Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?
Dec 27, 2024
auto_awesome
In this engaging discussion, Peter Diamandis, founder of the XPRIZE Foundation and author of the "Longevity Guidebook", explores the transformative potential of longevity science to potentially add decades of healthy living. Meanwhile, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, bioethicist and oncologist, raises concerns about government funding for such research and the ethical implications it entails. Together, they debate the balance between pursuing technological solutions and the vital importance of lifestyle choices for enhanced healthspan, leaving listeners pondering the future of aging and well-being.
Longevity science aims to extend health span through technological advancements, which may alleviate economic pressures on healthcare due to aging populations.
Critics argue that prioritizing established healthy behaviors is more essential than uncertain technological breakthroughs for improving overall quality of life.
Deep dives
Defining Health Span vs. Lifespan
Health span refers to the number of years individuals can live free from major health issues, while lifespan is the total number of years lived. The gap between these two measures often results in individuals experiencing a decade or more of illness in their later years. The goal of longevity science is to close this gap, potentially adding 20 healthy years to life, particularly in the American population whose average life expectancy is around 79 years but has a health expectancy of only 60 to 63. The introduction of innovative technologies and therapies could play a critical role in helping individuals maintain their health for significantly longer periods.
Arguments for Government Funding in Longevity Research
Proponents argue that government funding for longevity science is essential as it may prevent a financial crisis in the healthcare system due to the aging population. With 63% of healthcare professionals believing that without breakthroughs in longevity research, the healthcare system may become financially unsustainable by 2030, investing in such research could lead to significant economic relief. By potentially reversing 20 years of health, estimates suggest the U.S. could see economic benefits ranging from $100 to $200 trillion over 20 years. Therefore, supporters emphasize that funding longevity science is not just about extending life but also about ensuring a healthier, more sustainable future for the economy.
Skepticism Towards Longevity Science
Opponents of extensive investment in longevity science argue that focusing on simply extending life may lead to individuals living longer but not necessarily fulfilled lives. They suggest that the emphasis should be on improving the quality of life for those who struggle with health issues currently, rather than extending years for those who are already healthy. Historical trends show that despite advances in medicine, the actual increases in healthy years of life have remained stagnant, and there are concerns over the potential overselling of technologies aimed at drastically altering lifespan. Instead, they advocate for established wellness practices that can enhance health span through lifestyle changes rather than reliance on groundbreaking but uncertain scientific advancements.
Behavior and Lifestyle as Key Factors
A significant point raised in the debate involves the importance of lifestyle choices and behavior as the primary drivers of health span rather than solely relying on new technologies. Established practices such as maintaining social connections, engaging in regular physical activity, and adopting a nutritious diet have proven to enhance life quality for extended periods. Critics contend that emphasizing technological solutions could deter individuals from adopting these fundamental health-promoting behaviors. By providing necessary education and resources, society can create environments that encourage healthy living, addressing the needs of the majority rather than focusing on high-tech solutions accessible only to a select few.
How long would you like to live, and could science and technology make it possible?
Longevity science aims to extend our healthy years through advancements in CRISPR, cellular reprogramming, and drug development. While private companies and philanthropists invest heavily in these innovations, should the government be responsible for funding these efforts? Those who say yes to government funding say that longevity research could revolutionize public health, keep aging populations productive in the workforce, and reduce the economic burden of age-related illnesses. Those opposed to public funding of longevity science say that true life extension beyond a decade might be unachievable, and it will take years before results are measurable.They argue that when and if these advances become available, they may only be for a smaller, affluent population. They also argue that long-known behavior choices like good nutrition and sleep should be adopted by all now, instead of chasing uncertain longevity advancements.
With this context, we debate the question: Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?
Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation; Announced theXPRIZE Healthspan Competiton; Author of "Longevity Guidebook"
Arguing No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Bioethicist; Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates