So, Prof Devi Sridhar, you want to live to 100. Is that desirable?

The Herald Scotland

09-07-2025

In her book, Prof Sridhar reveals that she would like to reach a nice, round century. Wow. Until relatively recently, that would have seemed the stuff of science fiction. But now that more of us are living longer it no longer appears far-fetched. According to the World Health Organisation, by 2020 there were more people aged 60 and over on the planet than there were children under five.
For some reason, 60 is the magic number when it comes to ageing. Perhaps it is the point of no return, the moment when you can no longer think of yourself as middle-aged and have to find a new label.
But words like 'senior', 'elderly', and 'pensioner' no longer fit your average 60-year-old. They don't sit with the current vibe, as trumpeted in one headline I saw the other day. 'Sixty is the new 40', it announced, followed by lots of advice about trying new things, taking the road less travelled, while you still can. It's the old middle age crisis with a makeover.
Read more
Given the rate at which expectations and science are advancing, the number may not stay at 60 for long. In a few more years, 70 could be the new 50. Give it a couple of decades and 80 will be the new 60. From there you can see Prof Sridhar's 100 on the horizon.
It is possible to get to 100, but whether it is desirable is another matter. While I don't wish to rain on the Prof's parade or anyone else's, have we thought this through?
Even before the Prof's book turned up I had been thinking about ageing. Maybe it is because I have one of those 'significant' birthdays coming up. Past a certain point, getting older is always at the corner of your eye, lurking. It's the kid in the cinema who automatically gives you a concessionary rate. It's every second letter that's about pensions. Imagine year after year of that, all the way to age 100.
Ageing gets a bad press, or at least it used to. Fortunately, the media is now stuffed with Gen X and Baby Boomers. They are now the ones making the decisions about what we see and hear, and what we see and hear are generally positive pictures of ageing. The kind of things you would feast upon if your goal was living to 100.
Daytime television is a hotbed of such positivity. As long as you ignore the funeral plan ads, it is possible to view being old in the UK as a non-stop whirl of antiques flogging and property buying, with a break now and then for a quiz.
It is not just daytime TV. Literature, music, drama, art exhibitions - all pivot to where the money happens to be. After a while, you start to think that maybe ageing isn't as bad as you thought. Hell, it might even be fun (and God knows the alternative isn't much of a giggle). Roll on 100.
The work of the pro-age lobby could be seen most recently at Glastonbury during Rod Stewart's set. The 80-year-old was greeted like a hero, his every hip thrust cheered by the audience, many of whom didn't look far off 60 themselves.
But this year's award for giving ageing a good rep must go to The Four Seasons, Tina Fey's Netflix reboot of Alan Alda's 1981 comedy. The tale of a group of friends getting older together, some more reluctantly than others, was a joy. Young-ish, fit-ish, wealthy, the characters were still on the good side of the age divide, when you can joke about aching hips, 8pm bedtimes, and buying a bath with a door in it (are the swimsuits compulsory?).
Erica Henningson, Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Colman Domingo, Will Forte and Marco Calvani in the The Four Seasons (Image: free) Around the time it was released, I listened to a review and was surprised at how spiky the discussion became. The younger reviewers thought the series was one long whinge by people who had it all when others were struggling to get the basics.
They had a point. Gen X and the Baby Boomers (it even sounds like some awful dad band) took the best of it. Now there's hardly anything left they are still at the front of the queue, demanding what they think is theirs, be it triple locked pensions or winter fuel allowance.
Who will pay for all this good stuff as today's 60-year-olds become 70, 80 and yes, 100? Immigration at the level needed to fill the public coffers is deemed unacceptable to voters. The birth rate is so low the Education Secretary in England, Bridget Phillipson, has urged more young people to have children, a call echoed in other parts of Europe, usually by parties of the right. The cost of health and social care spirals ever upwards. While savings might pay for the first hip op, what about the ones after that on the way to 100?
Those are the economic costs an ageing society will have to face. There are others, ones that are harder to quantify but are nevertheless very real. There is already an epidemic of loneliness among older people.
Looked at from those angles, making it to 100 doesn't seem that desirable. It is a nice idea for some, but the reality is we are not prepared. We don't have the money or the mindset.
Prof Sridhar is right about one thing, though: the huge changes required to keep us living longer, happier lives can only come about if governments back them. Individual efforts alone won't cut it. As for my own significant birthday, I'll be happy with any celebration that doesn't involve giant balloon numbers.
Alison Rowat is a Herald feature writer and columnist