Follow this blog:
RSS

So we’ll live to age 100. Now what?

By | September 15, 2011, 4:56 AM PDT

NEW YORK CITY — Thanks to scientific advancements, we’ll live longer than ever before. But who will manage us?

Speaking at The Economist’s Human Potential conference, author Sonia Arrison said we’re not ready for the massive social and economic implications of living longer.

But the possibilities are both tantalizing and terrifying.

LONGEVITY TECH

Arrison, who most recently authored 100 Plus: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith, said a number of new technologies are helping human beings extend their lives, including tissue engineering and three-dimensional printers that can reproduce organs on demand.

“Scientists all over the world are working on growing different parts — hearts, lungs,” she said. “You can imagine that if you [take this] huge parts list you can [switch your parts in and out as needed].”

These come on top of incremental improvements to lifespan, such as eating right, exercising and not smoking, she said.

“Most of our gains so far have come from advances in the beginning of life — fighting disease, exercise nutrition. Now we’re starting to look at problems at the end of life. How do we replace parts that are breaking down? The science of that has become an engineering problem.”

THE ELDERLY EFFECT

But if the Earth can barely support its existing human population, how will it support so many more? And how will the markets adapt to the change?

Arrison said the effects are manifold and complex. For one, it’s less of a problem than most would suspect, thanks to declining population growth rates and fertility rates.

“Really heavy population growth comes from births, not deaths,” she said.

And what of the workplace? With so many more seasoned veterans in the workforce, will innovation slow?

Au contraire, Arrison said — research shows that innovation is actually a late-peak field.

“It’s possible that, as we have more people living healthier and longer — and health is the key, because if you’re not healthy you can’t do anything — then we actually have a huge human potential for many more innovations to make the world a better place,” she said, predicting an “explosion of knowledge” from retaining society’s wisest members for a longer period of time.

And that’s not to say the expected timeline of human development won’t shift, either. As life expectancy has increased, so has the age at which couples get married and have children. Advancements in fertility technology could help this keep pace with longevity, she said.

“You can also imagine people having children early and putting off their career for later because they can,” she said. “It’s diversity in life choice. You’ll have so much more time to do things with your life.”

THE SUPPORT NETWORK

While longevity may make the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services happy, it’s cause for concern for the U.S. Social Security Administration — whose dwindling reserves face an even larger obligation.

Simply: how will government pay for so many elderly?

“Clearly, no one will be retiring at age 65,” Arrison said. “That may not even be possible today. They’ll have to change their definition of retirement.”

The concept of retraining older workers for new jobs will also play a major role, she said.

“There will certainly be more people around in different age brackets, and that expands labor markets,” she said. “There will be different markets [that emerge] that didn’t exist before.”

That doesn’t count new markets that could appear or expand to better fulfill individuals’ search for meaning and purpose in life. For example, religions may shift from a focus on the afterlife to a focus on purpose during one’s lifetime, to keep followers engaged, she said.

On the other hand, intergenerational conflict will be more prevalent than ever, especially in the workplace, she said.

“Intergenerational issues will be something that companies find themselves dealing with,” she said. “Imagine having someone working who’s 120 and then you have a 20-year-old come in.”

THE ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

Perhaps the greatest challenge that governments will have to face is the possibility that the gap between poor and rich grows ever wider, with corresponding lifespans, Arrison said.

“The wealthy always get access to new technology first. They put up upfront capital,” she said. “The question is, how long is the lag between the leading edge and the lagging edge? How long does it take for this technology to be distributed evenly?”

One upside: the widespread adoption of new technology occurs ever faster.

“If medical technologies, which are fast becoming information technologies, move in that way then maybe it won’t be as much of a crisis as it can be,” Arrison said. “People may literally fight for their lives. It’s worrisome.”

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
16
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
No, we won't *all* live to 100.
Reaching 100 is dependent upon health care access. If Medicare is cut and the age raised, tens of thousands (about 30~40K based on 2005 mortality tables) will die before they become eligible for health care. As the number of uninsured increases as well as the number of homeless, this number of early-age deaths will increase beyond that baseline level.

So while other nations will dramatically increase their average age of death, we've probably hit a plateau in America. We're already near the bottom of advanced nations with a high infant mortality.

America is rapidly becoming a disparate nation of haves and have-nots that will be expressed in WHO gets to reach 100 and who doesn't.
Posted by gork platter
Updated - 15th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
I'd Rather a Quality Life to any Age than to Live to 100 Just Because I Can
Oh, I so agree with this writer. I see such disparate care just in my circle of friends and family. Even with "good" doctors, things aren't discovered sometimes until havoc has been wreaked and damage done. This must be worse for those who can't get health care in a timely manner.

We really are becoming a nation of haves and have-nots, especially in the area of medical care. Sigh.
Posted by Alexandrite
16th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Is there a good reason...
...why I can't respond to this comment?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
That's just misinformation from some Progressive talking points memo.
" So while other nations will dramatically increase their average age of death, we've probably hit a plateau in America. We're already near the bottom of advanced nations with a high infant mortality."

Wrong.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Continued
The statistics that Progressives like to use in international comparisons of "infant mortality" are meaningless because "infant mortality" is measured differently amongst nations. In America, we count every baby that shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight as a "live birth".
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Continued...
By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

By excluding the premature births, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages."

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan -- the infant mortality champion -- don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. (Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day)

If every country were to count "infant morality" as we do, we'd be at the top of that list.

The irony is that while in America we go to extraordinary measures to save babies that most of the socialist-democracies don't even count, it's the socialist systems that demand that only the fittest babies survive.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Death is Inevitable
Doesn't matter how long we're planning to live, we all going to die someday. Even 100 years doesn't change that fact. Not even a replaceable organs will do.
Posted by deltaRedge
15th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
I want to live to be 200 years old
For the longest time I have had a wish to live to be 200 years old and as much as any other reason, it is because I want to see what our children will make of and do with what we leave behind and to see where technology takes us in the future. So based on that, the medical profession has to find some miracles very, very soon!

By the way, I am still working after what is considered the ???normal??? retirement age ??? and enjoying it???!!
Posted by sweetings@...
Updated - 15th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
I want to live to be 200 years old
For the longest time I have had a wish to live to be 200 years old and as much as any other reason, it is because I want to see what our children will make of and do with what we leave behind and to see where technology takes us in the future. So based on that, the medical profession has to find some miracles very, very soon!

By the way, I am still working after what is considered the ???normal??? retirement age ??? and enjoying it???!!
Posted by sweetings@...
15th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
The chance of living to 100 or more is relatively nill.
It doesn't matter what you do, health care cost and the actual implementing of the care by the patients won't allow it.

People aren't strict enough on themselves and the treatments aren't available to the general public at a cost they can afford, so there is no need to worry about what we will do. It won't be an issue.
Posted by Live2BFree
15th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
It won't be that way forever
Certainly for the several decades or so you will be right.

But once we finally understand cells as well as the human body and all its connections, it probably won't matter how badly you treat your health. Cells seem to have a huge ability to regenerate which we don't normally tap. Once we understand how to activate this we will probably be able to make up for most of the sins of a life lived to excess.

The only exception might be the brain. We might be able to regenerate brain cells, but so much of who are is wrapped up in the interconnections of existing cells. Generate new brain cells to replace old ones and you may lose the connections that make us who we are.
Posted by zackers
16th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Disparity in Longevity...
There is also a disparity in longevity gains based on income brackets. Those above the median income have experienced all the gains in longevity while those under the median have seen no increase.
Posted by CoreyHammer
16th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
I'd rather have a top quality life to 80 than to reach 100
It seems to me that have a gang of 100 year old people milling around is not a happy thing, unless they have a top quality life. Having spent the summer in a nursing/physical rehab center, living to be old is terrible without exceptionally good health.

Extending the length of youthful existence is a much better thing than extending the number of years that we live.

Will I be able to climb the mountains near my house when I'm 61? Keep my wife sexually fulfilled when I'm 70? Have a sharp mind when I'm 72? Enjoy big game hunting and fishing when I'm 75?

If the answers to those questions are not a resounding "YES!" ... I'm not sure that living to 100 offers much value.
Posted by steve.hammill@...
16th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Come on, I'm 63
I'm 63 and still climb mountains higher than 14,500 feet over sea level, run 7.7 miles at mountains that are more than 8,800 feet OSL almost every day, keep my mate satisfied, started a new career 6 years ago, work today at it, keep learning something every day, and hate hunting and fishing, that's terminating other's life. And of corse I pretend to live over 100 living my life this same way.
Posted by fernandolml
Updated - 19th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
I'll live till 103
Just to irritate everyone, I will turn off my light when I am 103.
Posted by jackvandijk
17th Sep 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Innovation starts late
I love the insight that innovation comes with age. This makes so much sense when you consider innovation a synthesis of ideas coming together in new ways. It truly takes life experience to have multiple viewpoints and be able to take innovation to its highest levels. Think what Steve Jobs might have created in his 80's!
Posted by slhanna
7th Oct 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!