The Days of Our Years
"The days of our years are 70 years..."
Psalm 90, verse 9
"And God said......'Man is but flesh, and his days shall be 120 years'."
Genesis 6:3
Taken together, I understand these two verses to mean that a typical lifespan will be about 70 years, but that the upper bound on human life is about 120 years; this was the lifetime of Moses, which is why Jews bless each other with the words "Till 120!"
It is remarkable that the actuarial data of our time confirm these two numbers: the average lifespan in the US and other developed countries is about 75 years, and the oldest ages that can be confirmed by the Guinness Book of World Records are about 120 years.
American lifespans have increased nearly 60 percent (from about 47 to 75) over the past hundred years, largely due to eradication of infectious diseases (such as diphtheria and tuberculosis) as major causes of early death. During the past few decades, the moderate reduction in smoking (from about 30% of men in 1964 to about 25% today) and improvements in health care have also contributed to increased longevity.
But now a new drug called "resveratrol" (1), derived from an ingredient of red wine, offers the prospect of extending lifespan by up to forty percent by slowing the natural aging process. (2) Drinkers of red wine have been noted to experience less heart disease than others of their age with the same diet, but only in the past two years have scientists been able to isolate the ingredient that seems to produce the beneficial effect.
It has been known for decades that experimental animals whose caloric intake is reduced by about one third live up to 40% longer than those fed a normal diet. It is probable, though not experimentally verified, that humans could also live longer by eating a lot less. People who subsist on a low-calorie diet because of poverty are typically exposed to other unhealthy conditions (such as poor sanitation and lack of immunizations), so that longer lifespans are not conspicuous among them. In prosperous countries, very few people would undergo many years of hunger voluntarily just to see if they might live longer.
The developers of resveratol contend that the drug duplicates the effect of caloric restriction on the aging process of human cells. Field tests are now underway to determine if the drug is safe and effective, so that it can be marketed. It is possible that resveratrol will be approved by the FDA within the next three years. (3)
Besides a humongous pay-off for the developers of the new drug, what would be the social and economic consequences of a substantial increase in human longevity?
1. Medicare. Even if resveratrol reduces the incidence of many diseases related to aging (cancer, heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's), people would need medical care for a longer time, so that the cost of program would increase bigtime. Medicare is a threat to the federal budget right now, with stable lifespans, and would really balloon with longer lives.
2. Social Security. The taxes that support the program were originally based on the typical recipient collecting benefits for about two years, since the average American lifespan in the mid-Thirties was only 67 years. These taxes have been raised several times since, and the age for collecting full benefits has already been increased to about 67 years for new retirees.
If any anti-aging drug increases lifespan by "x" years, the age for obtaining full benefits will have to increase by the same "x" years. The trouble is that if the percentage of older voters increases substantially, the pressure in Congress against boosting the age of eligibility will increase too. AARP is already the most powerful lobby in Washington; just imagine its power if living to 90 or even 100 becomes common in the future!
3. An older workforce. If people will have to work till age 70 or so to collect Social Security, the number of jobs available to new workers will diminish accordingly. Moreover, employees will have to wait longer for promotions, as 65-70 year-olds in senior positions stay put. On the other hand, health-care employment, especially in nursing homes and retirement facilities, will be an increasingly important source of new jobs.
Sure, we all want to live longer, but how will we confront the inevitable consequences of a major increase in longevity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A new firm, Sirtis Pharmaceuticals, is developing resveratrol.
(2) FierceBiotech website, October 30, 2006.
(3) CBS "Sixty Minutes", Jan. 25, 2009
Psalm 90, verse 9
"And God said......'Man is but flesh, and his days shall be 120 years'."
Genesis 6:3
Taken together, I understand these two verses to mean that a typical lifespan will be about 70 years, but that the upper bound on human life is about 120 years; this was the lifetime of Moses, which is why Jews bless each other with the words "Till 120!"
It is remarkable that the actuarial data of our time confirm these two numbers: the average lifespan in the US and other developed countries is about 75 years, and the oldest ages that can be confirmed by the Guinness Book of World Records are about 120 years.
American lifespans have increased nearly 60 percent (from about 47 to 75) over the past hundred years, largely due to eradication of infectious diseases (such as diphtheria and tuberculosis) as major causes of early death. During the past few decades, the moderate reduction in smoking (from about 30% of men in 1964 to about 25% today) and improvements in health care have also contributed to increased longevity.
But now a new drug called "resveratrol" (1), derived from an ingredient of red wine, offers the prospect of extending lifespan by up to forty percent by slowing the natural aging process. (2) Drinkers of red wine have been noted to experience less heart disease than others of their age with the same diet, but only in the past two years have scientists been able to isolate the ingredient that seems to produce the beneficial effect.
It has been known for decades that experimental animals whose caloric intake is reduced by about one third live up to 40% longer than those fed a normal diet. It is probable, though not experimentally verified, that humans could also live longer by eating a lot less. People who subsist on a low-calorie diet because of poverty are typically exposed to other unhealthy conditions (such as poor sanitation and lack of immunizations), so that longer lifespans are not conspicuous among them. In prosperous countries, very few people would undergo many years of hunger voluntarily just to see if they might live longer.
The developers of resveratol contend that the drug duplicates the effect of caloric restriction on the aging process of human cells. Field tests are now underway to determine if the drug is safe and effective, so that it can be marketed. It is possible that resveratrol will be approved by the FDA within the next three years. (3)
Besides a humongous pay-off for the developers of the new drug, what would be the social and economic consequences of a substantial increase in human longevity?
1. Medicare. Even if resveratrol reduces the incidence of many diseases related to aging (cancer, heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's), people would need medical care for a longer time, so that the cost of program would increase bigtime. Medicare is a threat to the federal budget right now, with stable lifespans, and would really balloon with longer lives.
2. Social Security. The taxes that support the program were originally based on the typical recipient collecting benefits for about two years, since the average American lifespan in the mid-Thirties was only 67 years. These taxes have been raised several times since, and the age for collecting full benefits has already been increased to about 67 years for new retirees.
If any anti-aging drug increases lifespan by "x" years, the age for obtaining full benefits will have to increase by the same "x" years. The trouble is that if the percentage of older voters increases substantially, the pressure in Congress against boosting the age of eligibility will increase too. AARP is already the most powerful lobby in Washington; just imagine its power if living to 90 or even 100 becomes common in the future!
3. An older workforce. If people will have to work till age 70 or so to collect Social Security, the number of jobs available to new workers will diminish accordingly. Moreover, employees will have to wait longer for promotions, as 65-70 year-olds in senior positions stay put. On the other hand, health-care employment, especially in nursing homes and retirement facilities, will be an increasingly important source of new jobs.
Sure, we all want to live longer, but how will we confront the inevitable consequences of a major increase in longevity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A new firm, Sirtis Pharmaceuticals, is developing resveratrol.
(2) FierceBiotech website, October 30, 2006.
(3) CBS "Sixty Minutes", Jan. 25, 2009
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:41 AM
1 comments
