How would you feel if you woke up tomorrow knowing you'd live until 150? Would you feel bored, filled with a gnawing dread at an endless existence or excited, energetic to make the world a better place?
With props, and snide digs at the other team, experts at the Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) went toe-to-toe, debating whether humanity could and should significantly extend its lifespan.
Pulling on a dressing gown and mask reading "wake me up in 2124", CEO of HMRI and captain of the affirmative team, Professor Frances Kay-Lambkin said living longer would be great for humanity.
"I do want to live to 150 because I am nowhere near done," Professor Kay-Lambkin said.
She argued medical technology was already advanced, and would continue to improve to boost quality of life.
CRISPR gene editing, a technology to take out faulty parts of DNA, and small-scale Cryogenics, freezing organs during transplant surgery, were already happening, Professor Kay-Lambkin said.
"The tech is there, it is not a huge step to target other diseases and aspects of ageing," she said.
"We might be three generations away from being able to live to 150, I don't think it's an if, it's a when."
'Already tired'
But, captain of the negative team and social worker Dr Dara Sampson asked whether the audience would really want a world with another 70-plus years of Donald Trump.
She said with natural disasters and climate change increasing, and social capital decreasing, the world couldn't handle a growing, older population.
"As people live longer they are going to become more and more isolated," she said.
To live was more than just biological, it involved being able to be active and have fun, she said.
"The royal commission findings in the aged care sector don't paint a good picture of what's going to be like for us," she said.
Her teammate, Dr Patrick Skippen, with a background in psychology and neuroscience, pointed to lack of housing and environmental consequences.
"As a young person trying to buy a house, the one that I can buy is one that knocks down 10 or 20 trees," he said.
He also said an older population would likely mean a more conservative society, and less chance for workforce progression.
"I'm already tired, and I'm nowhere near retirement age," he said.
A brighter future?
Australia's life expectancy is 83.3 years as of 2022, according to the Institute of Health and Welfare.
Hitting back, affirmative teammates Dr Jason Girkin, an expert in microbiology, and Professor Nathan Bartlett, expert in immunology, said humanity had much left to learn about the world.
Professor Bartlett said there would be more opportunities to improve their society and surrounding environment.
"Life expectancy has gone up almost exponentially - it is all relative, imagine talking to someone from the dark ages about living to 50 years old," he said.
Health span not life span
Professor Zsolt Balogh, director of trauma at John Hunter Hospital landed firmly on the opposing side, stating that health was unlikely to increase along with age.
"We are designed live around 100 years, can we expand life, yes, but these people might not live healthy and functional lives," he said.
"There is no point creating a society where you have the last couple of decades or even longer without a quality life and the huge burden on society."
During the live debate on Thursday October 17, the negative side won over the audience with a loud clapping and cheering when it came time to vote.
- Would you want to live to be 150? Let us know in the comments below or email letters@newcastleherald.com.au
