Discover more from The Pulse
New Study: Humans Could Live To Be 150
In our modern world today, aside from all talk of "living forever as a result of impending technological advancements," those in more developed countries might peg our life expectancy to be about 80 or 85 years of age. And that's not unreasonable when you consider the average global life expectancy is 72.6 years of age according to the UN.
We've heard the stories of the 100+ year olds that seem to defy the odds, and many have sought to understand what it is about their lifestyle and mindset that may have contributed to their long life. Rightly so as, at least for me, if I could live deep into my 100s with a good quality of life, why would I not want to?
The oldest person in history, according to accepted records, is a French woman named Jeanne Calment who lived to be 122. But I have heard many tales of people in places like India who are well into their 200s, even those as old as 400. Now of course this is not something I expect anyone to believe, and great claims require great proof, but according to locals I've had the chance to speak to, there are people who 'come down from the mountains' every once in a while, often naked, who are extremely old, and the towns' people are well aware of their stories.
If these stories are in fact true, can we even compare their life to ours? Allegedly these people live in remote areas of the Himalayas. They spend hours, days, and even weeks meditating in caves, with very little contact to people. They do not engage with the everyday stresses of life, both emotionally and physically, and who knows how much they are eating.
All of the factors mentioned above contribute to the breakdown of the physical body, and thus retreat our body's resilience and ability to maintain homeostasis - our normal physiological equilibrium. So even if these tales of multiple hundred year olds are true, is that attainable if we choose to engage with modern life? Something in me tells me yes, but I also think it would be incredibly hard to pull off.
That said, a new study was published in 2021 that looked at life span and sought to determine how long humans could possibly live.
As the scientists outline in the abstract of the study,
"We observed, that the age-dependent population DOSI distribution broadening could be explained by a progressive loss of physiological resilience measured by the DOSI auto-correlation time. Extrapolation of this trend suggested that DOSI recovery time and variance would simultaneously diverge at a critical point of 120 - 150 years of age corresponding to a complete loss of resilience. The observation was immediately confirmed by the independent analysis of correlation properties of intraday physical activity levels fluctuations collected by wearable devices. We conclude that the criticality resulting in the end of life is an intrinsic biological property of an organism that is independent of stress factors and signifies a fundamental or absolute limit of human lifespan."
As much as 150 years according to this study, and previous studies suggested as much as 140. So from a strictly scientific perspective, scientists seem to feel OK in suggesting that the human body function, its cells and tissues, can perhaps last that long. Both studies cite advancement in technology as the means by which people can live longer.
Up until now, this meant improving overall sanitation, nutrition, medicine, etc. But we are heading into a new era, and it's posing interesting questions about what it means to be human.
I have been reading Klaus Schwab's The Fourth Industrial Revolution. I had to. Here's a man who heads the World Economic Forum, and is a key player behind The Great Reset, a radical plan from the minds of the world's political and financial elite, that sets forth a new future for humanity.
In my 13 years of research as a philosopher and investigative journalist, now with a growing trauma background, I've come to understand that many of the challenges we have today have a great deal to do with the lust for power a small group of people are obsessed with maintaining, and the general worldview that guides our culture and how it moves into the future. Further, when you take into consideration the level of disconnection that exists in the average person from their body and authentic self, as brought on by experience and culture, why our world is the way it is becomes clear. Note, my overall philosophy in no way blames 'those at the top' for the world's problems, we all go along with this, but it important to note the role they play.
But enough on that for now.
Schwab's book outlines a vision of transhumanism for humanity's near future. Taking technology and things like artificial organs and combining it with the human body to create, what could be, massive advancements in longevity and 'quality of life.' But it would require a radical shift in what it means to be human. For example, Schwab suggests we can raise genetically modified pigs with organs we can harvest that can successfully be put into humans needing organ transplants. This, instead of asking bigger questions like why is our world so polluted? Why is our food quality so bad? Why do we work people to the bone? Why are mental health challenges an obvious pandemic?
The worldview of these 'elite' don't seem to align with creating a better world where humans can truly thrive, instead, they seem to edge on keeping with an overall story of separation and competition, one that enforces a way of economic life obsessed with constant growth, and production. And to fix the ailing bodies that come as a result of that slavery, artificial organs and technology.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm asking does this make the most sense? Does this resemble a culture connected to the sacredness of body and earth? Or is it one that is domineering and as it creates a path of avoidable destruction, it throws more disconnection in an attempt to solve the problem?
We can create a radical shift in our human story that tends towards a thriving world. If we are going to "reset" our entire system, why stick so closely to our old ways?
What direction would you choose?