw money from a significant pool of people.
I flew into the country to visit her for her 100th birthday and there were almost 100 people there, majority family members.
Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Things will need to change like a guaranteed basic income. We’ve been moving towards this eventuality for the last 5 decades or so.
kicksystem@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I don’t think working till very late age is a bad thing. I don’t expect to be sitting on my ass whole day long by the time I get to retirement age. What I do think is a bad thing is if by that time I am financially struggling to get by.
tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 1 year ago
The problem is we’re not fixing the economy at the other end. People work later because they’re healthier, and that could be good… but that means more people doing the same amount of work, increasing unemployment.
Until we stop demonising non-work and that’s going to be hell for those stuck on it. Get some level of basic income so it’s a valid choice. Meanwhile in the UK our govermnent is appealing to the boomers by announcing increased punishment of the unemployed… We’re a long way from that.
TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What happened to having hobbies? Working and languishing till death are not the only two possible options.
Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
How are we supposed to afford paying pensions that long of people retire before 70?
Sheik@lemmy.world 1 year ago
By properly taxing companies and rich individuals? Besides, those leaving to 120 would most likely be among the richest of us. Do they really need a pension at all?
happyhippo@feddit.it 1 year ago
Sorry, but if one can dream of properly taxing companies and rich individuals, there’s plenty of other shit to fix with that money first.
Making living until 120 sustainable is not on the list, or very, very low on it.
XEAL@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That’s the neat part, you will now work until you’re 85
Che@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
If political leaders can work into their 80s, you can also.
onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 year ago
Universal basic income. Make work optional.
brunofin@lemm.ee 1 year ago
If work is optional then who is paying that income?
Che@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Should have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.
vidarh@lemmy.stad.social 1 year ago
By fully funding them. The return from a lifetime annuity bought at 65 is just marginally higher than a reasonable expected safe return from the same investment. (A lifetime annuity pays out on the basis that the provider needs to guarantee an income until you die, so if it returns so much that it eats too much into the capital, it’ll be unprofitable for the provider). At the margins, the expected remaining life years of someone at 65 in a developed country is long enough that you can’t safely offer that much more without eating away too much at the capital too quickly.
onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 year ago
Oh, I do look forward to living through the climate wars and AI ascendancy. Amazing prospect.
obinice@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Maybe in some ultra rich country, certainly not in the declining West though.
Stamets@startrek.website 1 year ago
Bro I don’t want to live to 40…
Mandy@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Even longer time to make the rich richer woohoooo!!!
Etterra@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Shit, I didn’t want to hit 12 much less 120, and now I’m in my 40s. If some jerkass figures out life extension even for the poor, I’m gonna give that a hard pass. Just because I’ve chosen not to kill myself doesn’t mean I have to drag it out one day longer than necessary.
threeduck@aussie.zone 1 year ago
God damn it LET ME LIVE FOREVER LET ME LIVE FOREVER LET ME LIVE FOREVER I’m sick of lying in bed every night scared of the nothingness of death
Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I’m not interested to 70 let alone 120. What a nightmare.
gunslingerfry@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Well I, for one, would like to live for as long as I want. I understand the sentiment here, though a little depressing, is against that concept. I understand people’s reticence toward extending a painful life, particularly if that comes with strings attached. Life extension would need to be paired with a basic income and the rich will need to foot the bill.
I think we can all agree that George R R Martin should be put on this regimen immediately. We’re going to need 16 or more years for this dude to finish the series.
egeres@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Putting aside world inequality and the grim future that awaits us for a sec, medical science keeps moving forward… It took us 13 years to even sequence all the human genome (which was a tremendous effort done by many universities and researchers). Predicting the structures of proteins was an immense problem in biology that was finally solved with AI like 2~ years ago. mRNA vaccines were a super theoretical thing many years ago, but served us to fight covid. There’s a growing number of scientists (like david sinclair) that aren’t afraid of openly taking immortality as an academical challenge and publish research without fear of mockery
People forget technological progress is driven by an exponential growth, seeing all the things we have discovered in the past decades I can’t help but be optimistic about treatments or medicines available for the general public that slow down aging
Mdotaut801@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t want to live to 120. Idk how I’m gonna be able to retire at a reasonable age.
AdmiralShat@programming.dev 1 year ago
Just in time for the world to suck
Agent641@lemmy.world 1 year ago
More bad news
Sensitivezombie@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
No thanks. There better be a global acceptance of physician assisted suicide simultaneously.
iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Shoot me.😑
Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 year ago
I think the term is deathist, people believing that death is inevitable so they come up with lots of clever schemes to justify not wanting to live longer.
Ageing is just the body wearing down over time, with regular maintenance we can be healthy for however long we like to. Or until that proverbial piano drops on us.
I think it’s fantastic, ageing is the biggest risk in Alzheimer’s, in Cancer, in Dementia, Cardiovascular and lots of others… and who doesn’t want to have a youthful healthy body?
Check out sens.org if you’re interested in where science is today and what should be done tomorrow, but the first real treatments are probably around the corner already (like senolytics) so it’s quite exciting too IMO!
doktorseven@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’re assuming humanity is going to survive the next 30-50 years. Unless we do some major course corrections right the fuck now (and that’s not looking likely at all), climate change and/or our own hatred of each other is going to make us extinct or at least endangered and very unhealthy.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Man, the replies here really prove how much of a death cult bio-fatalism really is.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Meanwhile retirement funding is smaller and smaller
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Its a subscription service
TwoGems@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So you’re saying to dine on billionaires before that happens? 😏
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Must be nice to be rich.
papalonian@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Who the hell wants to do that?
Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 year ago
In good health obviously.
sock@lemmy.world 1 year ago
im imagining someone rotting from 90-120 but still conscious then making this news story
im joking tho i only read the headline
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
When we can live to 150, I’ll believe we can live to 120 in good health. In reality I’m watching 80yo people around me deteriorate into shells of their former selves.
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I do
Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Why?
Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 1 year ago
Me
sapient_cogbag@infosec.pub 1 year ago
Me
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Me
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Is this the sign up? I’m in