Should I want to live to 100?

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Gerontology
• Philosophy of Aging

Background:

• Discussions on longevity and aging in bioethics often focus on end-of-life decisions, neglecting how to age well.
• Prominent figures like Atul Gawande, Daniel Callahan, and Ezekiel Emanuel advocate for accepting a natural lifespan.
• Philosophical perspectives, such as Seneca's, question the value of desiring extreme longevity due to life's perceived waste.

Purpose of the Study:

• To challenge the prevailing view that aiming to live to 100 is foolish or misguided.
• To explore the ethical considerations of pursuing extreme longevity beyond the "natural" lifespan.
• To re-evaluate the desire for centenarianism through a functional, rather than chronological, lens of aging.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation, drawing upon classical sources like Cicero and Stoic philosophy.
• Critique of existing bioethical viewpoints on aging and longevity.
• Analysis of the concept of "aging well" and its relationship to lifespan goals.

Main Results:

• Argues for a functional view of aging, suggesting that for some individuals, aiming for 100 years is justifiable.
• Contrasts the potential for fulfilling experiences in later life, citing Cicero's views on seniors' pleasures.
• Acknowledges that the "symptom burden" can make extreme longevity undesirable, aligning with Emanuel's perspective.

Conclusions:

• The pursuit of living to 100 should be guided by a functional assessment of aging, not solely by chronological age.
• While not planning for 100 years due to life's uncertainties (Seneca), the aspiration itself is not inherently foolish.
• Focusing on maximizing the quality and potential pleasures of the time given is paramount, regardless of lifespan.