The maximum lifespan for most people may be around 115, because of the innate limits of the human body, according to new research. The few who have gone beyond this age are rare outliers, says Jan Vijg of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. (New Scientist, October 2016).
I can trace my family back to the early 16th Century. Quite shortly, I will be the longest living male in the recorded history of my particular family. But I am truly puzzled about the numerous people who say they want their lives extended well beyond normal human spans. What for? Will anyone pay you any attention? Will you feel in sympathy with the cultures of other generations or understand their new technologies? Is extending your life a reasonable use of scarce resources? Will you have any friends with whom you have anything at all in common? What do you expect to contribute to society at, say, an age of 120 or 130?
Epicurus had it right: die gracefully at an appropriate time, causing as little disruption and heartache as possible, well thought-of by your fellow man, and with a smile on your face.
The problem with this is, what is a ‘normal’ life span? If I lived to be 80 in 19th century Scotland, that would be regarded as extremely abnormal. Equally, if I died at 78 in present day West London (the part of the UK with the highest life expectancy) that would be regarded as premature.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using science or any other human endeavour to indirectly improve life expectancy, whether its better nutrition, more exercise, getting more sleep, or health monitoring schemes to reduce cholesterol. The problem we may have in the future is specialist technology with the explicit intention of increasing life expectancy well beyond its natural capacity. That would potentially result in huge overpopulation, a bloated welfare state due to the amount of old people, and a culture that becomes increasingly conservative society, hostile to the young and to doing things differently.