- LEVITY
- Posts
- #14 Here we go again - a longevity skeptic tries to predict the future
#14 Here we go again - a longevity skeptic tries to predict the future
Jay Olshansky’s new study says we're maxing out on lifespan. But we're not buying it.
Peter Ottsjö
October 11, 2024
✅ Death acceptance propaganda. ✅ A silly longevity feud. ✅ Elevating AI to Nobel heights. ✅ Senescent cells - more than just zombies. ✅ Insights from Episode 9 of the LEVITY podcast.
🤙🏼 Want to connect? Add me on LinkedIn. 🙏🏼 Not subscribed to the LEVITY podcast on Youtube yet? Do it here. 🎧 More of a listener? The LEVITY podcast is also available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and other places.
Join me and accelerate the Longevity Revolution with Vitalism Foundation!
Vitalism is the movement for humanity to fight its hardest against aging and death. And if you agree, you’re already a Vitalist at heart. Since it is LEVITY's sponsor, when you join Vitalism Foundation as a Mobilized Vitalist, you’ll support both Vitalism and LEVITY.
As a member, you'll join a fast growing group of over 200 Vitalists, including 100+ founders and investors. You'll enjoy special events, working groups, premium content and unique discounts on longevity products. But most importantly, you will join a community that's making a difference.
Special Offer for LEVITY Subscribers: Join today and receive a 30% discount on your membership using the code LEV at checkout.
A new study in Nature Aging is provocative for all the wrong reasons
I've never met Jay Olshansky, so it's hard to say what he's like in person - he might very well be the crowd-pleaser, the fun-maker and the soooooul-shaker. The life of the party, for all I know.
However, my only encounters with him have been through his publications and various quotes in books and news articles, where he often appears more like Gloomy Gus and the Buzzkillers.
Consider some of his statements over the years:
”Lifespan extension has never really been a goal of aging science nor should it.”
”There are biological forces that limit how long we can live.”
”Absence of a genetic program determining how long we live doesn’t mean there are no limits. Let me give you an example: The world record for running a mile currently stands at three minutes and 43 seconds. Some 150 years ago, it was five minutes. The record has thus been cut by one minute and 17 seconds. Now, if I were to ask you whether it’s possible for someone to run a mile in one minute, what would your answer be?”
Yeah, about that last one: Comparing improvements in mile-running times to the possibility of human indefinite life extension is of course a non sequitur.
Or, as Aubrey de Grey once put it: ”Jay Olshansky is a smart guy, and a friend of mine. But he says some incredibly stupid things. I mean, it’s almost embarrasing”.
So why am I telling you all of this?
Well, Olshansky has just published a new study in Nature Aging - a study that, despite its provocative title, offers little substance. The study, entitled ”Implausibility of radical life extension in humans in the twenty-first century”, lacks any evidence to support such a claim. Olshansky, who has often criticized proponents of ambitious life extension for what he sees as exaggerated claims, appears to be guilty of the same offense here.
