Recently, National Geographic had a startling cover — a picture of a baby and a headline declaring, “This Baby Will Live To Be 120.”
Thanks in part to technological advances as well as ever-increasing life expectancy, others say we could live to be 1,000 years old although many more believe an average life span of 150 years — with most of those years healthy and productive — is probably much more likely. And it will happen soon. 
While a recent Pew study indicates most of us don’t want to live that long, we think other people might. So, it seems likely that in the not-too-distant future, we will be faced with some interesting dilemmas as more of us are centenarians — not just related to things like overpopulation and dwindling resources or work and retirement issues, but how living longer will impact dating, marriage and families.
Consider:
- How will we handle “until death do us part” if we live 150 years or more?
- Will greater advances in reproductive technology lead to first-time parents in their 60s and 70s?
- Will older men still favor younger women, with 120-year-olds wanting to marry 70- or 80-year olds? (and will that upset us as much as today’s 60- and 70-year olds marrying women in their 20s and 30s?)
- If we continue to be serial monogamists, marrying, divorcing and marrying again, will we see siblings and half-siblings born decades apart?
It boggles the mind. Actually, it all seems somewhat horrifying to me, perhaps because I’ve spent so much time the past few years hanging around my dad’s nursing home, so I’m a bit thankful I probably won’t be around to see it (and based on what I observe in nursing homes, maybe we should focus on keeping men alive longer so women, after caretaking for so many years, might have someone to look after them in their old age).
But, never mind me. In Sonia Aronson‘s book 100 Plus: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith, she doubts most men will marry women decades younger. Historically we don’t, she writes, and citing data from New Jersey (why, I don’t know) states, “10.1 percent of marriages involved a man ten years older than his spouse and only 2.3 percent of marriages involved a woman at least ten years older than her spouse.”
(To which I say, gals, it’s time to catch up!)
But the push is on to radically extend life, and with Google’s new initiative to do so, Calico, Aronson acknowledges the realities of living longer (emphasis mine):
In her 79 fabulous years, actress Elizabeth Taylor was married eight times to seven husbands. If she had lived a longer and healthier life, that number might have been even higher. While it’s true Taylor was an anomaly, it turns out that as more time becomes available, mating behaviors do begin to shift. In 1950, the average age at first marriage was 23 for men and 20 for women. Today, with longer life expectancies, average age at first marriage is 28 for men and 26 for women. Those numbers will likely climb higher as women gain more control over their fertility with reproductive technologies such as IVF, egg freezing, and ovary and embryo transplants. The ability to have children at much later ages means that it will be possible for siblings to be separated by many decades. A woman might have one child when she is 22 and another when she is 62, and the relationship between those siblings might be less like traditional siblings and more like that between an uncle and nephew.
- Could you remain committed, faithful and loving to one person for 100 years or more?
- How do you think living longer would change your views on love, sex, dating, commitment, monogamy and marriage?
- Do you want to live 150 years or more?
Photo © painless/Fotolia.com
Loading tweets...
I saw somewhere the mention of sunset clauses but I would imagine the idea of people drifting apart and having an amicable no fault parting would be a reasonably common outcome. That said I could imagine some marriages lasting hundreds of years. Till accidental death they do part.
If people can be biologically 20 or 30 much of the time or get to their 50’s and 60’s and are rejuvenated back then dating in your age group to share life’s journey wouldn’t really matter. Nor older men looking for younger women. Maybe it would be romantic to sync up your biological ages!
I think you probably would see siblings a long way apart. Where I live you get tax credits for having children & sometimes priority housing so children are effectively a career choice for some. You might find a reverse in this in that having children being taxed to control population growth. Although if people start living off earth maybe people would be encouraged to have children more quickly.
Personally 150+ – yes if healthy, I dread the day I have to hang up my running shoes and can’t have a little sprint at the end for fun!
Regarding the Pew study I think people have a different answer depending how the question is asked. Eg I know talking to friends the idea of living as a 90 yr old for an extra 100 years isn’t appealing. The idea of biologically being 20 or 30 again seems much more appealing. Also not too many people are aware of the demographic issues which make keeping people healthy and able to look after themselves desirable. There’s an assumption things can remain as they are now but that would need rapid population growth to support tomorrows elderly. While because it’s normal not many people think of childhood vaccines or pacemakers etc as unnatural or life extension technology.
Twitter: OMGchronicles
says:
Thanks for commenting Daws. You not that “not many people think of childhood vaccines or pacemakers etc as unnatural or life extension technology,” but they are! That’s the whole transhumanist argument — that we all make life or death decisions all the time and most of us choose life. Because scientists are working on ways to not only stop aging but reverse it, it could be that we’d be young and healthy for a long time. Otherwise, I’d agree that living as an old person for decades doesn’t sound all that appealing.