Prev
Next

What would life be like if we lived to 150?

Peter Strong

by Peter Strong

26 Oct 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Ageing, Health, Life Expectancy, Population, Society

46 comments

The existence of a fountain of youth that restores the health and youth of anyone bathing in its waters has tantalised humanity for centuries.

114 and counting. Photo: AFP.

Substitute the mythical water for modern-day medicine and we could, in the next decade, see medicines that slow the ageing process and help us live to 150 years old. 

Life expectancy in Australia is already on a positive trend. At the beginning of the 20th Century, life expectancy at birth was about 55 years for males and 59 years for females.

A girl born today in Australia could reasonably expect to live to 100 due to advances in medicine, lifestyle and public health initiatives.

To further these advancements, plant-derived compounds such as resveratrol have been shown to activate enzymes in mice that trigger their bodies DNA repair process.

Those enzymes exist in human bodies too, so the possibility of drugs that slow the ageing process is possible. Synthetic molecules 1000 times more potent than resveratrol are in clinical trials for diseases of aging, and are showing early signs of efficacy.

Biotechnology is another popular area of research. Gene testing is already helping us identify rare genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease. In the future, gene tests may become readily available to understand our health and life expectancy without medical intervention.

Gene therapy may then be used for treating, or even curing, genetic and acquired diseases like cancer and AIDS by using normal genes to supplement or replace defective genes or to bolster a normal function such as immunity. If the science is available then people will use it.

Living to ages unattainable today will be possible in the near future, whether it’s via medicines, biotechnology or even stem cell therapy. However, we must also consider the social and economic implications for extended life. 

People aren’t going to want to retire at 65 and spend many decades sitting at home. Indeed, a life expectancy of 150 would make retirement at 65 rare, with many people likely to choose a second career that is more knowledge based.

A bloated working population may increase unemployment figures, especially in lower socio-economic groups. While the young might have an extended adolescence up to 30 years old before moving out of the family home (some would argue this is already occurring). But this assumes that extended life also means healthy life.

One of the challenges in ageing populations is Dementia, such as Alzheimer’s, that is seemingly unavoidable in the elderly. Rates of Dementia in Australia are already expected to increase threefold by 2050 to one million Australians that will have a major impact on Government health expenditure.

Science research needs to ensure we live happy and healthy lives; otherwise the social and economic implications could potentially be catastrophic. 

The immediate aim is to find medicines to treat elderly sick people, then later attempt to delay the onset of diseases of ageing.  At the University of New South Wales, we have expanded our research infrastructure with the Lowy Cancer Research Centre and the Wallace Wurth Building that will one day help people live happy and healthy lives up to 150. 

The aim is not just to eke out extra existence, but to facilitate a longer healthy life.

Most commented

46 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:16am | 26/10/11

      In a minute my superannuation will run out, and I’ll have to accept charity from Centrelink.  Thankfully life is short !

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      06:46am | 26/10/11

      ‘I’ll have to accept charity from Centrelink’ , charity?  Make up your mind acotrel, you posted in a reply to one of my post in the Open Thread forum, you were entitled to the pension as you’d paid tax all your working life.

    • acotrel says:

      07:22am | 26/10/11

      @nihonin
      If you’d ever dealt with Centrelink, you’d know that entitlement is not relevant !

    • Tina says:

      07:52am | 26/10/11

      Entitlement is a funny thing anyway. Its not like we are entitled to the same amount of payout. We are entitled to help us cover our most basic needs during short periods of unemployment.

      I remember discussing this with someone and he said “I paid taxes all my life, now I work cash in hand”. Mind you, he was 35. Some people have an odd understanding of how much taxes they pay and what the country owes them in return. His ten years of paying taxes is not going to fund the school, he girl goes to, the infrastructure he is using every day, the hospitals or whatever.

    • nihonin says:

      08:26am | 26/10/11

      acotrel, luckily for me I’ve only had to deal with Centrelink once, that was when I was on DSP for a crushed elbow, was on it for about a year and a half.  Got jack of it went to work in a factory, worked on getting my arm back into shape, eventually had it to a point where I could return to work as a plasterer, finally had to give it in about 5 years ago.  Never again will I hopefully ever have to deal with Centrelink.  I don’t have the belief I am entitled to anything from the government (read Tax Payers PAYE).

    • neo says:

      11:30am | 26/10/11

      A person who spent his whole life working should be entitled to an age pension, enough to cover rent, food and a little entertainment.

    • Lorraine says:

      11:30am | 26/10/11

      Centrelink is not a charity. Never is, never was, never will be.
      Those who think it is a charity have probably already reached their ‘use by” date.

    • S.L says:

      05:51am | 26/10/11

      The quality of life is the key.
      Dad was still fully employed a 72 when he suffered a major stroke at work. He never intended to retire but now he’s confined to bed or a waterchair. As he tells me “I never thought this would happen to me!”
      An old digger I knew was into his 90s when he died. He told me a few times over his final years “I’ve lived too long. All my mates are gone, so’s the wife, I’m the last one left!”. He was still living on his own and looking after himself to the end.
      I think 150 is too old.

      Reply

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:08am | 26/10/11

      Maybe. Maybe not. Life is all about how you live it.

      Yes, unfortunate that the old digger you knew felt he was the last one left but he could have met new people.

      I think if you’re healthy and have a few hobbies then life can be great. The more of that the better and if I don’t have to work even better still.

    • Super D says:

      05:54am | 26/10/11

      These sorts of drugs would need to have some sort of reverse means test - as in if you don’t have the means, you don’t get the drugs.

      Reply

    • Eric The Red says:

      07:23am | 26/10/11

      You must be a Lib/Nat Party voter SuperD, Thats their take on things for us when they win power and you won’t have to be old, you will only have to be sick and can’t afford the drugs so you will be disgarded.Alan Jones, the Parrot, who is the Libs mouth piece, doesn’t believe in Medicare or a freely available health system. And you had better believe Abbott is hiding his real intentions.

    • acotrel says:

      07:25am | 26/10/11

      @SuperD
      I love your comment. You are all heart !  You’ve made my day, that’s really great ! Market forces at work !

    • Super D says:

      09:19am | 26/10/11

      On second thought perhaps everyone should get the drugs and also get compulsory euthanasia at age 90.  Would that be fairer?  While in theory everyone living to 150 sounds great is having a whole heap of semi-decrepit, state funded 110 year olds going to be in anyway manageable.  In the same way that you can’t have open borders and a functioning welfare state you can’t have half the population enjoying a high standard of living on the taxpayers dime.

      The fact is that if these drugs become available they won’t be available to everyone.  They will go to the 1%.

    • onlooker says:

      05:58am | 26/10/11

      For a start there would be many penniless 150 year olds out there, our super probably won’t cover us for 20 years after we retire let alone that length of time till we reach 150. The skin on our face would be down around our knees, and by then no money to pay to get it lifted so we don’t fall over it!! I can’t see Governments allowing us to live that long, they don’t want to pay pensions now.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:28am | 26/10/11

      @Onlooker
      Most self funded retirees run out of super after ten years ! We’d probably need to set up community sheltered workshops ?

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:43am | 26/10/11

      Being relatively young forever has great appeal.  Being old forever?  Not so much.

      Roll on the Matrix, I say - just plug me in.  I’ll work from there, and my commute will be the half hour a day I spend in the “real world”, attending to my physical body’s needs.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:07am | 26/10/11

      Well, if I could be middle-aged for 40 or 50 years, I’d settle for that.

    • acotrel says:

      07:31am | 26/10/11

      I want to be twenty five years oid, and as smart as I am right now !  I’d give all those young chicks a real nudge.

    • acotrel says:

      07:34am | 26/10/11

      How about a reversing pill ?  You’d clinb out of a coffin real smart and grow up to be a baby ? I loved that movie about Benjamin Buttons.

    • Nick says:

      09:37am | 26/10/11

      I was more thinking of the system from total recall. Plug me in for a holiday, choose the girl, be a secret agent, would be awesome!

    • St. Michael says:

      03:15pm | 26/10/11

      I must say, I totally get Cipher’s character from the Matrix now.  If I had to spend the rest of my life in a cave with a pack of rave-dancing hippies, I’d want to go back to sleep too.

    • Troy Flynn says:

      02:38pm | 27/10/11

      Well, if you’re talking movies. I like the idea of a Logan’s Run style exit. I’d just bump up the age you get to go on the carousel. 30 was a bit too early, I’d adjust it to 70.  Or how about we go the “Soylent Green” route. Lie back on a bed and have pretty images broadcast to you while the nembutol is being administered. We could also solve the food problems that are due to increase with our 7 Billion plus population in the world.Or we could always have the Futurama style “Suicide Booths” available for the cost of a gold coin. Any or all is fine with me. Just don’t offer me a plate of Soylent Green.

    • Tina says:

      06:55am | 26/10/11

      Unless the last 70 years of those 150 are spent suffering from alzheimer and co, I dont see an issue with living longer. And I wonder if the life expectancy named in the article for the beginning of the 20th century isnt due to child birth and illnesses.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:05am | 26/10/11

      @Tina - well, the much improved infant mortality rate, plus the discovery of antibiotics and the widespread use of vaccination all have a lot to do with longer life expectancy over the last century.  It is true that our “healthy life expectancy” is also improving, though, which I suppose means we have things which keep us going longer and in better shape (cholesterol medication, blood pressure meds, cardiac surgery, etc).  I’m not convinced a 150-year life span will ever be the norm, though.  Our bodies start to deteriorate when we get into the 50s, and nothing much is going to change that.

    • stephen says:

      07:32am | 26/10/11

      I hope sarah jessica-parker doesn’t live that long.
      I don’t think modern evolution could stand it.

      Reply

    • Forever hopeful says:

      07:35am | 26/10/11

      Having lost my father suddenly but peacefully in his own bed at age 57 and now seeing my 87-year-old mother in a nursing home, give me the former any time please.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:53am | 26/10/11

      Well, I lost my dad at 92 and my mom is currently 95 and not quite at the nursing home stage.  Dad might have lived a year or two too long, but no more;  mom’s got another good year or two left, I think.  It’s quality of life, not age, that counts.

    • David says:

      08:07am | 26/10/11

      Take up golf !!!
      Golf is life and all the rest is just mere detail .

    • Tina says:

      08:56am | 26/10/11

      @ David

      We have a saying “Do you already play golf or do you still have sex”

    • nihonin says:

      07:41am | 26/10/11

      I sat down one sunny day and did the math as to how many years I’d have remaining in this life, supplied by average age of deaths for males on both sides of my family.  On average I’ve got 17 more years to enjoy life.  No suffering for me or my family as I linger on and on and on, till not only I, but my family wish I’d go.  Selfish maybe, I’d rather not a be burden and be remembered as a man who loved his family and a great life with them, as opposed to an annoyance.

      I can already appreciate some of the replies if any, I’ll receive to this comment.  mwahahaha

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      07:52am | 26/10/11

      You think the future holds all these wonderful breakthroughs, but won’t have a cure for demensia or alzheimer’s?
      The amount of medical breakthroughs the world his creating is staggering. The advent of the internet, and more widespread and high quality education has lead to exponential growth in the medical field.

      Although this article touched on a few good medical breakthroughs, I’m surprised you didn’t mention the technology that could see computers as powerful as the iphone shrinking down to the size of a blood cell by 2025. Other technologies of note could be the ability to regrow organs in the body from a lab, for example the Japanese creating a cornea from scratch.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      08:05am | 26/10/11

      Exactly who is going to fund the extra 50-80 years of lingering around and consuming resources decades after the super funds have dried up? we already have parasites leeching of the working class for 20-30 years after retirement, on public funds, that’s without counting the lifelong unemployed.

      Teeth can’t last 150yrs, that used to be nature’s way of saying times up.

      Reply

    • Eric The Red says:

      10:58am | 26/10/11

      Now Barnaby, What are you doing on here? If your not Barnaby Michael then you sure sound like him. How dare the working class get any public funds if they run out of super. Typical comment from a Lib/Nat party hack.

    • Michael says:

      02:20pm | 26/10/11

      Eric, so who will fund the extra years of existence?

      Stop work at 65-68 depending on when you retire of course, your super last what? 10-15 maybe 20 years if you are well prepared, so who pays for the shortfall? or will we now all work till 120 years of age and have maybe 30 yrs retirement?

      Apart from calling me Barnaby, what point do you think you made? and how do you think you answered my question?

      Also what impact will our newfound longevity have on AGW/ACC? and the dangers of Carbon Pollution.

    • marley says:

      05:54pm | 26/10/11

      I think the point is here, that, with all these wonderful advances in science, we could all be perfectly healthy and able to work until we’re in our early 100s.  Quite frankly, the thought of spending 80 years in the workforce isn’t all that appealing.

    • Ian1 says:

      08:12am | 26/10/11

      It would be like the good old days.  Living in favour, in relationship with the kind of love only the greatest of Grandparents fully understand.

      Of course, the first generation to achieve it would own just about everything.  That’s the nature of compound interest.

      Reply

    • MarkS says:

      08:30am | 26/10/11

      Life expenctancy of 55 to 59 years did not mean that most people could expect to live to around 55 to 59 years. it meant that a lot of people died when young.

      You are comparing apples & oranges.

      Reply

    • martin says:

      08:36am | 26/10/11

      I can see a 150 year old Murdoch still clinging to power.
      A brain encased in a futurama scenario.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      09:09am | 26/10/11

      Why in god’s name would anyone want to live til they were 150 years? Our world is overpopulated enough as it is without more geriatrics draining our precious resources.No thanks.

      Reply

    • Tina says:

      10:53am | 26/10/11

      I am not even thirty and already feel like I am running out of time. So if I could get to 150 and still fit I would love to.

    • MD says:

      09:14am | 26/10/11

      Unless we have robot limbs and space travel, there’s not much reason for me to live to 150.

      Reply

    • magpie says:

      12:19pm | 26/10/11

      “You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.” - Woody Allen

      I live my life by this quote!

      Reply

    • dancan says:

      01:15pm | 26/10/11

      If we lived to be 150 expect to see 100 year loans, other than the rich we’d all live in debt forever

      Reply

    • Please help the Needy Rich says:

      01:51pm | 26/10/11

      in 1908, the world population reached two billion people and in 2011, the world population reaches seven billion people ( Nov 1 2011)
      In 1908, the life expectancy was 55 years old for males and 59 years for females.In 2011, the life expectancy is 78 years for males 84 years for females!
      So in 2108, how many people will there be and how long will they live?
      25 Billion people living to 105 years male and 112 years female ??

      Reply

    • marley says:

      05:55pm | 26/10/11

      Well, look at it this way - they’re probably not going to be having kids at the age of 125.

    • Svetlana says:

      01:53pm | 02/06/12

      Lance Meadows Posted on   I been telling myelsf since last night I think I want to go for a jog this evening; its been a while .  This post must be a sign that I really do need to throw on my running shoes also and hit the track (especially since I missed National Running Day) tonite.  Thanks for the inspiration Leslie!

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter