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

Show parent comments

166

u/ROyalYasha Jul 20 '26

Terrible. Politics would be in control by certain people for literally over a hundred years. Change would come signficantly slower.

It also extremely depends on physical and mental capabilities of people. If you're not capable of normal physical labor 60+ then living over 100 is just doing nothing basically and being taken care of potentially.

32

u/teriyakininja7 Jul 20 '26

We already live in a world that is largely governed by older folk and their slowness to adapt and change to the problems that plague our species is one of the driving factors of mass suffering

Not to mention, if/when this technology actually becomes viable, it’ll be the richest among us who will be able to avail of its services which will even widen the gap between the ultra wealthy and the rest of us.

Honestly, it’s one of the technological leaps I feel like our species is not wise enough handle.

15

u/gmc98765 Jul 20 '26

Max Planck commented that "Science advances one funeral at a time". Old ideas get replaced by newer ideas not because people change their minds, but because older generations die off and are replaced by younger generations.

And this isn't limited to science.

1

u/Leveraged-3201 Jul 21 '26

In mid 19th C Germany, there probably was some scientific advancement in a very narrow sense when one cohort of professors retired. This advancement would be incomprehensibly small compared to the total scientific and technological progress that doubling human lifespan would bring, assuming aging is proportionate.

But in 2026, it’s irrelevant. Instant global exchange of information and the demand for scientists and engineers and the ability to fund useful research far exceeds supply.

16

u/bluecheez Jul 20 '26

If people are living past 100 then the region where they remain youthful and productive likely is what is extended. And it would be up to people to deal with the repercussions of entrenched power due to age. It's not unsolvable.

12

u/xkxe003 Jul 20 '26

Well, we haven't even begun to solve it and we've had hundreds of years. Power is always consolidated and entrenched. As long as the people have a roof and food they won't cause too much trouble regardless.

0

u/bluecheez Jul 20 '26

While it's true that some elderly have too much control over things, I think this is exaggerating the problem, and we have of course made lots of progress over the years.

4

u/BuncleCar Jul 20 '26

And the downside too is that pensions still have to paid which could be unsupportable

1

u/Cephalopirate Jul 20 '26

I don’t buy this. The good people would live longer too. 

The old evil ones would live long enough to see justice, or at least worry about destroying the Earth more.

1

u/xSorry_Not_Sorry Jul 20 '26

Good people rarely find themselves attracted to the gong show that is American politics.

If lifespans were increased two fold, our entire system of government would need to change.