43. What if dictators lived forever?

Hi friends,

Welcome to the 43rd dispatch of How Humans Flourish, a research-informed newsletter on how humans thrive.

This is our last week reading Lifespan: Why We Age—and Why We Don’t Have To by Harvard geneticist Dr. David Sinclair. While Dr. Sinclair envisions a world where our lifespan could be extended for decades, perhaps even centuries, he’s also careful to highlight four critical concerns we should consider as we contemplate a longer, healthier life.

1. Overpopulation and Environmental Strain

Take a moment to imagine a future where people routinely live past 150, and then ask: what will this mean for our planet? Many a scientist has written about the Earth’s “carrying capacity”—an estimate of how many people our planet can support with its finite resources. Current projections vary: some argue Earth can only handle around eight billion people (our current capacity), while others suggest with the right technologies, we could support as many as sixteen billion.

Environmental scientist Erle C. Ellis, meanwhile, argues that these calculations miss the point. He estimates we probably reached our carrying capacity thousands of years ago. He writes, “Our planet’s human-carrying capacity emerges from the capabilities of our social systems and our technologies more than from any environmental limits.” (Sinclair, pg. 291 - Kindle)

He believes the challenge is clear: for a true vision of longevity to be sustainable, we’ll need a balance between environmental conservation and technological innovation.

2. Political Impact: Leadership that Lasts… Too Long?

Imagine the politician you like the least remaining in power not for decades, but for an entire century. The idea may be alarming. While experience is an asset, democracy thrives on new perspectives and ideas. Older leaders bring valuable wisdom, but we must ask ourselves whether society benefits when those same leaders hold onto power indefinitely. In countries without term limits or democratic elections, the impact could be even more concerning. Despots and autocrats who cling to power for decades already present challenges; in a world where they could live and rule longer, it’s chilling to consider how this might limit opportunities for progress and change.

3. Economic Consequences: Redefining Work and Retirement

Living longer won’t just affect our personal lives; it would radically shift our economic landscape. Dr. Sinclair admits how little we know about “the work patterns, retirement arrangements, spending habits, health care needs, savings, and investments of large groups of people who live, quite healthily, well into their 100s.” (Sinclair, pg. 278 - Kindle). 

Prolonged health might redefine our relationship to work and retirement, encouraging some to explore multiple careers or take longer breaks throughout life. While this could create a more adaptable, creative workforce, it also raises questions about the sustainability of social safety nets, especially as the ratio of workers to retirees shrinks. 

Already we are challenged with the sustainability of social security for upcoming generations… If we’re redefining what “retirement age” means in an era of longevity, what will future generations need to support a longer life?

4. Access and Equity: Will Longevity Be a Privilege for the Wealthy?

Historically, life-extending technologies start out as exclusive and expensive, and Dr. Sinclair warns that treatments like “biotracking, DNA sequencing, and epigenome analyses” will fare the same fate. This could lead to a “world in which those born into a certain station in life can, by virtue of nothing more than exceptional fortune, live thirty years longer than those who were born without the means.” (Sinclair, pg. 281 - Kindle)

Imagine a society where the wealthy can afford decades more of vibrant life while others are left behind. You could make the argument that there is already a discrepancy in life mortality—but, think of what we know about wealth generation… It compounds. 30 more years offers 30 additional years for assets to experience compounding growth and accumulate in value. In only two to three generations, the socioeconomic inequality divide may deepen in startling ways. 

So, is it a no-go for longevity?

Dr. Sinclair remains optimistic. He offers a reframe I find quite compelling: Over fixation on human failures shapes a bleak outlook on the state of the world that is unwarranted. In a YouGov poll across nine Global North nations, 18% of Australians (the most optimistic respondents) believed the world is improving—dropping to just 6% in the U.S. However, in nations like China, Brazil, India, and Turkey, where living standards have risen, optimism was over 80%. 

Dr. Sinclair writes, “Pessimism, it turns out, is often indicative of exceptional privilege. When viewed globally, however, it gets a lot harder to make the case that the world is an increasingly miserable place. It’s simply not.” (Sinclair, pg. 297-298 - Kindle)

His vision isn’t merely about adding years; it’s about investing in the quality of life, supporting social structures, and democratizing access to health. While some may think living so long is unnatural, he writes, “Water delivery systems are not natural. Agriculture is not natural. Electricity is not natural. Schools and hospitals and roads and clothes are not natural. We have long since crossed all of those figurative and literal bridges… The only thing that seems unnatural… is to accept limitations on what we can and cannot do to improve our lives.” (Sinclair, pg. 292 - Kindle)

I’m curious, what do you think? 

With gratitude,