Will you live to age 100?

Short answer: No. Very likely, you won’t.

Over the course of the twentieth century, human life expectancy at birth rose in high-income nations by approximately 30 years, largely driven by advances in public health and medicine.

In 1990, it was hypothesized that humanity was approaching an upper limit to life expectancy (the limited lifespan hypothesis). A new study1 published in Nature Aging suggests that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that most newborns today will live to age 100.

Over the course of the twentieth century, human life expectancy at birth rose in high-income nations by approximately 30 years, largely driven by advances in public health and medicine. Mortality reduction was observed initially at an early age and continued into middle and older ages. However, it was unclear whether this phenomenon and the resulting accelerated rise in life expectancy would continue into the twenty-first century. Here using demographic survivorship metrics from national vital statistics in the eight countries with the longest-lived populations (Australia, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) and in Hong Kong and the United States from 1990 to 2019, we explored recent trends in death rates and life expectancy. We found that, since 1990, improvements overall in life expectancy have decelerated. Our analysis also revealed that resistance to improvements in life expectancy increased while lifespan inequality declined and mortality compression occurred. Our analysis suggests that survival to age 100 years is unlikely to exceed 15% for females and 5% for males, altogether suggesting that, unless the processes of biological aging can be markedly slowed, radical human life extension is implausible in this century.

Average annual change in life expectancy at birth (in years), by decade,in nine populations with the highest life expectancy and the United States: 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. (Fig, 1 Op. Cit)
Observed percent survival to age 100 (males and females) in the eight countries with the longest-lived populations and in Hong Kong and the United States (1990–2019). (Fig. 2 Op. Cit.)
Required survival dynamics to ages 100, 122 and 150 for Japanese females and with radical life extension. Evidence for radical life extension requires a mortality distribution that is dramatically different from observed mortality distributions observed among the longest-lived human populations (denoted by A). A mortality distribution for a population experiencing radical life extension today requires just over one-fourth of the birth cohort surviving beyond the age of the maximum lifespan for the species (denoted by B). Approximately 6–7% of the birth cohort would need to survive to age 150 to achieve radical life extension (denoted by C).

____________________

Olshansky, S. Jay, Bradley J. Willcox, Lloyd Demetrius, and Hiram Beltrán-Sánchez. ‘Implausibility of Radical Life Extension in Humans in the Twenty-First Century’. Nature Aging 4, no. 11 (November 2024): 1635–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-024-00702-3.

(Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.)

2 comments

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.