You Could Live To Age 150 Or More – And You’re Not Ready For It

Reading Time – 4 minutes

For most people in the civilized world, the average life expectancy is age 80 or so. Thus, 80 years is the number most people have in their heads when it comes to when they think they will die. A lot of people assume they will die much sooner than 80 due to their admission of their unhealthy lifestyle (“I drink a lot / smoke a lot / do a lot of drugs / eat a lot of crappy food so I’ll probably die when I’m 72 or something.”) as well as the overall negative attitude regarding the future many people have while living in the Collapsing West.

Here’s the part that most people don’t understand. The average life expectancy of age 80 is for people who are 80 years old right now, in the mid-2020s. 80 will not be your life expectancy because you won’t hit age 80 until many years in the future. By the time you hit that age, there will be all kinds of medical, biological, and technological advances that will have extended the average human lifespan beyond 80.

There’s an easy way to calculate this because we have hard data on this already. Average life expectancy was around age 47 in 1900 and today it’s about 80. That’s an increase of 33 years of lifespan in the last 124 years. This means that on average, for every year that goes by, humans in the developed world “get back” around 3.2 months in increased lifespan, meaning that by the time you’re old enough to die, these 3.2 months compound to increase your lifespan.

However, the rate of this lifespan growth has dramatically increased in the last few years, making this “get back time” is closer to 4 months a year today instead of the average over the past 124 years (1900 was a very long time ago when life was very different). So that means during the year 2024, you aged 1 year but only got 8 months closer to the day of your death.

To be clear, I’m not saying you age 8 months per year. I’m saying you get 8 months closer to death every year instead of 12. Aging and lifespan are two very different things. You can look like a very old, disgusting piece of shit for 50+ years and still live way past age 80.

This gets even better since the rate of this will continue to increase between today and the day you eventually die. When AI/AGI really kicks in (for better or worse) this is going to increase even faster (assuming AI doesn’t kill us all which is always a possibility).

So at some point in the future, every year you’ll only get 7 months closer to death, then 6, then 5, and so on. According to people like Ray Kurzweil, eventually, we will reach a point where for every 12 months that go by we will get zero months closer to death, meaning that statistically speaking, we will be immortal at that point with infinite lifespans, and the only way we could die would be through violence or accidents.

Then if you keep going, according to some, we’ll have negative months closer to death every year, meaning that we will start aging in reverse. I’ve been on record as stating that at some point in the future, everyone will look young and you’ll have no idea what anyone’s real age is because we’ll all look like we’re in our 20s or 30s.

The point I’m trying to get across to you is that you will NOT live to age 80 (on average). You’re going to live way, way past that.

For example, I’m 52. If you use the above math of 8 months to time to death every year, my average statistical life expectancy isn’t 80. It’s 94. And that’s assuming there will be zero increase in average life expectancy between now and 2066 when I turn 94.

This means that statistically speaking, I’m going to live well past age 100 with very little problem. Again, I said statistically speaking. Of course, I could die in some kind of plane crash or odd genetic disease before then, but you get my point.

Let’s say you’re 28 right now since many of you reading this are indeed that age or close to it. Doing the math, statistically speaking you’re going to live to age 106(!) if there are no new lifespan advances between now and the year 2102(!). And of course, there will be a lot of that, meaning you could easily live well past age 150.

Isn’t that crazy? And again, AI advancements that we know are coming could skew these numbers way beyond what I’m talking about here, meaning it’s not out of the question that you and I could live well past age 200, 300, or more.

If people alive right now are going to live 150 years or whatever, this changes everything for you. Here are some examples.

Right now, people have one or two big careers in life and that’s it. Historically if you were a doctor, you were only a doctor and nothing else for your whole life. You studied to become a doctor, then practiced as a doctor, then retired, then died.

But now, you can have multiple “big” careers in your life if you want. You could be an architect for 35 years then switch and become a doctor for another 35 years, then you could be a priest or something for another 20 years before you gave any thought to retirement. (And yes, if you think the AI overlords will take over by then and put us all out of business, sure, that could happen too.)

It will also change family dynamics in ways humans have never seen before. Instead of having one or two families in your lifetime, it’s going to be common for men and women to create three or four families or even more before they die.

This is already happening. Recently a bunch of people got upset that Gisele Bündchen very quickly got pregnant from her new boyfriend at age 44 after only recently divorcing Tom Brady with whom she already had three teenage children.

But wait a minute; lots of women are having babies in their 40s now. One of my sisters had a baby when she was 45. Many women I went to high school with had a baby or two in their 40s even though they already had other kids who were already teenagers or even in their early 20s.

You may not like that, but that’s what they’re doing, and you’re not going to stop them.

Hell, men have been starting two families since the 1990s. They father one family, get divorced, re-marry or re-hook up with a new woman, then have a new set of kids with her. Men have been doing this for 30 years because they can.

Now, women can too, and will be able to do more so as time goes on, just like men. Gisele is starting her second family because she can. Soon, women well into their 50s, 60s, and even older will be able to bear healthy children. You’re going to see women in addition to men start two, three, or even four families throughout their lifetimes.

It’s going to be wild. And those are just two changes out of many you’ll see when the average lifespan of a human is more than 150 years.

As usual, I don’t think people realize the amount of change we’re going to see in the human condition over the next several decades. Even with Western Collapse and people getting fatter and more unhealthy, you’re going to continue to see major increases in the human lifespan which is going to change everything, whether you like it or not.

Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.

9 Comments
  • Bitter pill
    Posted at 01:32 pm, 5th November 2024

    People better start making and saving some money cuz they are going to need it

  • Nail
    Posted at 02:48 pm, 5th November 2024

    I think you’re being a bit too optimistic here. These lifespan increases up to immortality will eventually happen, but they will very likely be stalled for decades or even centuries by stupid, selfish, and short-sighted people running governments across the world.

    The ancient Romans in 400 AD would have had the same level of technological advancement as Americans in the 1800s if their government leaders didn’t make a series of stupid decisions (impose lots of idiotic taxes and regulations) that stalled progress by over 1000 years.

  • Mo
    Posted at 05:56 am, 6th November 2024

    Even though I agree with most of the content you put out, on this topic I don’t. You assume that technology is always improving. But there are many instances where humanity has regressed. In 1969, humans landed on the Moon. Since 1972, haven’t done it. We used to have commercial supersonic flights with the Concorde; now in 2024, we don’t. A 100 years ago we already had electric cars, then they disappeared until they came back around the turn of this century. The earliest light bulbs still work; but modern ones, with planned obsolescence, break quickly. The same goes for almost all electrical appliances today, even clothing. 10 years ago, we used to have accurate Google search results, but now it’s trash – and AI is also giving trash responses. AI is an overhyped bubble that is ripe to burst. We are lightyears away from AGI. Tech leaders hype up those things to get funding. Elon Musk has been saying for 10 years that “next year” we’re going to have self-driving cars. In reality, they barely do their job on a highway but fail miserably in a city with many variables. Elon “Next Year” Musk has lost all credibility in my opinion.
    Health-wise it doesn’t look much better. People are sicker than ever before. Even children are on medications now for their chronic diseases. This was unheard of in the past. I know your argument is “We will live longer” and not necessarily “We will live without diseases.” But of what use is it for the economy to have even more sick old people who can’t be productive due to all their chronic diseases? I think life expectancy is decreasing, and that children born today will die around 70 or even 60 on average.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 09:07 am, 6th November 2024

    These lifespan increases up to immortality will eventually happen, but they will very likely be stalled for decades or even centuries by stupid, selfish, and short-sighted people running governments across the world.

    I think that’s very possible. I don’t know if it’s “likely” which would mean a 51% chance or higher; you’d have to provide evidence of that claim.

    The ancient Romans in 400 AD would have had the same level of technological advancement as Americans in the 1800s if their government leaders didn’t make a series of stupid decisions (impose lots of idiotic taxes and regulations) that stalled progress by over 1000 years.

    That is incorrect. But I agree politics and human nature is a slowing factor.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 09:15 am, 6th November 2024

    You assume that technology is always improving.

    Yes. Because it is.

    But there are many instances where humanity has regressed. In 1969, humans landed on the Moon. Since 1972, haven’t done it. We used to have commercial supersonic flights with the Concorde; now in 2024, we don’t. A 100 years ago we already had electric cars, then they disappeared until they came back around the turn of this century.

    You’re cherry-picking exceptions to the rule. As I always say, if the exception to the rule is the basis for your argument, then you don’t have one.

    Elon Musk has been saying for 10 years that “next year” we’re going to have self-driving cars. In reality, they barely do their job on a highway but fail miserably in a city with many variables. Elon “Next Year” Musk has lost all credibility in my opinion.

    That’s because Elon Musk is A) a liar and B) a businessman marketing a product and a brand. Don’t listen to his predictions. I don’t.

    I know your argument is “We will live longer” and not necessarily “We will live without diseases.”

    Bingo. That is correct. Lots of people are living longer but still age, look, and feel like shit and have horrible quality of life for many years before they die.

    But of what use is it for the economy to have even more sick old people who can’t be productive due to all their chronic diseases?

    That’s a completely separate topic, not the topic of this article, and has nothing to do with my point.

    I think life expectancy is decreasing, and that children born today will die around 70 or even 60 on average.

    Disagree completely and I’m at least 90% certain you’re wrong, but feel free to send me links that back up this claim and I’ll take a look at any hard data you have (if you any; I just think you’re guessing based on what you see around you today, and that’s what most people do).

  • Mo
    Posted at 12:04 am, 8th November 2024

    Your new blog platform doesn’t have a reply button, so I’m just going to put your comments in quotation signs.

    “You’re cherry-picking exceptions to the rule. As I always say, if the exception to the rule is the basis for your argument, then you don’t have one.”
    You were cherry-picking the Concorde and Moon landing part of my argument while completely ignoring what I said about planned obsolescence. These days, planned obsolescence is the norm, not the exception. You see it everywhere, in all end consumer products. That decrease in quality is the rule, not the exception.

    “That’s because Elon Musk is A) a liar and B) a businessman marketing a product and a brand. Don’t listen to his predictions. I don’t.”
    The same can be said about other tech CEOs as well. That’s why I don’t listen to their AI predictions either.

    “Disagree completely and I’m at least 90% certain you’re wrong, but feel free to send me links that back up this claim and I’ll take a look at any hard data you have (if you any; I just think you’re guessing based on what you see around you today, and that’s what most people do).”
    Ok, here are two links about declining life expectancy in the West:

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-life-expectancy-in-the-us-is-falling-202210202835

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/25/1164819944/live-free-and-die-the-sad-state-of-u-s-life-expectancy

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 08:30 pm, 8th November 2024

    You were cherry-picking the Concorde and Moon landing part of my argument while completely ignoring what I said about planned obsolescence. These days, planned obsolescence is the norm, not the exception.

    Planned obsolescence is not the same as technology not improving.

    The same can be said about other tech CEOs as well. That’s why I don’t listen to their AI predictions either.

    I agree more or less. I listen to the nerd experts like Ray Kurzweil instead of CEOs.

    Regarding your links, the first link is only during the pandemic only factors in COVID-19 which won’t have any affect on longevity 50+ years from now.

    Regarding your 2nd link, it’s mostly about child mortality, not how long adults live.

  • Alexander Romanov
    Posted at 12:30 am, 12th November 2024

    While I totally agree with article in general, this part:
    “Average life expectancy was around age 47 in 1900 and today it’s about 80”

    Is kinda problematic. As LE =/= “Age healthy adult is expected to live to”. LE is counted at birth, which instantly piles up infant & child mortality into question. Prehistoric humans had LE ~20, 30 at best. Many still lived to become grandparents.

    Cool illustration is Figure 3 from this article about modern pre-agriculture societies – https://gurven.anth.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.anth.d7_gurven/files/sitefiles/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

    It shows that with each passing year, if you survive, your LE goes down less than a year even assuming little to no medical tech – and at age 15 humans have pretty decent chances to live long. Those chances would be hugely improved with oncoming technology and possibly go upwards in time

    I kinda dislike life expectancy statistics as it is so hard to find aggregated data on LE15 at very least, which I’d guess went roughly like this:
    +25 (40) years in prehistory
    +35 (50) years until ~1800
    +45 (60) years in 1900
    +65 (80) years in 2000

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 07:57 am, 12th November 2024

    Yes someone else already pointed this out. This article is aimed (mostly) at people who are already adults, especially people who are adults right now, so LE of two-year-olds or whatever, whether high or low, isn’t relevant to my point.

Post A Comment