Polina Stepanova explores the practicalities faced by a society in which people are able to live to 200 years old. What would we do with all that spare time?
Christian Bale in Kurt Wimmer’s 2002 dystopian sci-fi film ‘Equilibrium’
Longevity is one of our many fixations – a uniquely human drive to survive and outlive others. We’re fascinated with immortal or long-life beings – vampires, elves, superheroes, mythological deities. From Doctor Who to Dorian Gray, the concept spans centuries of film and literature. But recent developments in medical science indicate that we’re serious about our intentions to make fiction a reality.
We’ve come a long way from ingesting mercury or bathing in milk to stay young – advancements in the medical field are now successfully increasing our average lifespan. From eradicating deadly diseases with nano-bots in our bloodstreams, to enabling our bodies to repair better with lab-grown organs.
It’s a field certainly worth investing in too. Sergey Young, a venture capitalist who runs the Longevity Vision Fund, knows this very well. His fund invests in ‘health-tech’ companies that harness the latest technologies and feed the public’s desire for longevity (and shiny gadgets). He says there’s a “extremely high probability” that he, and many of us will already live past 100.
So, let’s consider a thought experiment. Suddenly, everyone around us lives to 200. This nearly triples the former life expectancy of 71. Kids are now kids until the age of 50. The sudden increase in lifespan prompts some interesting thoughts about the world of education and work. An increase in a school curriculum of 30-odd years, followed by an potentially more than a hundred years of working life makes us wonder how the established structures could change. But are some of those changes already here with us in 2022?
Sergey Young of the Longevity Vision Fund
It’s important to note that longevity may pose a few challenges too. Being alive for longer may not mean being healthy for the entire time. Keeping tabs on our physical and mental health will become imperative. The cynics and optimists can all agree it’s in the interest of a company to keep their employees happy. Though the cynics might say this is so they don’t begin sympathising with the protagonists of Office Space. Company-wide lunchtime yoga and meditation sessions don’t really help with burnout today, let alone in a world where our working lives are at least doubled. It’s an issue to take seriously both today and in the future. Apart from mental health, the fringes of the physical ‘health’ industry is likely to have a field day with a world of people living to 200. I shudder to think how early – and for how long – we’d start to use anti-aging creams.
Another concern is boredom – which, I think, would become much more of a concern. Driven by the abundance of everything online, already designed to keep you scrolling could make it hard to keep passions or motivations alive. If our boredom grows too large, responses could vary from the violent to the reliant on stimulants or obsessions to keep us going – legal or otherwise. The film Equilibrium gives us a glimpse of the world this could create. The increase in time available does mean we could have more time to work on our passions and/or find them.
But would this pose a problem for governments who find themselves ordering an increasingly restless and scrutinising public. In Equilibrium, any fallout with the system’s subjects is pre-empted and nullified by a population numbed by compulsory medication that removes any emotional ability from the human. This is the opaque and obviously interfering style of governance found in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, as opposed to the softer tyranny masquerading as freedom in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
We don’t need no ‘education’
The education system as we know it would struggle to remain relevant for humans living to 200. Most would agree that ‘school’ exists to give everyone the same ‘basic’ knowledge of the world, and to prepare students for the world of work. There’s an opportunity here to widen this definition. Maybe we could include topics that are highly applicable to adult life but aren’t always ‘taught’. These topics could include basic economics and budgeting, taxation and laws, basics of cyber-security and online safety, critical thinking and philosophy, even teamwork and leadership.
We aren’t properly taught how to learn or how memory and recall works – perhaps there’s now time for this. There’s also more time to learn multiple languages, or go abroad on exchange programmes to see the world and learn in a different environment. On a positive note, this extended curriculum may mean that more people around the world reach a ‘basic’ level of reading and writing, too.
A blend of study and work could become the accepted balance. There are hints today for this shift. From apprentices working full-time at companies while finishing degrees, to part-time MBAs and Master’s degrees, education is becoming a parallel to working life. The abundance of high-quality, free educational content online also makes it easier to be a lifelong learner than ever before.
Online certificates may not equate to a university degree today, but this is likely to change as reputable organisations begin to offer fully online courses and certifications. Perhaps after school and/or university people could continue their academic pursuits - but now sponsored by their employers or through government grants.
Tech pioneers such as Elon Musk have warned of the dangers posed by chasing immortality through technology
Work hard, play harder
Gone are the days of working in one company for most of one’s adult life, we say to ourselves – as the younger generations embark on the ‘Great Resignation’ to find what they want their working life to look like. Similarly to education, the sudden increase in lifespan could shift our notions of what work is – and should be.
The latest topics of conversation will need answers, fast – whether automation will free up more meaningful jobs, whether universal basic income could work, or indeed whether a five-day workweek is still relevant (we’re testing this right now in Britain!). The 150-year-old worker’s demands for work-life balance and a meaningful existence could drastically change the way we see work. Should work provide meaning to someone’s life? Is there even enough ‘work’ to go around if we’re all living to 200, and will our need to be productive create even more ‘bullshit jobs’?
One way to go is for the 150-year-old worker to have a CV that looks like more of a portfolio of work they’ve completed, projects they’ve done backed up with references, and a list of their skills they’ve been honing for decades – all the while being without loyal links to one company in particular. They can become “T-shaped people” who have a solid knowledge base and a skill, but also a variety of other tangential knowledge and expertise.
They could work remotely (those who can), could make the week a blend of “traditional” work, studying and personal projects. Further, the rise of remote work could grant the possibility to some to travel while working or studying (I wouldn’t mind living on a sunny island for six months of the year myself).
Why should we care?
Not everyone is on board with living forever. Elon Musk has stated that tech that makes us immortal is “dangerous” – because we wouldn’t be able to innovate and act on new ideas. Bill Gates has also called the pursuit an “egocentric” one, stating that chasing longer lives will only create a new layer of social inequality.
Still, it seems inevitable that we will soon be in a world of living longer, for better or worse. Sergey Young says that “the biggest obstacle for us living longer is not going to be science – it’s gonna be ethics, regulation”. It’s important we talk about its implications to better prepare ourselves and our descendants for this new reality – and all its moral and philosophical implications. Speak about it to a friend – who knows, maybe either of you will live to 200 yourselves.
