Skip to main content

It turns out science hasn’t discovered the human body’s maximum age cutoff after all

There’s an old Henny Youngman joke about a doctor who gave a man six months to live, only to find the man couldn’t pay his bill, so gave him another six months. That joke more or less summarizes a recent squabble in the academic world concerning the publishing of a new paper, arguing that what we thought we knew about maximum human lifespan may in fact be wrong.

Late last year, a scientific paper published in Nature by researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine argued that the maximum lifespan of humans is fixed, that there is a plateau at 115, and the “odds of anybody in the world surviving to 125 in any given year is less than one in 10,000.”

Recommended Videos

Provided your health holds out, living to the grand old age of anywhere between 115 and 125 may sound pretty good, but the study has now been subject to a rebuttal from biologists at Canada’s McGill University — also published in Nature. They argue that there is no evidence for such a limit and that, while one may conceivably exist, it’s not been found yet.

“We examined how old were the oldest people to die, since reliable reports could be obtained until modern times,” Dr. Siegfried Hekimi, one of the lead authors of the study, told Digital Trends. “In contrast to others who thought they could distinguish a plateau around the age of 115, we showed that no such plateau can be observed. Meaning that as far as anyone can tell the age of the oldest individuals to die might keep going up, just as the average lifespan is going up — at least in countries like Canada.”

Hekimi points out the way that average lifespans have increased over the years, from 1920 when an average Canadian would live for 60 years, to one born in 1980 who will live 76 years, to one born today who will live 82 years. We haven’t reached the plateau yet though.

“[Our work] tells us that when living conditions get better — extraordinarily better — then both average and maximum lifespan are likely to go up,” Hekimi said. “What do I mean by extraordinarily good living conditions? Think: enough food, warm shelter in the winter, cool shelter in the summer, vaccination, sewers, fresh uncontaminated food all year round, much lighter workloads.”

Ultimately, of course, it’s going to be average lifespans rather than maximum lifespans that are more significant. Still, if you ever thought you weren’t going to be able to pay your bills in the 115-125 years allotted by last year’s Nature study, never fear: things don’t have to end there!

Luke Dormehl
Former Digital Trends Contributor
I'm a UK-based tech writer covering Cool Tech at Digital Trends. I've also written for Fast Company, Wired, the Guardian…
Range Rover’s first electric SUV has 48,000 pre-orders
Land Rover Range Rover Velar SVAutobiography Dynamic Edition

Range Rover, the brand made famous for its British-styled, luxury, all-terrain SUVs, is keen to show it means business about going electric.

And, according to the most recent investor presentation by parent company JLR, that’s all because Range Rover fans are showing the way. Not only was demand for Range Rover’s hybrid vehicles up 29% in the last six months, but customers are buying hybrids “as a stepping stone towards battery electric vehicles,” the company says.

Read more
BYD’s cheap EVs might remain out of Canada too
BYD Han

With Chinese-made electric vehicles facing stiff tariffs in both Europe and America, a stirring question for EV drivers has started to arise: Can the race to make EVs more affordable continue if the world leader is kept out of the race?

China’s BYD, recognized as a global leader in terms of affordability, had to backtrack on plans to reach the U.S. market after the Biden administration in May imposed 100% tariffs on EVs made in China.

Read more
Tesla posts exaggerate self-driving capacity, safety regulators say
Beta of Tesla's FSD in a car.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is concerned that Tesla’s use of social media and its website makes false promises about the automaker’s full-self driving (FSD) software.
The warning dates back from May, but was made public in an email to Tesla released on November 8.
The NHTSA opened an investigation in October into 2.4 million Tesla vehicles equipped with the FSD software, following three reported collisions and a fatal crash. The investigation centers on FSD’s ability to perform in “relatively common” reduced visibility conditions, such as sun glare, fog, and airborne dust.
In these instances, it appears that “the driver may not be aware that he or she is responsible” to make appropriate operational selections, or “fully understand” the nuances of the system, NHTSA said.
Meanwhile, “Tesla’s X (Twitter) account has reposted or endorsed postings that exhibit disengaged driver behavior,” Gregory Magno, the NHTSA’s vehicle defects chief investigator, wrote to Tesla in an email.
The postings, which included reposted YouTube videos, may encourage viewers to see FSD-supervised as a “Robotaxi” instead of a partially automated, driver-assist system that requires “persistent attention and intermittent intervention by the driver,” Magno said.
In one of a number of Tesla posts on X, the social media platform owned by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a driver was seen using FSD to reach a hospital while undergoing a heart attack. In another post, a driver said he had used FSD for a 50-minute ride home. Meanwhile, third-party comments on the posts promoted the advantages of using FSD while under the influence of alcohol or when tired, NHTSA said.
Tesla’s official website also promotes conflicting messaging on the capabilities of the FSD software, the regulator said.
NHTSA has requested that Tesla revisit its communications to ensure its messaging remains consistent with FSD’s approved instructions, namely that the software provides only a driver assist/support system requiring drivers to remain vigilant and maintain constant readiness to intervene in driving.
Tesla last month unveiled the Cybercab, an autonomous-driving EV with no steering wheel or pedals. The vehicle has been promoted as a robotaxi, a self-driving vehicle operated as part of a ride-paying service, such as the one already offered by Alphabet-owned Waymo.
But Tesla’s self-driving technology has remained under the scrutiny of regulators. FSD relies on multiple onboard cameras to feed machine-learning models that, in turn, help the car make decisions based on what it sees.
Meanwhile, Waymo’s technology relies on premapped roads, sensors, cameras, radar, and lidar (a laser-light radar), which might be very costly, but has met the approval of safety regulators.

Read more