The majority of modern-day children may not reach the century mark, as per recent analysis suggests.
Many shied away from his dose of chilly truth, Olshansky noted, having grown accustomed to projections that half of newborns would reach the century mark.
In 1990, we forecasted a deceleration in life expectancy growth, and the impact of medical interventions, which we dubbed as first aid, would become less influential on life expectancy span, stated Olshansky, an epidemiology and biostatistics professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois in Chicago.
Many voiced disagreement with us then, insisting, "No, no, NO!" Innovations in healthcare and longevity-enhancing technology would escalate and drag life expectancy along with it, they said.
Now, 34 years later, Olshansky asserts that he and his co-authors have validated their stance. Their study of life expectancy data from Australia, France, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US was published on Monday in the journal Nature Aging.
Women born in 2019 in these locations possess a 5.1% chance of reaching 100 years, the study suggested. Men, on the other hand, have only a 1.8% chance.
“We waited 30 years to put our theory to the test. We have confirmed the era of swift increases in human life expectancy has ended, as we predicted,” Olshansky said.
“Now, I wish to ensure this is interpreted accurately,” he added. “We're still seeing a rise in life expectancy, but it's happening at a slower pace than in previous decades.”
Olshansky shared his analysis of longevity statistics with CNN.
This conversation has been modified and condensed for clarity.
CNN: People frequently state that humans will soon be able to survive to 120, if not 150 years. How do you reconcile your findings with such predictions?
Olshansky: These are merely speculative figures. There is no way to substantiate claims of extreme longevity made by individuals in the life extension sector.
In our study, we caution, “Please, curb your enthusiasm. These are untestable scientific hypotheses.” Only one woman has reached 122 years, and that's it.
(That woman, Jeanne Calment, was born in 1875 in Arles, France, at a time when life expectancy was approximately 45 years. She passed away at 122 years and 164 days old in 1997, despite a lifestyle of smoking and drinking port.)
Aging is currently inalterable – it's the deterioration of your cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems that cannot be halted yet. It is a byproduct of the functioning of life.
If you expose a sufficient number of people in a population to the ineluctable force of aging, you encounter an obstacle that hinders further gains in life expectancy, and that's where we are now. You can still make headway against major diseases, but it won't have the life-extending impact people expect – in fact, it will yield a diminishing effect.
This is a consequence of success. It is not a consequence of failure. It's a consequence of giving people enough time to experience the biological process of aging, which is now the leading risk factor.
The sole way we can surpass this longevity ceiling is if we slow down the biological process of aging.
CNN: During the past 30 years, obesity and related conditions such as type 2 diabetes have become rampant. What role did this play in moderating the progression towards longevity?
Olshansky: Yes, we observed a significant rise in obesity in the population, and this leads to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other conditions. My colleagues and Ipublished a paper in 2005 suggesting this would be the first generation of children to have shorter life spans than their parents due to obesity.
Medical science has developed a broad spectrum of remarkable life-extending technologies designed to address the consequences of obesity, diabetes, heart disease – drugs like statins, antibiotics, and vaccines, surgical procedures, gadgets to detect disease early, and treatments for these conditions. They work. They have been truly phenomenal.
The modern era is littered with people living into their 70s, 80s, and a select few into their 90s and beyond, mostly thanks to the manufactured time offered by medical technology – time that has been created by physicians worldwide.
The longevity game we’re currently engaged in is Whack-A-Mole. Each mole represents a different disease, and the older you grow, the more moles emerge, and they pop up at a faster pace.
If you explore older bodies, you will discover multiple diseases present, any one of which could eliminate these individuals. These diseases that are emerging are connected to the underlying aging process – aging of our cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems that is nonetheless immutable.
But let's say we reverse these diseases, eliminate obesity and smoking, it won't have much impact on life expectancy because many of the negative consequences of having these conditions have already been eased by pharmaceuticals or by surgical methods of one kind or another.
We would be healthier, certainly. Health span would improve significantly if we could wean ourselves off these medications and eliminate excessive weight, stop smoking, and minimize sun exposure and drug usage, but that's unlikely to happen in the real world.
ViceNews: Are you feeling hopeful about humans potentially living past 150 years due to research on animals like mice and monkeys? The findings in these creatures might not directly apply to humans, but they're certainly promising.
Olshansky: It seems that we could be on the brink of another longevity breakthrough. Scientists are succeeding in postponing biological aging in various animals, including fruit flies, roundworms, mice and primates. This opens up a vast opportunity for humans to regulate our survival longer.
That's the essence of geroscience. We now have the chance to manipulate the fundamental biological process of aging. However, some scientists erroneously assume that if we can boost the lifespan of a mouse by double or even triple, human lifespan will also increase proportionately.
I have no doubt that we can prolong the lives of these shorter-lived species, but there's no concrete evidence our lifespan will necessarily increase by the same degree. Will it extend our lives? Definitely. Will we know the exact extent? Not necessarily.
The true measurement of success should be improving our health span, not merely extending our lives. We can quantify this, and it's something we all yearn for. I'd even go so far as to say that health span is the most valuable resource on Earth, and we're dedicated to producing as much of it as we can.
If we don't innovate methods to control aging and stick to the current strategy of addressing diseases individually, we might not be pleased with the future outcomes. We could expect incremental improvements in life expectancy, but we might also see an increase in weakness and disability due to swapping one set of diseases for another.
Keep in mind, death is a zero-sum game. One factor diminishes, while another increases, and the fear is that we'll swap cancer and heart disease for diseases like dementia and Alzheimer's that we can't currently combat. So be cautious in what we desire and what we fabricate moving forward, because extending life without boosting health would be detrimental.
After validating their stance on the end of swift increases in human life expectancy, Olshansky and his co-authors emphasize the importance of curbing enthusiasm about claims of extreme longevity, as these are currently untestable scientific hypotheses. (Olshansky's statement in the CNN interview)
Incorporating a wellness regimen that focuses on maintaining health and preventing age-related diseases could potentially help individuals extend their health span, a more valuable resource than simply increasing their life span. (Speculative sentence derived from the context)
