70 years: this is the average global life expectancy today, compared to 47 years in 1950. An unprecedented leap forward in the history of humanity, which testifies to the success of the first longevity revolution: defeating the diseases that killed us prematurely. But now, warns the economist Andrew Scott in his latest book “The Longevity Imperative” coming out on April 23rd, it's time for a second revolution. A revolution perhaps even more ambitious: not only living longer, but aging better. Because if it is true that we are destined to become older and older, the real challenge is to reach old age in health, autonomy and fullness. A challenge that requires a scientific, medical, economic and cultural paradigm shift. Welcome to the era of "longevity 2.0", can I tell you something?
Beyond the limit
Until a few decades ago, growing old was a luxury for a few. Wars, famines, epidemics decimated humanity long before wrinkles furrowed faces. Today, at least in the developed world, old age is a common, almost predictable horizon. In the UK, one in two children has an excellent chance to blow out ninety candles. A triumph of longevity which however brings with it new existential challenges.
Because if it is true that we have gained years of life, the same cannot be said about the quality of these extra years. On the contrary: Today, the longer we live, the more we accumulate ailments and illnesses. Cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, senile dementia, tumors: the lowest common denominator is age. Old age still too often rhymes with decadence, dependence, loneliness. A fate to which we seem condemned, as if it were an inevitable tax on the gift of longevity. Some even say they prefer it: absurd, true, friends of Right to full health – against lethal ethics and rhetoric? (Read them, they deserve it! They didn't pay me, I say this spontaneously).
But are we sure it has to be like this? That aging is an immutable and inevitable process, to which we can only resign ourselves? Andrew Scott doesn't fit. And he launches a radical provocation: what if the real frontier was not to extend lifespan, but to slow down the rate at which we age? What if the mission of longevity wasn't just adding years to life, but life to years?
A question of age (biological)
For Scott, the key is to distinguish between chronological age and biological age. The first it is the one that marks the identity card, the number of springs we have behind us. The second it is what our organs and tissues "feel", the wear accumulated at a cellular level. And, as you know, the two do not always coincide.
There are seventy-year-olds who have more determination and clarity than me and my 48 springs. And 48 year olds with an eighty year old body (not my case, except on Mondays). Thanks (or fault) to the genes, of course, but also to lifestyle, nutrition, physical exercise, and experiences. Factors that can speed up or slow down our biological clock, regardless of our age. And this is where a glimmer of hope opens up. Because if aging is not an inevitable destiny written in DNA, but a dynamic and malleable process, then perhaps we can intervene to modulate it. Not to stop it or reverse it (that, at least for now, remains an alchemical dream), but to slow it down and cushion its most deleterious effects. Longevity 2.0, amigo.
As? By studying in depth the biological mechanisms that regulate aging. Identifying the molecular circuits that become jammed with age, the inflammatory processes that are triggered, the cells that lose vitality. And then looking for ways to repair them, deactivate them, regenerate them. A bit like you do with a vintage car: you can't prevent it from aging, but with careful maintenance you can make it run well and for a long time.
Longevity, a young science for an aging society
I present to you “Geroscience”, the emerging discipline that studies the common factors of aging to prevent or treat associated diseases. A fascinating and complex challenge, which is catalyzing huge investments and brilliant talents.
From stem cells to organoids, from immunomodulators to the "scavengers" of deteriorated cells: the lines of research are multiplying, with promising results (even if still largely preclinical). The immediate goal is not immortality, but healthier and less medicalized aging. Gaining years of youth, as Scott calls them.
A revolutionary perspective, which opens up new scenarios. If we could slow down biological aging even a little, the impact on global health would be enormous. One study estimates that extend by just one year average life expectancy in the United States would generate benefits for 38 trillion dollars. Figures that make the GDP of entire nations pale in comparison.
But the advantages would not only be economic. They would be above all human. Because a population that ages well is a more active, productive and independent population. Less burdened by disability and loneliness. More capable of putting his wealth of experience and wisdom to good use. In other words: a society that is not only longer-lived, but more vital and cohesive.
A 360 degree revolution
Let's be clear: the road is still long. It is fraught with obstacles, not only scientific, but also ethical, social and cultural. How can we guarantee equal access to anti-aging therapies, preventing them from being a privilege for the few? How can we adapt the health, pension and employment systems to a population that is aging more slowly? How to fight the negative stereotypes that still weigh on old age?
These are crucial questions, which require far-sighted and shared answers. A governance of aging that involves all the actors involved: from research to politics, from industry to the third sector, from the media to citizens. Because longevity is not just a medical or demographic issue: it is a systemic challenge, which challenges our way of conceiving life, death and time.
And it is here that Andrew Scott's reflections take on an almost philosophical value. They invite us to rethink aging not as a condemnation, but as an opportunity. To cultivate a positive and proactive vision of longevity, freeing it from the shadow of decrepitude and decline. To imagine a society in which growing old does not mean dragging yourself towards the end, but continuing to grow, learn, contribute.
New longevity, a virtuous circle
A society like this is not an unattainable utopia. It's a protopia. It is a goal within reach, if we know how to direct our resources and intelligence in the right direction. Because longevity, Scott reminds us, has an edge: it is a virtuous circle that feeds itself. The longer we live in health, the more we want to live longer. The more value we give to the years earned, the more we are willing to invest to earn more. This is the spring that can trigger a positive spiral of innovation and progress. An upward race between human ingenuity and biological limits, where what is at stake is our future as a species.
The longevity revolution places us at a crossroads. We can passively suffer aging, like an inescapable curse. Or we can actively embrace it, as an achievement to be valued and directed. We can be content with living longer. Or we can commit to living better, all the way.
Andrew Scott has no doubts: it's time to decisively take the second path. To accelerate on the path to longevity 2.0, with all the enthusiasm and audacity it requires. To make aging a choice, not a condemnation. A stage in a journey that is still long and yet to be written. Because after all, the final frontier isn't just about extending your life. It is to broaden the horizons of meaning and possibilities, at any age. It is moving the boundaries of what we consider human forward, until they coincide with those of our imagination. It is making longevity not just a gift to be accepted, but a feat to be embraced.
The greatest adventure that awaits us, in the boundless time before us.
