In WaPo Piece Gerontologists Tell Us How To Live To 100 - But No Word About Working To That Age

 

The Latest WaPo 'Healthy Optimist'  story e.g.   

​​Want to live to be 100? Here’s what experts recommend

Has terrific stuff in it galore, to appeal to the brains of all the vegan leaf eaters, non-smokers, non-drinkers and marathon runners.  Starting out by citing the case of Sister André, a French Catholic nun born Lucile Randon, who was the world’s oldest living person, but recently died at the age of 118. Then we learn:

"Now the two oldest living people are believed to be María Branyas Morera, a 115-year-old Spanish woman born in the United States, and Fusa Tatsumi, who lives in Osaka, Japan, who is also 115 but 52 days younger than Morera, according to a database by the Gerontology Research Group."

Pardon me, but who cares?  Yes, as the author claims, these health and aging "experts" predict that the number of centenarians will continue to rise in the coming decades. But ask yourself: Is that good?  I don't believe so, and that's not merely because my own lifespan is likely to be abbreviated before I reach 80 - thanks to metastatic prostate cancer.  

From my point of view and seeing how much the medical treatments, tests etc. have cost so far(over $110,000 since 2012, paid mostly by Medicare) it is going to lead to a medical spending catastrophe. One this nation, and most of the developed world, can't afford. Medicare is forecast to become insolvent in 3 years or less, given how Medicare Advantage is bleeding it dry, e.g.

Here is the Truth: Medicare Advantage Is Neither Medicare Nor an Advantage

We further learn that based on a 2022 estimate by the United Nations, there are 593,000 centenarians around the world now and "it's a fast-growing age group". The United Nations projects there will be 3.7 million centenarians alive by 2050. Complicates retirement? You better believe it.  Even if most of these high elder millions remain relatively healthy they will still have to deal with arthritis, mobility issues, and cancers that accompany old age.  They will need home care and assistance. 

 

This is relevant again as too many are being deluded into pop-eyed foolishness published in the form of bunkum in the mainstream media.  In this case how you too can live to be 100+ just like a 105 y/o lady sprinter (Ida Keeling) on the cover of one Sunday's PARADE from a few years ago.  Folks, do not be deceived by such fanciful longevity B.S. This lady is the exception and not the rule, similar to one Orville Rogers (another centenarian) featured in a MONEY magazine issue from November, 2018, e.g.

Then noting he "retired at age 60" according to the piece, after decades in a high- paying, sweet bread desk job. . The authors of the piece then went on to admit retirement planners "are losing sleep" over the amount ($195k)  most 60- year olds currently have socked away.   This interjects the issue of how super elderly folks will live - if they lack a cushy pension, health care benefits and other support.    As the MONEY article registers the potential inflation:

"At just 2 percent inflation the gallon of milk that cost you $3.75 today will cost you $6.79 in 30 years."

That means  a 65 year old today will need to sock away at least $5 million in a nest egg to be able to live to at least 100 years - and that assumes only one nursing home stay (or nursing assistance at home)  of no more than 6 months.  And that is one time over the balance of her life, i.e. duration of 35 years.

It is  indeed this  aspect of financing any extended longevity these  longevity research geniuses (and most gerontologists) never broach, or provide practical solutions.  How will the super elderly then maintain financial security and their implied independence until they finally shuffle this mortal coil?  These are pertinent questions given Social Security  will reduce benefits 25% by 2035 and Medicare faces insolvency by 2026 - meaning many seniors will face having to enter privatized plans. Neither of the articles in PARADE, or MONEY or an earlier one in TIME  (March, 2015)e.g.


Address any of these matters, choosing to nibble around the edges with impractical baloney, babble and "hope" i.e. "corporations will have to change" which is not a plan.  WHO is going to make them change? A 105 year old granny who likes to do sprints? Give me a break.

Even if these "super ager" elderly somehow managed to find a company that'd hire them to work until at least 90 or so, it's still doubtful they'd amass enough money for future self-support. Given increased health care costs-  the fastest rising aspect of the national budget  ( and no end in sight) -  most people would probably need to at least win a state lotto of ten million to be able to live to 120 without being in penury or familial dependence.  And at least $2 million to live to 100 without raiding dumpsters and eating pet food. But why don't those gerontologists feeding you the super ager claptrap tell you any of that? Why would they? It kind of  adds a buzzkill aspect to their hype of being able to reach 100.  (Which to me means those "lacking the right genes" are likely better off.)

TIME - in its own take- wrongly  assumes in its prologue to the initial piece that: "Everyone wants to live longer", but that desire comes with caveats galore for rational folks . For example, why would anyone today,  at say age 67 or 68,  want to live to even 100 when numerous "hells" are set to be unleashed especially as climate change hits numerous tipping points?  These are projected to lead to drying up of all water reserves in the West and collapse of power grids amidst 6-month long heat waves.  Think of being trapped in a baking home - ambient temperature of 100-105F -and no a/c and possibly no water either?  Really want to live to 100 to enjoy that?

If you think the climate hiccups being experienced now - including the constant polar vortex intrusions, once in a century floods, January F5 tornadoes and superstorms - are a big deal, stay tuned for the first year of no seasons and ensuing heat waves lasting 90-120 days with mean temperatures 100-110F. Even before then, say by 2025-2030 we will likely see electrical blackouts over extended periods, water shutdowns (or breakdowns of decaying urban water delivery systems, since we haven't done shit to repair them) and even power grids collapsing from excess demand - with tens of millions trying to "stay cool",  keeping thermostats at 81F.

You really want to stretch your years out to live in those conditions?  REALLY? Well sure, the richest one percent will because they can afford to - living in their golden -gated condos in Aspen far from the decaying cities that will have no backup power.   But again, where would you get the money to support yourself even if you wanted to live so long and possessed the genes needed to enhance the odds?   

Not being said or published:  The super agers shown in the media pieces are all either independently wealthy or have external sources of income to support their lifestyles. Ida Keeling, for example, is blessed with a "real estate investor" youngest daughter who regularly infuses her bank account.  What about the oldsters who have no banker or real estate investor offspring?

Getting away from the exceptions like Orville Rogers and Sprinter lady Ida Keeling , we know geezers use up more expensive medical care than any other demographic, up to $500m / yr. of which $150 million is spent in the final month of  life.  Consider: In the 10 years since the last financial crisis that works out to a total of $1.5 billion spent in the final month of life. 

Add to that the fact that aging in a rapidly climate change environment is not like aging in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s. The prospect of collapsing systems across the board means soaring inflation and that many more resources will be needed by the advanced age citizen.  The climate warming environment itself translates into more frequent infections many triggered by antibiotic resistance, as well as worm-parasite infections, e.g. of human brains (mostly the poorest):

                                Brain of poor Haitian riddle with worm cysts

None of the gerontologists in the WaPo article seriously address that 'elephant' sitting in the room. Or the prospect that if you lack adequate financial support in old age you are likely to end up destitute, living in squalor and with a worm-infested brain like the poor Haitian's above.

Fortunately, facing off against the longevity nuts we have another realist and strong rationalist,  the late Barbara Ehrenreich, who has been trying to get more elderly to raise their consciousness regarding death. To treat it as a transition and not something to be feared and despised, e.g

As she puts it in one of the best pieces to appear in The Nation, '(The Great Equalizer', October, 2018, p. 32):

"No matter how much effort we expend, not everything is potentially within our control, not even our own bodies and minds. In death we will once again be equals - and so an egalitarian politics also means accepting this outcome.

You can think of death bitterly or with resignation, as a tragic interruption of your life, and take every possible means to postpone it.  Or, more realistically, you can think of life as an interruption of  an eternity of personal nonexistence, and seize it as a brief opportunity to observe and interact with the living, ever surprising world around us."

Of course, most Americans are squeamish in terms of death - even discussing it, tending toward euphemisms- and more likely to buy into the codswallop of the longevity researchers.

See Also:

Pursuing "Immortality" & Treating Aging As A "Disease": The Province of Cranks And Quacks 

And:

• Healthy Eating-Living Leads To Massive Medical Costs Later...