Lifespan: The Revolutionary Science of Why We Age—and Why We Don't Have To

by David A. Sinclair

Dana Goldman had heard from all the naysayers. The University of Southern California economist understood—far more than most people do—that health care costs had risen dramatically over the past decades, not just in his native United States but around the world. He knew those costs were coming at a time in which human lifespans were being extended, resulting in multitudes of patients who were sicker for longer. And he was fully aware of the never-ending nightmare about the future solvency of programs such as Social Security that provide for the common welfare. The prospect of billions of people growing even older seemed like a perfect storm of economic catastrophes. A few years back, however, Goldman began to realize that there was a difference between extending lives and extending healthy lives. As it stands, aging presents a double economic whammy, because adults who get sick stop making money and contributing to society at the same time they start costing a whole lot to keep alive. But what if older people could work longer? What if they were to use fewer health care resources? What if they were able to continue to give back to society through volunteering, mentorship, and other forms of service? Perhaps—just perhaps—the value of those extra healthy years would lessen the economic blow? So Goldman began to crunch the numbers. As any good economist would, he sought to be both rigorous and conservative in his estimation of the benefits of delayed aging.