Longer life expectancy is enough to drive you to drink – or worse

Scientists have developed a genetic test that can fairly accurately predict whether someone will live to 100.

According to the Independent, ‘researchers developed the test by analysing the genomes of 1,055 centenarians from different parts of the world and comparing slight variations in their DNA with the genetic makeup of a set of people younger than 100. The scientists found that by concentrating on just 150 individual mutations in the human genome, they could predict with 77 per cent accuracy whether someone belonged to the group of centenarians.’

Commercial applications could be ready in a few years but scientists are worried that a big public debate needs to occur first to ensure society is ready for the ethical implications.

Too right, the financial implications of longer life need considering by us all.

Just to take one example. The first reaction to hearing about increased life expectancy is that it is good news, but if longer life means years of poverty and failing health, the ‘longevity gene’ could soon to be seen as a curse.

You can imagine a situation in which people find that retirement is not the ‘golden age’ they envisaged and take the test to find out what their remaining life sentence is. Being told they are potential centenarians could be such an horrific prospect they book the next flight to Geneva for a visit to the Dignitas clinic to put an end to it all.

Today’s report from the National Audit Office on ‘Tackling Inequalities in Life Expectancy ‘ gives an indication of this dystopian view.

Government efforts to reduce the impact that location has on people’s life expectancy has failed. Life expectancy in the 70 deprived ‘spearhead’ areas has not improved as fast as the wider population. That’s the headline. But the point is life expectancy in these parts of the country improving. Since 1995-97 spearhead areas have achieved year-on-year increases in life expectancy so that by 2006-08 men were living to 75.8 years and women to 80.4 years on average.

So either life in these areas is not as crappy as you might think OR people are destined to spend even longer shuffling around the hell holes of Britain.

By the way, the above figures compare with 77.9 years for males and 82 years for females for the population as a whole.

Little wonder the coalition government wants to raise the state pension age of 60 years for women and 65 for men further and quicker than previously planned. Or that pensions continue to hit the business pages with the BBC and BA hitting the headlines with plans to curb the costs of their retirement benefits.  

Hilariously, Diageo has pledged 2.5 million barrels of whisky as collateral to trustees of its pension scheme to deal with its funding gap. Would BP pledge barrels of crude to get trustees off its back if its financial crisis in the Gulf of Mexico threatened its pension scheme?

The serious point underlying all this is the basic fact that when these state and occupational schemes were set up no one envisaged that people would be living so long (or that stockmarkets would be so hazardous). The funding issues we all face as individuals and taxpayers are profound. Most of us are simply not saving enough for the years of enforced ‘leisure’ we will probably face.