We're still not sure how long we can live, new study finds

Rates of centenarians are going to increase eightfold in the next three decades.

The quest for eternal life is ancient. Our oldest surviving mythologies address this point. Gilgamesh, for example, dives to the bottom of the ocean to unearth the secret plant bestowing eternal life, only to have it stolen by a fish because he got groggy. We invent religious afterworlds (in)secure in the belief that there’s no way this can be all there is.

Then there are more earthly pursuits, such as injecting toxins into your face and paying exorbitant ransom to surgeons to craft youthful illusions. Equally relevant is transcending the flesh altogether; what a religion can do, so can Silicon Valley. Soon our spirits will fly free forever, our data imprinted into the cloud, cognition unleashed from blood and bile, just as the yogis of old promised four thousand years ago. Meditation is no match for code.

All this and more—so much, much more—has made life extension and immortality lucrative industries. Ernest Becker would have said it’s just that old paranoia of death rearing its head again, and perhaps this is so. Unconscious processes influence the broad scope of our reality. Yet an intriguing new study, published in the journal Science, claims that despite our average age hovering in the seventies, we actually don’t know how long we can live.

Dr. Elisabetti Barbi, an associate professor in the Department of Statistical Sciences at Sapienza University of Rome, and her team studied 3,386 Italians that made it to at least 105 years of age over a six-year period (2009-2015). Specifically, they looked at “hazard rates.” Do they increase once you hit a certain age? As it turns out, they tend to level out. As Barbi told the NY Times

If there’s a fixed biological limit, we are not close to it.

Death rates are high during infancy. If you make it past those first few years, you’ll likely coast until your thirties, when the chances of death rise. They stay relatively stable until the seventies and eighties when there is a major spike in the risk of death. A few years ago, a team at Albert Einstein College of Medicine put the upper age limit at 115, with the oldest living woman, who passed at 122, being an extreme outlier. But that study was immediately criticized for poor data.

Not so with Barbi’s team. If you pass your eighties, your risk of death flattens out for—well, an exact number is hard to pin down. They end their paper concluding that more research could uncover that number, but for the time being, they write:

The increasing number of exceptionally longlived people and the fact that their mortality beyond 105 is seen to be declining across cohorts—lowering the mortality plateau or postponing the age when it appears—strongly suggest that longevity is continuing to increase over time and that a limit, if any, has not been reached.

Could we see the 122 mark breached anytime soon? Remember, becoming a centenarian is still rare. Yet the number of centenarians is predicted to increase eightfold by 2050, meaning that record is certainly going to be challenged in the century ahead. According to Pew, there will be 3.7 million centenarians in just over three decades.

French centenarian cyclist Robert Marchand, 106, rides 4000 meters at the Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines track cycling on February 11, 2018. (Photo by Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty Images)

While better health care and tweaking telomeres (among other longevity extensions) are coming into play, we’re still battling the many epidemics of life: obesity, opioids, nationalism, and bigotry, the latter two increasing the likelihood of violence. All these factors increase stress, which takes its toll on our immune systems. So though we might be pushing the upper limit soon, how many people will benefit from older age remains to be seen, especially given the health care costs associated with aging.

Forever is impossible. As Alan Watts once said, eternity is not a measure of time, but a negation of it, and therefore shouldn’t even be considered. We are playing within the field of time; even this planet has a shelf life. How long we can hang around, though, remains open for debate.


Stay in touch with Derek on Facebook and Twitter.

3D printing might save your life one day. It's transforming medicine and health care.

What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.

Northwell Health
Sponsored by Northwell Health
  • Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
  • Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
  • Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
Keep reading Show less

Adam Gopnik on the rhinoceros of liberalism vs. the unicorns of everything else

Torn between absolutism on the left and the right, classical liberalism—with its core values of compassion and incremental progress whereby the once-radical becomes the mainstream—is in need of a good defense. And Adam Gopnik is its lawyer.

Think Again Podcasts
  • Liberalism as "radical pragmatism"
  • Intersectionality and civic discourse
  • How "a thousand small sanities" tackled drunk driving, normalized gay marriage, and could control gun violence
Keep reading Show less

You weren't born ‘to be useful’, Irish president tells young philosophers

Irish president believes students need philosophy.

Personal Growth
  • President of Ireland Michael D. Higgins calls for students to be thought of as more than tools made to be useful.
  • Higgins believes that philosophy and history should be a basic requirement forming a core education.
  • The Irish Young Philosopher Awards is one such event that is celebrating this discipline among the youth.
Keep reading Show less

Fascism and conspiracy theories: The symptoms of broken communication

The lost practice of face-to-face communication has made the world a more extreme place.

  • The world was saner when we spoke face-to-face, argues John Cameron Mitchell. Not looking someone in the eye when you talk to them raises the potential for miscommunication and conflict.
  • Social media has been an incredible force for activism and human rights, but it's also negatively affected our relationship with the media. We are now bombarded 24/7 with news that either drives us to anger or apathy.
  • Sitting behind a screen makes polarization worse, and polarization is fertile ground for conspiracy theories and fascism, which Cameron describes as irrationally blaming someone else for your problems.
Keep reading Show less