Key points from article :
In this thought-provoking article, psychologist Howard J. Rankin reflects on a series of bold predictions made by entrepreneur Peter Diamandis in his book Longevity Guidebook: How to Slow, Stop and Reverse Aging – and NOT Die From Something Stupid. Diamandis argues that by around 2035, rapidly advancing tools such as artificial intelligence, genomics, CRISPR gene editing, gene therapy, cellular medicine, and advanced sensors will enable us not only to slow aging but possibly halt or reverse it altogether. Even conservative estimates suggest that human lifespans could double, pushing average mortality toward 150 years and redefining what it means to be “middle-aged.”
Rankin highlights the sweeping societal implications of such a future. Extended working lives could transform global economies, while pension and social-security systems—already under strain—might become unworkable. Family structures could shift as people delay having children into their sixties, supported by emerging genetic technologies that allow parents to select traits. Longer lives would also prompt new questions about purpose, spirituality, and religious beliefs, as humanity adjusts to the idea of living well into a second century.
Amid this technological optimism, Rankin raises a more personal question: do people actually want to live that long? In conversations with older adults—particularly those over 80—many say they would not opt for radical life extension, having already experienced life’s major milestones and accepted the natural course of aging. Younger generations, however, may feel differently, viewing extra decades of healthy life as a gateway to future breakthroughs that could extend lifespan even further.
The article concludes by emphasising that extreme longevity would be profoundly disruptive, forcing society to reassess everything from justice systems to environmental sustainability. Overpopulation is a real concern, though future off-planet living might offer solutions. Ultimately, Rankin leaves readers with a philosophical challenge as much as a scientific one: If you could double your lifespan, would you choose to?
