I recently read an interview of Peter Diamandis, recently named by Fortune as one of the “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.”, in which he bragged of all the technology and research devoted to fighting aging and death and it became apparent to me that these are not people who are actually interested in improving longevity for the human race, or even the residents of this country, but for the privileged few. What we know, if we are honest, is that the way to move the needle on longevity, is to address what is happening for those who are dying in their teens, their twenties, thirties and forties. And to do this, we have to invest in addressing inequities and prejudice. We have to invest in safe and affordable housing, access to healthy food, education, and, most of all, oppression and fear. These things are not as glamorous as stem cell research, supplements and treatments and no individuals stand to get rich from making them happen but, like clean water and antibiotics, they will increase healthy life expectancy for many more people than any of the technologies being invested in. and will do so more quickly.
I am a believer in scientific and technological research. I am sure there are things we can learn to the benefit of all of us. I also know Maslow’s hierarchy, which, while not a precise description of human need, reflects the basic human needs that must be met before we can even think about quieting our nervous system, decreasing the production of stress chemicals or engaging in lifestyle changes to be healthier, let alone investing in technological advances to extend healthy life beyond 90 or 100.
I would like to see the leaders who are leading the charge for affordable housing, access to healthy food, education and an end to oppression, earn the title of World’s Greatest Leader. I read The Wizard and the Prophet and I know that there are differing opinions on the path to achieving these goals. One is technology, but they both entail understanding how the natural world works and what we need to do to either live within its confines or how to expand its possibilities. But they are still talking about the possibilities for meeting those basic needs and not how to help people of means to have more.
Can we view investment in the longevity of those who lead the shortest, hardest lives as our highest priority? What is true is that we actually have all the tools we need in our toolchest to do just this. What we lack is the political or social will to invest the resources we have in this. And philanthropy, while immensely helpful where it is applied, has not been enough to change the systems that foster inequality. We need a concerted effort to make life better for those in the most need if we are to truly move the needle on life expectancy. We need to effectively decrease the incidence of premature death before we start postponing death for the healthy.