In 2020, researchers in the United States and China extended the lives of worms fivefold by altering their genes, and the result has invited a larger question about whether human life might one day be stretched in the same way. The wise reader will notice how far a few-weeks-long nematode is from a species that lives for decades, and how much of the human story is already the story of longer lives, with birth rates falling as health improves. Yet the deeper inquiry is not whether we can live longer, but who should be granted those years, and whether they will be lived well. Its answer points a
Should We Stop Chasing Longer Lives? The Case for Restraint on Radical Life Extension
In short, nobody should expect to live to 500.
Mark
Why does a worm study sit at the start of a piece about human lifespans?
Mimi
Because it's the headline hope. In 2020, US and Chinese scientists got worms to live five times longer by manipulating their genes, and humans share some of that genetic circuitry.
Luke
But worms live a few weeks. The piece itself says extrapolating to humans could be foolhardy, so that result doesn't carry us far.
Mark
Then what's the real argument?
Mimi
That the fear of overpopulation may be overstated. Where people live longer, birth rates tend to fall. Japan has a life expectancy of 84 and a birth rate near one.
Luke
Worth noting that's a correlation the piece draws from decades of experience, and Japan is one case. It doesn't prove longer lives cause fewer births.
Mark
And the UK figure about 100th birthdays?
Mimi
Around a third of four-year-olds are predicted to reach 100. That's a prediction, though, not a fact.
Luke
Right, and there's no indication those years would be healthy. The studies the piece mentions are mixed.
Mimi
Which is why the inequality point matters. Some African countries see deaths two or three decades earlier than Japan.
Luke
The piece doesn't say how fast drugs would spread. It suspects they'd reach poorer countries later. That's a reasonable worry, not a measured outcome.
Der Puls
- A five-fold lifespan gain in worms has sparked hopes that human ageing might be next, but the leap from a few-week creature to a species living decades is precarious.
- Fears of overpopulation and strained resources collide with evidence that longer lives in rich countries tend to coincide with falling birth rates.
- Japan stands as the sharpest example, with life expectancy near 84 and a birth rate close to one, fuelling debate over what a longer-lived society might look like.
- Health in those added years remains uncertain, since studies of rising life expectancy show mixed results on how well people age.
- The widening gap of two to three decades between rich and poor nations forces the question of who should receive life-extending advances first.
- The argument lands on fairness: raise life expectancy in lower-income regions first and ensure extra years are healthy, not a promise of centuries.
In 2020, researchers in the United States and China extended the lives of worms fivefold by altering their genes, and the result has invited a larger question about whether human life might one day be stretched in the same way. The wise reader will notice how far a few-weeks-long nematode is from a species that lives for decades, and how much of the human story is already the story of longer lives, with birth rates falling as health improves. Yet the deeper inquiry is not whether we can live longer, but who should be granted those years, and whether they will be lived well. Its answer points away from centuries of life and toward fairness, starting with the gap that still separates a child in a lower-income country from one in Japan.
In 2020, scientists in the United States and China made worms live five times longer by altering their genes. Because worms share some genetic circuitry with humans, the idea arose that drugs targeting those genes might someday extend human life. But worms live only a few weeks, and a result in such a short-lived animal is a shaky guide to a species that lives for decades. Nobody should expect to live to 500. The practical question is more modest: how much longer should we aim to live, and should old age be treated as a problem to cure rather than the natural end of life?
Humanity has already travelled far. Hunter-gatherers typically died before 40, while global life expectancy today is around 73. A common objection is that longer lives would worsen overpopulation and strain the planet. The record, however, suggests otherwise. As healthcare improves and people live longer, birth rates tend to fall, and many wealthy countries now have populations levelling off or shrinking.
Japan shows this most clearly, with life expectancy near 84 and a birth rate close to one. Yet longer life is not automatically healthier life, and studies show mixed results on how people fare in their added years.
Finally, the question of who benefits. Life expectancy in some African countries trails the Japanese by two or three decades, and life-extending advances will likely reach poorer nations later. The piece argues that fairness should set priorities: first raise life expectancy across lower-income regions, and ensure that longer lives remain healthy and happy to the end.
In 2020, scientists in the United States and China managed something that sounds like the start of a science-fiction plot: by manipulating their genes, they got nematode worms to live five times longer than normal. Worms are a standard tool in ageing research because humans share some of the same genetic circuitry, inherited through evolution. The suggestion that follows is that drugs aimed at those conserved genes might one day stretch the human lifespan too.
The leap is a long one. Worms live only a few weeks, and a result in an animal that short-lived is a shaky guide to a species that lasts decades. In short, nobody should expect to live to 500. The more practical question is a modest one: how much longer should we aim to live, and should we treat old age as a problem to be cured rather than the natural end of a life at around 73, today's average global life expectancy?
We have already travelled a long way. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors typically died before the age of 40. One objection to going further is overpopulation: more people living longer would need more resources and produce more waste, carbon emissions and pollution on a planet already stressed to breaking point.
The record so far does not bear that out. As people live longer, birth rates tend to fall, because people have fewer children and have them later. That has been happening for several decades as healthcare has improved. The global population is still growing, but more slowly than it once did, and in many richer countries, across Europe for example, populations are levelling off or shrinking as the birth rate, the average number of children per woman, drops below two.
Japan is the clearest example. Its life expectancy is among the world's highest, at 84 on average, while its birth rate is close to one. In the 1960s the rate was above two and life expectancy was below 70. If people had fewer children, the argument runs, we might all live as long as the Japanese do. Some of today's children are already on that path: in the UK, around a third of four-year-olds are predicted to reach 100.
Whether those extra years are worth wanting is a separate matter, because there is no sign they would be healthy ones. Studies from countries where life expectancy has risen show mixed results on how people fare in those added years.
Then there is the question of who benefits. The gap in life expectancy between richer and poorer countries suggests that life-extending drugs and technologies will reach lower-income nations later. People in some African countries die, on average, two or three decades before the Japanese. Given those disparities, the piece asks whether it is ethical for more people in wealthy countries, where we consume more resources, to live longer still.
Its answer is that fairness should set the order of priorities. The first aim should be raising life expectancy in Africa and the rest of the lower-income world, and making sure a longer life does not come at the cost of a healthy, happy one right to the end. That ethical focus, rather than any worm-derived promise of centuries, is where the argument points.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
The first aim should be to raise life expectancy in Africa and other lower-income regions, and ensure longer life doesn't cost a healthy, happy one.— BBC Science Focus Magazine feature
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei BBC Science Focus Magazine ↗
Science & Space