Research dispels old myths about aging
May 31, 2012 | Source: The Guardian
Professor Tom Kirkwood has demolished a string of misconceptions about the aging process with a groundbreaking study into the health of more than 1,000 older people in the 85-plus generation.
His study, the largest of its kind ever undertaken, has proved revealing on several fronts:
- Life expectancy is increasing by about two years every decade.
- People in the 85-plus range are generally much happier, and more independent, than is generally realized. Remarkably, 80% of a group carefully selected by the Kirkwood team — a fair sample of the UK population of this age — need little care. Around the same number rate their quality of life either good or excellent.
- On the downside, 20% need either regular daily help or critical 24-hour care.
- While the most recent analysis showed that the number of people in the UK aged over 80 to be at 2.6 million, by 2030 the figure is likely to jump to 4.8 million — and one in five will need regular care. Kirkwood’s team, at the world-leading Biomedical Research Centre in Aging at Newcastle University, estimates that this will lead to an 82% increase in the demand for places in care homes, with an additional 630,000 older people needing accommodation.
Tracking activities
Kirkwood’s project is comprehensively tracking the activities, and well-being, of people once considered very old. Known as the Newcastle 85+ Study, it began in 2006 when more than 1,000 85-year-olds, from Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside, were carefully selected from all social classes and backgrounds through GP practices.
Kirkwood explains: “What we now know is that the genetic factors that influence your longevity are not genes that measure out the passage of time; the reason we age and die is because, as we live our lives, our bodies accumulate a great variety of small faults in the cells, and the molecules that make up the cells in our body — so aging is driven by this accumulation of faults. The genes that influence longevity are those that influence how well the body copes with damage, how aggressive our repair mechanisms are; they’re genes that regulate the house-keeping and maintenance and repair.”
Official longevity forecasts have proved wide off the mark. Until relatively recently, he recalls, all the best brains in the world were forecasting that life expectancy would stall. “UN forecasts of 1980 predicted it was going to bump into a ceiling and stop increasing next week, but it didn’t happen; [it] carried on increasing pretty much as before.”
Why? “Something profound had changed … we were reducing the deaths in the early and middle years of life; we were reducing deaths around people who were very old — 80 and over — and those rates are [now] less than half what they were in 1951, the year I was born. This presents a really important challenge: to understand what life is like for the growing numbers of older people. We really want to understand something about the factors that influence the personal trajectory of health into old age.”
Of course, this has huge implications for the cost of caring. Revealingly, in tracking 17 activities of daily living among survey participants, researchers found that men fared better than women; a third managed all 17 without help, compared with a sixth of women. Although women live, on average, five to six years longer than men, the study has found that their disabilities become greater with age.

Comments (14)
by Justin
I don’t understand how robots are involved here but yeah Peter is right. All this number means is that more people are surviving through middle age. It doesn’t mean later stage life is better. Also try plotting maximum lifespan. It has been stuck for a long time. Late stage healthspan and increased maximum life span are better measures I think.
by craig fox
I still am not certain that extreme old age is all that great–I come from multiple families that all naturally lived into their late 90′s even in the 19th century–that does not mean that they were necessarily happy or productive or pain-free, etc. Considering the latest Gallup Poll that says that 78 % of Americans still believe in divine creation as opposed to evolution–I am not sure that long lives are going to be useful or desireable. If people are not intelligent enough to be good because it is logical,, rather than because they are afraid of some version of hell–then maybe extending their lives is not evolutionarily wise.
by Mike W.
We’ve gone through the agricultural age, industrial age, computer age… the robotic age is another phase that will cause major changes to society, but we’ll adapt. And I doubt it will ever happen that everyone will have all their needs met. The rich will continue to control the majority of resources, the poor and middle class will struggle to survive as always. Just because new things exist, it doesn’t mean everybody’s going to get them. Our capabilities in medicine far exceed what they were 100 years or even 20 years ago, but does that mean they’re free for everybody? Of course not. The big companies are going to control supply to make sure they get their profits. And thank goodness for that, otherwise where’s the incentive to keep producing better things?
by Michael Feygin
One thing that many commenters of this article seem to miss is that there will not be a clear distinction between people and robots. Maybe initially. However, as our technology becomes more sophisticated robots will merge with us (or we with them). I do not see it as a dire prediction. It is actually rather hopeful. Replaceable and augmented organs and body parts will definitely be a part of our future longevity and existence.
by Dan Robinson
More people need to recognize that we trade the wisdom of age for the vigor of youth, and that the greatest wealth comes from the self respect of being able to make that trade and thereby contribute to the greater community. When that’s no longer possible, we should be ready to “shuffle off this mortal coil”. If the robots can do it better, so be it.
by Bob Vasquez
Whoopee, more years of golf. Who knows, I may some day be able to play my age.
by Peter Simmons
No, more years of sitting in a chair in a ‘home’ being babied by girls from poor countries and not by robots [although I'm unsure which I'd find more objectionable, I guess you could always beat up a robot without the threat of assault charges]. The only increase in life expectancy is at the decrepit end of life, pills and more pills keep people ‘living’ for a tad longer, but who wants it? I’ll take my own way out thanks.
by Gorden Russell
Ray Kurzweil is constatnly pointing out to us that the rate of progress is constantly accelerating, yet the professors making dire predictions never take this into account. So by 2030 there will be five million more 85-year-olds in England. That doesn’t mean that one in five will need regular care. Medicine is advancing as rapidly as everything else. This very newsletter posts regular articles about new research in the causes and cures of dementia and other ailments of old age. But even if the elderly of 2030 need constant care, they needn’t be placed in nursing homes. By 2030 robots will have the processing power of over ten trillion human neurons. With this much power they are bound to be von Neumann machines. When robots can build robots, they will become plentiful enough and cheap enough for the British National Health to supply them to all of the housebound. These robots will be able to do anything. They will be doctors and nurses as well as housekeepers. They will do the gardening, the marketing, the housecleaning and the home repair.
Another thing that I’ve seen nobody talking about is that when robots become self-replicating they will be able to do any job. That means that nobody will have any work.
If the robots of industry aren’t taxed to pay for unemployment benefits until the age of 65 is reached, then society will collapse. Vast mobs of the unemployed will roam the countryside, attacking the mansions of those who own all the robots.
Oh yes, the robots will have to pay Social Security taxes too.
by Bri
Some people address the jobs issue, but think that higher training will create more jobs. Unfortunatly robots are gonna be much better at those too. The fabric of our society is ripping and almost no political leaders have a clue what to do. There are really elegant solutions to this , they are viewed as socialistic. Your right about the unemployed and mob mentality, and it will force these issue to center stage. Very quickly in fact, it’s already started.
by Peter Simmons
All this nonsense about robots. What makes you think they will ever be anything but toys for the wealthy?
by tedhowardnz
Hi Gordon
Great to see someone else seeing many of the logical implications of robotics.
http://www.solnx.org is one approach, there are others.
We need to start thinking beyond money.
Money is a market measure of value, and as such, contains an inbuilt scarcity multiplier (the more scarce something is the more money it is worth).
When robotics reaches mature development, most things will be so abundant that they will have no monetary value (there will be no market for them, as everyone will already have what they need).
We need to start exploring now, how we will measure value, and how we will retain societal cohesion, when this happens.
To counter your last point:
What will we do when technology takes us beyond money and taxes?
by GatorALLin
Life expectancy is increasing by about two years every decade….. I am guessing not recently…and Not in the USA with our obesity problem and processed foods (too many easy calories not offset by sedentary lifestyle) and diabetes. I am glad the older are happy, but in the USA… it must = fat and happy.
by Porkov
Why, exactly, are you guessing? This information was not difficult to find:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
The increase in life expectancy in the US between 2000 and 2010 was 1.7 years.
by Peter Simmons
Based on what? Just those who survive auto crashes, murders, terminal illness? How has life expectancy increased exactly? AVERAGE life expectancy maybe has increased with some being kept alive who would otherwise have perished, and deaths in childbirth reducing it by less than previously, but that doesn’t add up to an ACTUAL increase in lifespan. Many will continue to die at fifty, sixty etc. Just that the survivors will hand around for longer whilst consuming more and more of the health budget.