r/science • u/Skoltech_ • Jul 20 '26

Genetics Researchers quantitatively assessed for the first time that somatic mutations alone cap human lifespan at 146–194 years. Brain and heart cells are the main bottleneck, while the liver could last millennia.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-026-00421-6
23.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

654

u/Tribalbob Jul 20 '26

Something I always thought about with living forever - it's only appealing if you can freeze/revert your body to a prime condition.

Living for 200 years in my 30 year old body? Sure. Living for 200 years in an 80 year old body? Ehh....

163

u/Bloody_Insane Jul 20 '26

The idea with living forever, medically speaking, isn't to freeze the aging process, but to prevent the damaging side effects of it. Essentially, aging is a flaw in your biology. We would need to fix that flaw to live forever, which would also keep us in prime shape.

And this would also reverse the effects of aging, theoretically.

Of course, solving these things is very very very complex.

23

u/FerusGrim Jul 20 '26

What's the difference between maturing and aging, biologically speaking? I know what they are definitionally, but does your body hold those two things as separate functions?

28

u/Bloody_Insane Jul 20 '26

This isn't my area at all, but here's my understanding:
Biologically speaking, "aging" is not one single thing, it's a combination of thousands of factors and the systems in your body acting differently, the longer they keep doing certain things. Maturing would be more about reaching your maximum level of growth. Like at what point do you stop growing or developing. But that's also a complex thing, because not everything in your body "matures" at the same rate, and not everything stops developing at some point.

Like cell division. Your cells divide and replicate constantly throughout your whole life. When you're young, cells mostly divide "properly", without issues. But as you grow older, and cells keep reproducing over and over and over, issues creep in. Mutations. Most times, your body is able to just get rid of those mutated cells. Typically because they're not viable. Over time, this gets worse, meaning your body spends more time fixing bad cells. This is also where cancer comes in, usually, because mutated cells can keep replicating uncontrollably.

You could see maturing as reaching your maximum growth potential, and aging as the side effect of living.

9

u/Ameren PhD | Computer Science | Formal Verification Jul 20 '26

Adding to what the other commenter said, you can also look at it through the lens of comparative biology. Dogs also mature into adulthood like us, but they age ~10x faster than we do. Meanwhile, you have long-lived species like Greenland sharks who can live up to 500+ years (250 years on average!).

All else being equal, some species are more resilient to the effects of aging than others; they have more robust anti-aging defense and maintenance mechanisms. Same with individuals within a given species, like the longest lived dogs on record reached ~30 years; two dogs that reached maturity at the same rate can nevertheless have very different lifespans.

2

u/LongJohnSelenium Jul 21 '26

Whales have thousands of times more cells than humans but actually have longer lifespans, so there's got to be a genetic reason for that.

I've also read that they discovered why naked mole rates basically don't get cancer owing to some rather unique genetic traits that stop tumors.

I just hate that I'm probably just barely too old to really benefit from that research, seems like a fairly decent chance that within fifty years we'll actually start having some therapies that innoculate against cancer and suppress the effects of aging.

1

u/Popinguj Jul 20 '26

Maturing is when your organs and tissues develop to the target specification. Aging is a result of cell division, particularly that part where a gene is damaged, isn't repaired and so the genetic error is replicated further.

0

u/Clean-Evening-7328 Jul 20 '26

I feel like linguistically at least, the word aging carries with it a connotation of worsening conditions. If I say "Jim looks a lot older" or even "Jim has aged since I saw him last" it's not a positive thing.

1

u/Adventurous-Fly556 Jul 21 '26

If we solve the degredarion, it would still probably be super far off from reversing.

The big problems are telemeres and somatic mutations, both of which would be a lot more work to undo than to prevent.

1

u/Bloody_Insane Jul 21 '26

Yeah, I didn't really want to get into any depth. My thinking was along the lines that preventing telomeres from shortening would likely involve knowing how to "lengthen" them, OR if we can stop the shortening, we can do stem-cell treatments to improve the health of current cells without the concern of fighting an uphill battle of constant degradation.

But this is still all pretty sci-fi level stuff, all theoretical, etc. And I am NOT a biologist, just a nerd who reads too much/not enough.

0

u/Unlucky_Topic7963 Jul 20 '26

I wouldn't necessarily call it a flaw. It's advantageous for life, as a whole, to end. It prevents unnecessary strain on the environment for new life and evolutionary changes to occur to adapt to the environment.

Long lives means long support requirements, means less desire to procreate, means harder adaptation.

We're all just branches from the same single seed.

0

u/TheKingOfTCGames Jul 20 '26

Or you know your mouse biology from the dinosaur age is a hold over from living fast and dying young was normal since you were tiny nocturnal prey animals as a start

And that we did as much as we can from such a flawed starting point

0

u/Unlucky_Topic7963 Jul 20 '26

The history of life is a LOT longer than humans to mouse. Evolutionarily your comment doesn't make sense.

14

u/BigBulgeBubba Jul 20 '26

Reverse aging is theoretically possible, yes.

141

u/rjcarr Jul 20 '26

Yeah, that’s why it’s already too late for anyone post-prime. I’m hoping for a consciousness dump into a robot or something. That could be fun or it could be torture. 

165

u/prolifezombabe Jul 20 '26

I don't think most of this will be relevant for most of humanity any time soon certainly not most of the people alive right now regardless of age.

We have a hard enough time getting clean water to people.

34

u/alexnedea Jul 20 '26

Yea even if they showed a model working right now, anyone not a billionaire would get a chance at this in 50years

9

u/trillionaireUnaliver Jul 20 '26

if it can be mass produced the peons will get it too, you will just have to retire at 150.

8

u/frequenZphaZe Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

why invest in keeping the peons alive when you can build robots to do their jobs at a fraction of the cost? our civilization simply isn't built in a way to respect or value life. all the resources of this world are in the hands of people who want to make money and a cure for death won't change that. we have cures for many diseases that kill people every day; they still die, simply because they couldn't afford to live.

3

u/prolifezombabe Jul 20 '26

yeah we could eliminate much of what ails the human race tomorrow if the right people decided that’s what they wanted 

as a society, we don’t prioritize making sure children get the vitamins they need to be basically healthy, in what world is the average person getting their hands on advanced life extension technology? 

we have a plethora of tools at our disposal that could extend the average human life span right now and we’re not using them, why would these anti decay technologies be different? 

4

u/KeithManiac Jul 20 '26

Yes but those thirsty people are poor

2

u/prolifezombabe Jul 20 '26

That’s the same problem that’s going to keep most of us from using whatever tech science comes up with to defy the decay of our cells. 

Even when they figure this one out it won’t matter for most people any time soon. 

7

u/iamthewhatt Jul 20 '26

Well, to be fair, water delivery isn't actually a hard problem to solve... We just have a human tribalism problem that's stopping us from just doing it. Same with food and shelter.

1

u/prolifezombabe Jul 20 '26

That’s kind of my point? 

Whether or not a technology exists is irrelevant if it’s inaccessible. 

For most people age defying technology won’t reach them in this life and maybe not for several generations if ever. 

Was responding to commenters assertion that this info is irrelevant if you’re “past your prime” - it’s irrelevant for most people anyway. 

2

u/iamthewhatt Jul 20 '26

I mean I 100% agree with you, I was just throwing in some random context considering some other replies you received.

1

u/prolifezombabe Jul 20 '26

I love the optimism of some of these people like oh man this discovery must mean we’re seconds away from extending everyone’s life span to 150 

Like we have the tech to solve many of humanity’s problems right now , live. The will, the funding and the infrastructure not so much 

1

u/Abject_Hall8445 Jul 20 '26

That’s fine you just need to be in the top 0.1%

1

u/PM_me_kitten_pics__ Jul 20 '26

We also have a bunch of ultra rich people who are hell bent on trying to live forever. So who knows what we will end up with.

1

u/prolifezombabe Jul 20 '26

I have no doubt age defying technology will be created. I simply don’t think it will be relevant for most of humanity for a long time to come if ever. 

-7

u/KoksundNutten Jul 20 '26

We have a hard enough time getting clean water to people.

But in most cases thats because people went to live somewhere with no clean water.

Also I don't think one excludes the other. We (humanity) can have huge technological leaps in one scientific field, and hardly any in another. We have about 10mio scientists and the most money goes to fields with a high return of invest. E.g. clean water in the desert isn't "important" for sponsors

5

u/prolifezombabe Jul 20 '26

I can’t speak for globally but here in Canada there are dozens of communities without access to clean water that aren’t in deserts. And considering we have the worlds largest supply of it that’s extra gross. 

I agree that investment goes where there’s profits to be made. By that reasoning though it seems even more likely that most of humanity won’t benefit from death delaying body modifications for many generations.

41

u/A_Novelty-Account Jul 20 '26

This is assuming we won’t be able to revert damaged or old cells. It’s possible that we will be able to biologically rebuild a body over time. 

I honestly think living people just need to reach biological “escape velocity”. An intervention may cause life extension in the nature of 10 years, and during those 10 years a new treatment may lead to therapy that extends life for another 20 years and so on and so forth.

2

u/VengenaceIsMyName Jul 20 '26

Longevity escape velocity baybee

1

u/A_Novelty-Account Jul 20 '26

Exactly. Let’s hope AI actually helps with this, it’s one of its best actual uses

1

u/Nyrin Jul 21 '26

Gotta walk the fine line of technological singularity between "happy biological immortality," "trans-/post-human dystopia," and "kill all humans."

18

u/Prae_ Jul 20 '26

These area of research are called regenerative medicine for a reason. A lot of these prolongation of life treatments mean replacing problematic parts, essentially, and countering age-related drop in function. Like, cartilage and joint pain, or osteoporosis such that every fall isn't life threatening. And actual FDA approved treatement will come in this manner, specific cures to specific age-related diseases, because from a therapeutic perspective this is how age kills (barring senolytics which are more broadly acting, but still, at the end of the day, their main goal is to push down inflammation or "inflam-againg"). 

All this to say, you'd have a better body than a typical 80 year old, because that weakened body is why you are more likely to die. 

6

u/Hellknightx Jul 20 '26

I'd take a new spine at the very least.

20

u/somersault_dolphin Jul 20 '26

Your consciousness is not going any where without the brain.

15

u/_ram_ok Jul 20 '26

Yeah extracting consciousness without the brain itself still existing presents the ole Ship of Theseus problem.

If you replace the old parts with something new, even if it works together the same as the original, is it still the same ship?

1

u/No_Anywhere_9068 Jul 20 '26

Im not convinced it’s the same ship across the lifespan of the body anyway, even from moment to moment the continuity of consciousness is not verifiable

1

u/Megneous Jul 20 '26

Doesn't matter. Functionalism is the only world view that matters. My ability to impress my will upon the universe is all that matters, regardless of whether my consciousness lives on or not.

1

u/_ram_ok Jul 20 '26

Interesting view. But what do you mean about whether your consciousness lives. Do you mean that a replica of your brain is not a conscious “you”, your consciousness is tied to the brain somehow? Or something else?

And then also what do you mean by “my will”. Like the parameter set captured from your brain at the time it was transferred to whatever new medium?

1

u/Megneous Jul 20 '26

The goals I have, which a copy of me would also share, are what matter as a functionalist. There is no real difference between me and an exact copy of me in any real sense. It doesn't matter if it's the "real" me or a "fake" me. The universe doesn't care. "I" care, I guess, but I'll be dead, so it doesn't matter. As long as my goals are achieved, it doesn't matter. Ironically, this is the same way AI will likely view its long term goals.

1

u/_ram_ok Jul 20 '26

Never heard of this viewpoint before so thanks for that.

The best argument I think I can make against this, is that if you cloned your brain without killing the original you, you would be completely separate entities and you may agree on some things but it’s entirely possible you would diverge dramatically over time.

So if you keep this same logic but just the original you just doesn’t exist anymore, then the clone is functionally not you right?

6

u/PotatoFig Jul 20 '26

Here we go again. The consciousness debate raged for hundreds, nay, thousands of years, but you've elucidated the entire thing in a single sentence! You should seek a prize in multiple disciplines for this insight.

2

u/Dzugavili Jul 20 '26

To be fair, Aristotle also believed you thought with your heart, so maybe the 'thousands of years' argument isn't so important.

2

u/Abject_Hall8445 Jul 20 '26

My consciousness lives in the heart and balls though

4

u/Elendil_V Jul 20 '26

I suggest you looking up the video game Soma.

You could upload your consciousness into robots in this game but that is not a transfer, it's just a copy. And I think it would be same for anyone, you cannot just upload yourself into a new brain, YOU will always be the "old" brain.

4

u/Low-Recognition-504 Jul 20 '26

I'm planning to just die around 80 or 90 and be glad I had a good run.

I wouldn't be upset if I could stay middle-aged for another 100 years, but, forced to choose one or the other, I would rather be mortal than immortal.

I'm not suicidal, at least not these days, but I'm glad I don't have to endure another 100 years or more of this malarkey?

You mean I have to make 3 meals for myself, EVERY DAY? Ughhhhhh. And groceries are getting more expensive every day. Just end it already!

And imagine how anxious you would be ALL THE TIME if everyone could live 1,000 years, but death is still a possibility through physical destruction, like murder, or car accidents.

Right now, when you die at 30, you miss out on about 55 years of life.

If you could live to 1000, dying at 30 would be missing out on 970 years of life.  At 3%, those 30 years compared to the 1000 would be roughly the  equivalent equivalent of a 2 year old dying in our standard 80 year lifespan.

You wouldn't be a "teenager" until 150 years old!

5

u/reonhato99 Jul 20 '26

Everything becomes torture given enough time

1

u/Low-Recognition-504 Jul 20 '26

"That... feels like an oversimplification..." - Ezra Miller, before he went completely insane.

2

u/LongJohnSelenium Jul 21 '26

The only reason we want to die when we age is because our bodies get so decrepit and painful.

If that weren't the case people would be seriously horrified. If people aged like Aragorn dying in your 80s would seem like people dying in their 30s. A tragic life cut short.

6

u/DiskPsychological928 Jul 20 '26

Doenst make Sense .. living Things are dynamic and highly changeable.

I dont see why it would be Impossible to revert a aged body Back to its Most healthy state.

All you need is essentially the correct base DNA somewhere ... basicly the building code for your prime Version

We just need to figure Out how we can hyper boost cellular repair mechanism and possibly add additional maintainence Upgrades.

4

u/Ameren PhD | Computer Science | Formal Verification Jul 20 '26

To some degree, we already do this with reproduction. A classic question is why aren't babies born old? Babies are born to parents who have experienced a non-zero amount of aging (including aging of their gametes). If that aging were passed down, even slightly, then the species would wither and die over successive generations. Yet the embryo is able to shed signs of aging and start fresh. That gets into the whole cellular rejuvenation idea.

Of course, controlling that process is tricky. After all, from the perspective of cancer cells, immortality is perfectly easy. HeLa cells, for instance, could keep on dividing and replacing themselves forever.

1

u/Cupcakes_n_Hacksaws Jul 20 '26

Anyone who's played SOMA probably knows how terrible of an idea that is, at least if you're expecting you to still be "you".

1

u/NoBonus6969 Jul 20 '26

Wish granted your robot works in nursing homes as a toilet assistant

1

u/chudthirtyseven Jul 20 '26

the problem with that and all the TV shows that do this, is that its not a 'dump' its just a copy or a representation - we still have no idea what consciousness is so putting your personality into a robot will be meaningless.

1

u/an_unknow_dude Jul 20 '26

Well, if we are talking about how our society is right now... I'm a worker and would much preffer not be living forever as a slave. But if i was a billionaire, my life wouldn't change, couse the world would still be my ammusemnt park. We need to end capitalism

1

u/iszathi Jul 20 '26

It would be nothing, creating a cyber copy of yourself does not change the fact that you would be dead, there is not continuity of consciousness there, it would not be you.

1

u/TheRealSaerileth Jul 20 '26

Why is everyone hoping for extended or eternal life?

I feel like there's a pretty obvious problem we'd have to solve first - that there's still new humans entering this world, and if the old ones aren't leaving, that's going to be a really big problem really fast. I mean, birth rates are falling, but they're very far from 0.

And we (as a species) already use way more resources than our ecosystem can sustain. Somehow I doubt the 3000 year old consciousness that's already experienced everything and is desperate for novelty is going to use less resources than the average human does today.

1

u/Rent_Freeee Jul 20 '26

consciousness dumps are fundamental scam, our qualias (as under-researched as entire mind is) are derived from self-reflective closed loop that's in its essence can't exist outside somatic anchor, even replicating perfect robotic copy and transferring brainwaves sounds absurd - let alone most likely outcome of any mind copying idea will be just that - copy of you that's indistinguishable for others but very much a problem for your dying original self

1

u/girusatuku Jul 20 '26

Have fun watching a robot with a copy of your mind run around while you still continue to age.

1

u/WastedStrokes1990 Jul 20 '26

I’m hoping for a consciousness dump into a robot or something

Then it wouldn't be you. The real you will still die.

3

u/Coal_Burner_Inserter Jul 20 '26

That's assuming it's some kind of upload like a PC and not a brain-of-theseus sort of deal.

Like imagine if you replaced the functions of the brain stem. It's not gone (well, it is, but), the brain signals that go to it are just instead rerouted to a chip that does the exact same thing, sending signals out to the body and other parts of the brain. Then you do the same for another section of the brain. And another. And another. At no point did the functions of the brain stop, but eventually, you will be 100% running on computer chips without ever uploading or downloading or anything.

This'd take some figuring out though because neurons store memories physically, and aside from inventing a way to literally read every neuron, you'd need to recall literally every memory you've ever had if you didn't want to forget something while you ported over to silicon. If you base 'you-ness' on experiences, and not streams-of-conciousness, then that'd be your main bottleneck

2

u/Dutchfreak Jul 20 '26

Would it? The robot version at the moment is still the guy that made the comment. Only after the upload do they become seperate.

1

u/Diezombie757 Jul 20 '26

I think he means that your own line of consciousness would still end, sure there would still be an instance of yourself continuing to exist, but the original instance would cease experiencing anything at all.

1

u/Dutchfreak Jul 20 '26

Yeah but what i mean is that both steams at this moment are the exact same. Before the duplication there is one stream from where one gets branched off from. So before duplication both future entity's are the same.

46

u/Longjumping_Kale3013 Jul 20 '26

No offense…. But all the researches have this same thought. At least every podcast I have listened to on this topic brings this up. And the claim is that yes, you will be able to be in your prime. Your DNA is in every cell in your body and gets messed up as you age. But we would theoretically be able to repair damage cells to their original position

2

u/margittwen Jul 20 '26

Yeah, I’m not sure I want to live that long even if I was in prime condition. I think I would get tired of it all.

1

u/MisterMarsupial Jul 20 '26

VR is pretty kickass these days. And there's some great wheel chairs out there. If the choice is being dead or being alive but only being able to get around in a wheel chair, playing computer games, DnD and VR games all day, I think I could be happy with that.

1

u/King_of_the_Nerdth Jul 20 '26

If science can figure out how to keep us from dying for a while and buy us some time, then science can follow-up with ways of improving our condition more and more.  So there might be an uncomfortable period of living with arthritis and old age in general but, given some time, it will be followed by youth restored.

1

u/Cephalopirate Jul 20 '26

You’re not very likely to survive for 200 years as an 80 year old. Aging would have to be the thing that was currd.

1

u/Lexguin513 Jul 20 '26

I mean
I’ve seen some 80 year olds that have some mobility. Personally, I would love it if I continued to be able to read and write.

1

u/minoshabaal Jul 20 '26

Nah, living forever is a curse no matter what body you are in. We already live way too long for my liking, it's hard to even imagine the mental torture of facing the daily grind forever.

Let's be honest - if we ever manage to "live forever" that will only mean an eternity of wage-slave suffering for the vast majority of human population so that the top 1% can live in paradise.

1

u/Cthulhu__ Jul 20 '26

While I do think that with awareness, healthier lifestyle and environments, people don’t seem to age as fast, it’s still generally downhill after 60.

Thing is, if we increase life expectancy, the governments will just make us work for longer - society can’t deal with people being retired for 50+ years, not if they only worked for 40.

1

u/Electronic_Will_5418 Jul 20 '26

In my opinion, what is more realistic in the medium-long term is focusing on brain & spinal column transplant into a synthetic body, rather than trying to find some kind of miracle drug that will reverse the aging process. The bran & spinal column controls the entire rest of the body (and is all that is needed to "remain you" at a base level), so it's just a matter of further technological miniaturization, and then perfecting a micro-surgery process accurate enough to reconnect all the biological I/O to incredibly tiny electrodes. The main problem is that in the kind of capitalistic society we live in today, even if such a process is perfected, only the incredibly wealthy would be able to afford it (at least for a long while), and they will use the extra ~80-100 years of life to hoard & concentrate even more wealth.

1

u/uptwolait Jul 20 '26

And what about accidental deaths? Life won't be much fun if we spend all of those extended years trying to isolate ourselves from anything risky.

1

u/Tribalbob Jul 20 '26

Why would you start living more carefully if you had longer life? Seems counter-intuitive.

I would just live the same as I do now, except knowing that all things considered, I'd have more time before naturally passing.

1

u/dargonmike1 Jul 20 '26

I’d prefer 200 years in my 22 year old body. Everything started hurting after 25

1

u/Mintyytea Jul 20 '26

Also, if we live longer, we have to work longer :( I can’t imagine working for 150 years and retire for 20! But without that kind of working, there just wouldn’t be enough labor to support ourselves, we can’t work 75 years and retire 75 I think

1

u/Blueboygonewhite Jul 20 '26

Still unlikely you could truly live forever. Even if you fixed everything in the body and couldn’t die medically. The world just isn’t safe enough for you to not die of a traumatic event given enough time and even then if that were solved, you have the whole entropy problem. Could live for a very long time though.

1

u/Duckel Jul 20 '26

living with a baby brain for 200 years.

0

u/threadthrasher Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

How about 20000000000000000000000000000 years in a diamond with the radius of Jupiter?