The Average Human Lifespan May Be Reaching a Plateau
The idea of increased longevity has become a hot topic in recent decades, with some anti-aging proponents speculating the human body could have the capacity to live for 150 years or more. But advancements in medicine, technology, and overall wellness knowledge don’t appear to be having their anticipated effects. In fact, some experts say we may be reaching the natural limit of the human lifespan.
In a new study published in Nature Aging and ominously titled “Implausibility of Radical Life Extension in Humans in the 21st Century,” University of Illinois Chicago epidemiologist S. Jay Olshansky presents a convincing case that medical interventions are not translating into markedly increased longevity.
Olshansky and his colleagues examined demographic data culled from 1990 to 2019 to assess life expectancy increases in the eight countries with the longest average lifespans. In 1990, life expectancy was increasing at roughly a rate of 2.5 years per decade. That number had dropped down to 1.5 years by the 2010s. Olshansky believes the ceiling will likely settle on an average of 87 years.
This is in sharp contrast to what some health pundits referred to as “radical life extension,” or the idea that medical treatments could intervene in the disease process and allow nature to take a protracted course to increasingly older age. According to the theory, it won’t be uncommon for members of the youngest generation to celebrate their 100th birthdays.
“Those are all made up numbers,” Olshansky told CNN. “There is no way to empirically verify claims of radical life extension that are being made by folks in this industry.”
While there was some merit to this idea—life expectancy in the 19th century was a paltry 20 to 50 years—we appear to have reached its limits. In short, radical life extension is a legitimate theory; it’s just that we’ve already seen the most benefit from it, as aging bodies resist any further intervention.
“Aging is currently immutable,” Olshansky said. “It’s the decline of your cells, tissues, organs and organ systems that currently can’t be stopped. It is a byproduct of operating the machinery of life.”
But Olshansky cautioned that this shouldn’t be seen as a negative. As medical advancements continue, more people are likely to succumb to advanced age-related illnesses later in life rather than earlier. This means that the quality—not quantity—of time could be on the rise. The study also notes that it can’t possibly account for advances in age-defying treatments that may arrive at some point.
The news is slightly more dire for residents of the United States, however. While the U.S. was included in the study given American interest in aging, the country doesn’t even rank in the top 40 of populations with the longest lifespans.
Source: Mental Floss
In a new study published in Nature Aging and ominously titled “Implausibility of Radical Life Extension in Humans in the 21st Century,” University of Illinois Chicago epidemiologist S. Jay Olshansky presents a convincing case that medical interventions are not translating into markedly increased longevity.
Olshansky and his colleagues examined demographic data culled from 1990 to 2019 to assess life expectancy increases in the eight countries with the longest average lifespans. In 1990, life expectancy was increasing at roughly a rate of 2.5 years per decade. That number had dropped down to 1.5 years by the 2010s. Olshansky believes the ceiling will likely settle on an average of 87 years.
This is in sharp contrast to what some health pundits referred to as “radical life extension,” or the idea that medical treatments could intervene in the disease process and allow nature to take a protracted course to increasingly older age. According to the theory, it won’t be uncommon for members of the youngest generation to celebrate their 100th birthdays.
“Those are all made up numbers,” Olshansky told CNN. “There is no way to empirically verify claims of radical life extension that are being made by folks in this industry.”
While there was some merit to this idea—life expectancy in the 19th century was a paltry 20 to 50 years—we appear to have reached its limits. In short, radical life extension is a legitimate theory; it’s just that we’ve already seen the most benefit from it, as aging bodies resist any further intervention.
“Aging is currently immutable,” Olshansky said. “It’s the decline of your cells, tissues, organs and organ systems that currently can’t be stopped. It is a byproduct of operating the machinery of life.”
But Olshansky cautioned that this shouldn’t be seen as a negative. As medical advancements continue, more people are likely to succumb to advanced age-related illnesses later in life rather than earlier. This means that the quality—not quantity—of time could be on the rise. The study also notes that it can’t possibly account for advances in age-defying treatments that may arrive at some point.
The news is slightly more dire for residents of the United States, however. While the U.S. was included in the study given American interest in aging, the country doesn’t even rank in the top 40 of populations with the longest lifespans.
Source: Mental Floss
