Would You Choose to Live to 120?

Some time ago I read a mind-shattering, kinda-fictional book called Einstein's Dreams, a series of short stories speculating about Einstein's dreaming activity while working on his theory of relativity. Most of these dreams were about radical conceptions of time, and one particularly poignant story imagined that people lived forever, an idea that's often heralded as desirable, a la the Fountain of Youth or the Holy Grail.

In the story, though, things play out in a less utopian way, and all of society splits into two factions: people who embrace living forever, and those who find it unbearable and ritually kill themselves at a preordained age. The latter group chooses this path because, bluntly, their ancestors refuse to die off. So instead of only their mothers hounding them about getting married or quitting smoking or the like, they're also pestered by their immortal grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, ad nauseum. Hence the ritual suicide.

Fast forwarding to 2015, life extension science is a legitimate thing, at least according to futurists. A 2013 issue of National Geographic ran a feature story on the genes behind longevity behind a cover displaying a baby and the caption "This Baby Will Live to 120," a statement many are beginning to believe. Beyond the technoscientific question of "how," the question of "why" and the ramifications of a longer lifespan might not be answerable, at least at this point.

Proponents of life extension--sometimes called experimental gerontology or anti-aging medicine--have presented a number of possible strategies for extending one's life. Most currently discussed methods focus on herbs and antioxidant supplements, but some of the more far-fetched options include caloric restriction (identified by research as a front-runner), cloning of failing body parts, cryonics (ahem, Ted Williams), and, on the sci-fi side, "mind uploading" into a new, fresher body.

Extending human longevity is historically viewed as an improvement; the fact that global life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900 makes me want to get up and scream "Yay, science!" And numerous literary and religious works, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Bible, promote the idea that a long, possibly eternal life is desirable. Many scientists since Francis Bacon have viewed their work, at least in part, as involving the abolishment or delay of death.

The possibility of longer human lives raises a host of problems, however. Similar to Einstein's dream, the world would be packed with ever-increasing numbers of advanced-age individuals, likely requiring additional care and loads of medication to stay healthy. And interestingly, a 2013 Pew study found that over half of survey respondents answered the question, "Would you choose to undergo medical treatments to slow the aging process and live to 120 or more" with a resounding "no." A similarly sized group figured that life extension was a bad idea because longer life spans would put an increased strain on America's natural resources, and that life extension procedures would probably be exclusive to wealthy individuals anyway. Two-thirds of respondents said they'd like to live between 79 and 100, curiously just above the current US life expectancy of 78.8 years.

Shaky public opinion as to whether this topic is "good" hasn't deterred passionate life extension activists. There are grassroots communities like the catchily titled Death is Obsolete blog. On the political side there have been Longevity parties--groups advocating life extension research and transhumanism in general--in Russia, the US, and other countries since 2012.

Practical life extension is still a pipe dream, of course, and any idea seems weird to the populace when it's first introduced. Personally, I'd prefer to exit the world on my body's terms and be replaced by a "newer model"--hopefully in the form of my kids.

Image credit: Boston Public Library / CC BY 2.0