Who Should We Believe about Average Longevity & Other Claims?

Who should we believe about how long we can REALLY live? Some plan to live forever, but US lifespan is declining.Who should we believe about how long we can REALLY live?

Controversy and catchy headlines help sell magazines and advertising, and that makes writing about outrageous claims profitable. The more outlandish, the better. The news media loves it, and so do the readers, whether it’s political controversy or in average longevity and how long we might eventually live.

The LA Times, in When, and why we must die, is just one of the many news outlets to pick up a story about two scientists who recently published study results concluding that humans can’t live beyond age 122. They’re entitled to their opinion, but I don’t buy it.

Other researchers say they’re on track to cure disease and extend life almost indefinitely by blending medicine and technology (INFO + BIO + NANO + NEURO). The news media picked up those stories too.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, for example, just pledged to give 99% of their Facebook shares to charity and invest $3 billion to cure all diseases by the end of the century. And futurist Ray Kurzweil, who has made incredibly accurate predictions, wrote an important book, The Sigularity is Near, and was hired by Google to lead a similar longevity project there.

So who do YOU believe?

Think about what motives anyone might have for making such controversial claims, or investments, or writing about them. If a developer or investor puts real money where their mouth is, does it make them visionary or just foolish zealots? What might they know that the two lone researchers don’t?

While prehistoric humans may have lived just 20-35 years on average, some apparently lived well into old age.
While prehistoric humans may have lived just 20-35 years on average, some apparently lived well into old age. (CLICK to source)

Maybe they’ve seen how “average life expectancy” has already doubled since 1800. Or maybe they’re just confusing average life expectancy with maximum longevity and the fact that many ancient humans also lived long healthy lives if they survived childbirth and natural enemies. Or it might be that they see more hope in science and technology than those who say we can’t live beyond 122.

As a retired IBM technologist, amateur futurist, consumer advocate, and founder of Modern Health Talk, I follow longevity and future of healthcare discussions from a slightly different perspective, with interest in the promise of tech innovation, as well as the challenges of adopting it. And I’ve written extensively about the long-term effects that the exponentially accelerating pace of tech innovation can have on healthcare, including the market drivers and inhibitors of disruptive change.

Moore’s Law and The Future Of Healthcare, for example, is a bullish article about the exciting possibilities, while The Elusive Smart Home is critical of an over-hyped market that has been unable to reach its potential in over 50 years.

My 45+ years of technical and market strategy experience have given me a perspective that causes me to question outlandish claims, but with an open mind, because I’ve seen some truly amazing feats of engineering that were once deemed impossible. So I’m quick to distrust claims with absolutes like NEVER and ALWAYS, and don’t buy into the claim that humans can’t live beyond age 122, but I’m also skeptical of living forever.

What Average Longevity is Possible versus what are we Experiencing?

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, average longevity in the U.S. has been declining for the last several years while those in other rich nations are living longer. Why the difference? One theory is that we emphasize rescue care and acute care at the expense of investing in and promoting disease prevention.

Another theory is that affluent white families in America have access to the best care while many others go without. All of the other nations, each with far better average longevity, invest in some form of universal healthcare, with public officials negotiating prices on behalf of health consumers.

My Top-10 Related Quotes and Favorite False Predictions

When running CaziTech Consulting several years ago, I accumulated a collection of favorite quotes & false predictions, made by people who should have been in a position to most accurately predict the future.

Quotes

  1. “Good enough never is.”
  2. “Failing to plan is planning to fail.”
  3. “Lead follow or get out of the way.”
  4. “You can’t steal 2nd with your foot firmly on first.”
  5. “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
  6. “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
  7. “If you think you can, or think you can’t – you are probably right.”
  8. “A man saying something is impossible shouldn’t interrupt the man doing it.”
  9. “If you really want to do something, you’ll find a way. If you don’t, you’ll find an excuse.”
  10. “Do not follow where the path may lead – Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

False Predictions

  1. “This telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” — Western Union internal memo (1876)
  2. “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” — Charles H. Duell, commissioner of the US Patent Office, recommending that his office should be abolished (1899)
  3. “The phonograph has no commercial value at all.” — Thomas Edison
  4. “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” — Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University (1929)
  5. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein (1932)
  6. “A rocket will never be able to leave the earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times (1936)
  7. “I think there is a world market for about five computers.” — Thomas J. Watson Jr., chairman of IBM (1943)
  8. “The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most.” — IBM to the founders of Xerox as it turned down their proposal (1959)
  9. “There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States.” — Craven, FCC Commissioner (1961)
  10. “The concept is interesting and well-informed, but in order to earn better than a ‘C’ the idea must be feasible.” — Yale professor’s comments on a term paper submitted by Fred Smith for an overnight delivery system. Two years later, Smith founded Federal Express.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Wayne Caswell is a retired IBM technologist, futurist, market strategist, consumer advocate, sleep economist, and founding editor of Modern Health Talk. With international leadership experience developing wireless networks, sensors, and smart home technologies, he’s been an advocate for Big Broadband and fiber-to-the-home while also enjoying success lobbying for consumers. Wayne leans left to support progressive policies but considers himself politically independent. (contact & BIO)

Similar Posts

3 Comments

  1. THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF TARGETING AGING
    By Andrew J. Scott, Martin Ellison, and David A. Sinclair

    “Developments in life expectancy and the growing emphasis on biological and ‘healthy’ aging raise a number of important ques- tions for health scientists and economists alike. Is it preferable to make lives healthier by compressing morbidity, or longer by extending life? What are the gains from targeting aging itself compared to efforts to eradicate specific diseases? Here we analyze existing data to evaluate the economic value of increases in life expectancy, improvements in health and treatments that target aging. We show that a compression of morbidity that improves health is more valuable than further increases in life expectancy, and that targeting aging offers potentially larger economic gains than eradicating individual diseases. We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion. Ultimately, the more progress that is made in improving how we age, the greater the value of further improvements.”

    The attached image is my annotated version of Figure 1 from the paper, showing it to be consistent with my own thoughts on aging and healthspan v. lifespan.

    The Economic Value of Delayed Aging and Retirement

  2. James Wang says:

    Wayne,

    You wrote that your are skeptical of living forever.

    I do agree with you but I believe now that we will instead be able to extend our healthy lifespan indefinitely in the future. Maybe in 20 years? Most people are not aware of the recent news in the fields of anti-aging and biogerontology. The recent funding of UNITY Biotechnology, currently developing senolytic drugs as you surely know, is one example.

    I am happy to read that I am not the only one thinking that we will break the 122-year age limit and that we will be able sooner than later live indefinitely in very good health you and I!

    James Wang @ Immortex

    https://www.immortex.com/

  3. RELATED ARTICLES:
    The controversial study saying we can’t live beyond 122 is getting a lot of media attention, and that’s why I wrote this blog article. Some of the more-balanced articles, which don’t just parrot the study’s press release, follow. Please add any others that you find useful or especially interesting.

    The Human Lifespan Has a Natural Limit. Scientists Might Know How to Break It

    Some researchers think there’s a limit to how long humans can live

    Want to Live Longer? Our Complicated Relationship to Longevity

    More Scientists Are Pushing to Have Aging Classified as a Disease (20-minute TED Talk)

    Beyond Darwin: Scientists May Be Redefining Evolution

    Playing God – Are increased lifespans unnatural? And why it is a good thing!

    We Could Literally “Cure Aging” in Our Lifetime (7:20 YouTube video)

    What the NAD+ Pill Could Mean for the Anti-Aging Process (TIME)

    Is an anti-aging pill on the horizon? If so, I ask these other questions. Will Big Pharma and the Medical Industrial Complex allow it, if it digs into their $3.6trillion/year revenue? Will politicians allow it if extended longevity accelerates overpopulation?

    We’re already finding it difficult to feed, clothe, house, care for, and employ those already on the planet. Adoing more will strain support systems and natural resources just as AI, automation, and robots are poised to make jobs obsolete – half of them or more.

    THE DARK SIDE: If it becomes possible to add a compound to the water supply to extend longevity of the masses, and politicians decide that’s a good thing, what else might be added to the water supply for other affect, without our knowledge or consent?

    With every innovative new technology comes public policy issues to contend with, but our ability to craft these policies slows with a divided Congress. Worse is that it can speed up dangerously under an authoritative regeim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.