Longevity, the singularity, and the psychology of an open-ended life

For almost all of human history, death has been more than a biological fact.

It has been a scheduling assumption.

You are born. You grow. You learn. You work. You form relationships. Perhaps you have children. You age. Eventually, you die.

The details vary enormously across cultures and individuals, but the architecture has been remarkably stable: human life is finite, and everybody knows it.

That knowledge has shaped our religions, philosophies, institutions, families, economies, ambitions, fears, and sense of meaning.

Now something unusual is happening.

Death has not stopped being certain. There is currently no validated treatment that makes humans biologically ageless, no evidence that people alive today can expect to live for 150, 200, 800, or 8,000 years, and demographic evidence based on existing mortality trends argues strongly against radical life extension without a major breakthrough in our ability to modify biological aging. (Olshansky et al., 2024)

But aging itself has moved into the domain of engineering.

Modern geroscience does not treat aging simply as an incomprehensible process of “getting old.” Researchers study interconnected mechanisms including genomic instability, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, stem-cell exhaustion, chronic inflammation, altered intercellular communication, and other processes that may, at least in principle, be modified. (López-Otín et al., 2023)

And there is a more radical hypothesis: longevity escape velocity.

The idea, articulated prominently by Aubrey de Grey, is that medical progress might eventually extend a person’s remaining healthy lifespan faster than the passage of time consumes it. A therapy might buy ten or twenty years, during which improved therapies arrive, buying additional time, during which still better interventions become available. The concept is coherent, but it remains speculative. Nothing resembling sustained human longevity escape velocity has yet been demonstrated. (de Grey, 2004)

So we have entered a strange cognitive territory.

We still know that we can die.

But increasingly, we may no longer feel that we know when the biological process of aging must kill us.

That distinction could become psychologically enormous.

Perhaps the first major consequence of radical longevity will not occur when somebody reaches 150.

Perhaps it begins earlier, when enough people start believing that 150 is no longer absurd.

Death is still certain. The deadline is not.

It is important to begin by resisting one seductive but scientifically unsupported statement:

We no longer know whether we will die.

We do.

Under every technology available today, humans remain mortal. Even a hypothetical cure for aging would not create literal immortality. Accidents, infections, violence, environmental disasters, technological failures, and other causes of death would remain.

Suppose, purely as a mathematical thought experiment, that aging disappeared but an individual still faced a constant 0.1 percent chance of dying from everything else each year. After 1,000 years, the probability of still being alive would be only about 37 percent. Eliminating aging would therefore be profoundly different from eliminating mortality.

What may be disappearing is something subtler:

the assumption of a relatively predictable maximum horizon.

For a person born in most periods of human history, the probability of surviving for centuries was effectively irrelevant to practical decision making. There was no serious reason to ask how one should structure the seventh century of one’s life.

That remains true scientifically today. A 200-year healthy lifespan is not an available medical outcome, much less an 800-year one. A 2024 Nature Aging analysis of mortality trends in the world’s longest-lived populations concluded that radical extension of human life expectancy remains implausible this century if progress continues along historical trajectories. The authors explicitly leave open the possibility that interventions capable of materially slowing biological aging could alter those trajectories, but those interventions have not yet produced radical human lifespan extension. (Olshansky et al., 2024)

That last qualification matters.

The history extrapolation and the biotechnology question are not identical.

One claim is: ordinary improvements in public health and disease treatment do not appear sufficient to push most humans toward radically longer lives.

Another is: future technologies that modify aging itself might change the curve.

The first has demographic evidence behind it. The second is an open scientific question. (Olshansky et al., 2024; López-Otín et al., 2023)

This uncertainty is qualitatively different from the older human condition.

For generations, people could disagree about an afterlife while agreeing about the approximate biological architecture of earthly life.

Now we can coherently imagine several radically different futures.

Perhaps medicine continues improving while human maximum lifespan barely changes.

Perhaps healthspan improves substantially and more people live vigorous lives into their nineties and beyond.

Perhaps combinations of interventions eventually slow several mechanisms of aging simultaneously.

Perhaps genuine rejuvenation becomes possible.

Perhaps AI dramatically accelerates biology and medicine.

Perhaps progress stalls.

Perhaps longevity escape velocity is reached.

Perhaps it never is.

We do not know.

And that uncertainty itself may change us.

A finite life is a cognitive architecture

Psychology already gives us a clue about what happens when the perceived amount of time ahead changes.

Socioemotional selectivity theory, developed by Laura Carstensen and colleagues, proposes that our perception of remaining time helps organize motivation. When the future feels expansive, people tend to give greater priority to goals involving knowledge, exploration, preparation, and future possibilities. When time feels constrained, priorities shift toward emotionally meaningful goals and experiences in the present. Crucially, these effects are not simply consequences of chronological age. Manipulating perceived time horizons can change priorities in younger and older people. (Carstensen et al., 1999)

This suggests something profound about radical longevity.

Age may influence us partly because age carries information about time.

If technology changes that information, some psychological patterns we associate with age might change as well.

Imagine two biologically identical 70-year-olds.

One believes, realistically under today’s medicine, that perhaps ten or twenty healthy years remain.

The other has just received a validated rejuvenation therapy and has strong reason to expect another eighty healthy years.

Chronologically they are both 70.

Psychologically, they inhabit different futures.

One may prioritize closure, emotional meaning, family, and experiences that matter now.

The other may decide to study mathematics.

Or move to another continent.

Or start a company.

Or begin a thirty-year research program.

Or have children.

Or postpone all of those decisions precisely because there suddenly seems to be so much time.

The hypothetical example extends beyond current evidence, but the underlying principle is experimentally grounded: perceived future time influences motivation. (Carstensen et al., 1999; Rupprecht et al., 2022)

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a real-world demonstration that perceptions of life’s finitude are not fixed. In a longitudinal study of more than a thousand adults, pandemic-related experiences were associated with changes in future time perspective and death anxiety. A threatening environment can psychologically compress the horizon. (Rupprecht et al., 2022)

Credible radical life extension could do the reverse.

It could expand it.

There is another psychological problem, however: will that distant person still feel like me?

Research on future-self continuity shows that people vary in how strongly they identify with their future selves. When the person I will become decades from now feels psychologically continuous with the person I am today, I tend to assign that future person’s interests more weight in current decisions. Greater future-self continuity has been associated with more willingness to sacrifice immediate rewards for future benefits, including saving behavior. (Hershfield, 2011; Ersner-Hershfield et al., 2009)

And researchers have already asked a question remarkably close to the one radical longevity creates.

In a series of experiments, Brittany Tausen, Attila Csordas, and C. Neil Macrae asked people to imagine themselves at ages such as 120, 150, 201, and 501 under scenarios in which biological aging had been suspended. Participants could generate vivid scenarios, but imagining themselves beyond a conventional human lifespan generally produced reduced self-continuity compared with imagining the present. Interestingly, people already involved in life-extension communities retained stronger continuity with those extremely distant future selves. (Tausen et al., 2020)

That finding may point toward one of radical longevity’s deepest psychological problems.

It is easier to extend a body in imagination than to extend an identity.

A person thinking about themselves at 80 may feel that they are planning for themselves.

A 30-year-old imagining their 500-year-old self might instead be imagining a fictional descendant who happens to share their memories.

If lifespan expands radically, one challenge may therefore be learning to think across distances in time that our psychology did not evolve to manage.

What happens when the horizon opens?

Consider four possible life horizons.

Not predictions. Thought experiments.

Around one hundred years

This remains recognizably human.

Many contemporary societies are already adapting, imperfectly, to longer lives. Education extends further into adulthood, careers change more often, retirement can span decades, and people must make financial decisions based partly on how long they expect to survive. Research indicates that subjective longevity expectations are related to retirement planning and intended working life, although intentions and actual behavior do not always coincide. (van Solinge & Henkens, 2010)

At this scale, the traditional life course stretches but survives.

Childhood.

Education.

Career.

Family.

Retirement.

Old age.

Death.

The phases move, overlap, and lengthen, but the story remains familiar.

One hundred and fifty to two hundred healthy years

Now the architecture starts to break.

There is currently no evidence that such lifespans are achievable, so what follows is extrapolation, not forecast. (Olshansky et al., 2024)

Would one university education at age 20 still make sense for a 160-year working life?

Would “career” remain singular?

Would people repeatedly return to education at 45, 80, 120, and 160?

Would retirement at 65 become economically or psychologically incoherent?

Would people wait longer to have children, or have several families separated by many decades?

Would marriage still be imagined as a single lifelong institution if “life” meant 180 years?

Would a 95-year-old be culturally considered old if healthy adulthood routinely continued for another century?

None of these outcomes follows automatically from lifespan extension. Culture and institutions could evolve in many directions.

But the central point is harder to escape:

our institutions encode assumptions about how long a human life lasts.

Change the denominator enough and many apparently timeless conventions reveal themselves as adaptations to a particular lifespan.

There is also no guarantee that people would use extra time productively.

An expanded horizon could increase investment in long projects, as socioemotional selectivity theory might suggest. But it could also reduce urgency. (Carstensen et al., 1999)

“Someday” becomes dangerous when someday might be a century away.

One of death’s hidden psychological functions may be that it forces prioritization.

A deadline makes choices costly.

To choose physics is, partly, to surrender the years that could have been devoted to painting.

To marry one person is to close certain alternative lives.

To move to one city means not living simultaneously in another.

Finitude gives choices weight because time cannot be recovered.

Radical longevity would not eliminate opportunity costs, since attention would remain finite at every moment. But it could weaken some of them dramatically.

You might study physics for thirty years and painting for another thirty.

Live in Kyoto for twenty years and Buenos Aires for the next twenty.

Devote half a century to a company, then start again.

A much longer life could transform identity from something like a story with chapters into something closer to a sequence of partially connected lives.

Eight hundred years

At this point we are no longer doing near-future forecasting.

We are performing cognitive archaeology on a hypothetical person who does not yet exist.

An eight-century life raises questions that are not simply enlarged versions of retirement planning.

What happens to autobiographical memory?

What fraction of childhood remains psychologically accessible?

How many professions, partners, communities, ideologies, and identities can one person pass through while continuing to experience themselves as the same person?

The experimental finding that even imagining ages of 120 to 501 can weaken perceived self-continuity gives us at least one reason to take the problem seriously, although no experiment on today’s humans can tell us what an actual 500-year-old mind would be like. (Tausen et al., 2020)

Perhaps memory technology would become indispensable.

Instead of asking only whether medicine could maintain the body, a civilization of extremely long-lived people might need systems that maintain narrative continuity: searchable life archives, AI-assisted autobiographical memory, external cognitive systems, perhaps eventually neural technologies.

At some point, longevity and cognitive augmentation may cease to be separate fields.

Keeping a brain biologically functional for centuries would not necessarily solve the problem of making centuries of experience psychologically manageable.

Eight thousand years

Here the phrase “human lifespan” may itself stop being useful.

Eight thousand years ago, agriculture was spreading through parts of the world. Most modern states, religions, languages, scientific disciplines, and technologies did not exist in their present forms.

To imagine personally surviving a comparable interval into the future is to imagine watching entire civilizations become history.

There is no scientific basis today for expecting this outcome.

But the thought experiment exposes something important.

Eventually, lifespan becomes not merely a medical variable but a cognitive and civilizational one.

A person surviving millennia with an entirely unmodified human mind might confront limits of memory, motivation, identity, adaptation, and meaning long before confronting a perfectly maintained heart or liver.

The biotechnology required for an 8,000-year life would almost certainly imply a civilization technologically alien to ours. So would the psychology.

Worldviews built around mortality begin to move

Human cultures do not merely acknowledge death.

They interpret it.

Religions describe afterlives, reincarnation, resurrection, transcendence, ancestral continuity, or spiritual liberation.

Secular cultures offer other forms of symbolic continuation: children, art, institutions, scientific discoveries, political causes, nations, reputations, monuments, companies, and ideas.

One influential psychological framework, terror management theory, argues that awareness of mortality motivates people to defend cultural worldviews and sources of self-esteem that provide meaning or symbolic continuity. An influential 2010 meta-analysis covering 164 articles and 277 experiments reported substantial mortality-salience effects across such outcomes. (Burke et al., 2010)

But this literature now requires substantial qualification.

A large multi-laboratory replication failed to reproduce the canonical effect of mortality salience on worldview defense, even when original researchers advised some replication teams. A 2025 systematic review examining hundreds of studies concluded that publication bias, low statistical power, heterogeneity, and replication problems make the historical effect sizes unreliable. The review did not reduce the entire literature to zero, but it strongly supports a more cautious interpretation than the classic textbook version of terror management theory. (Klein et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2025)

So we should avoid a simplistic story in which eliminating aging automatically eliminates religion, nationalism, legacy seeking, or existential anxiety.

Human worldviews have many functions besides coping with death.

But there is intriguing early evidence that belief in technological life extension can interact with beliefs about death.

In experiments by Uri Lifshin and colleagues, among participants low in religiosity, making mortality salient or presenting indefinite life extension as scientifically plausible was associated with reduced afterlife belief and greater support for life extension. The work is preliminary and narrow, but it suggests that technological continuation can, for some people, interact psychologically with traditional ideas of continuation after death. (Lifshin et al., 2018)

This opens a much larger question.

What happens to a civilization when death changes category?

Not disappears.

Changes category.

For most people today, aging-related death eventually belongs to the category of inevitability.

Imagine that it moved into the category of preventable failure.

That transition has happened before with particular diseases.

The death of a child from an infection once might have been experienced as tragic fate. When a reliable vaccine or treatment exists, the same death can feel preventable.

If biological aging became substantially controllable, dying from aging might eventually undergo a similar moral transformation.

Instead of saying:

“She died because she became old.”

people might ask:

“Why wasn’t she treated?”

Or:

“Why couldn’t she afford the treatment?”

Or:

“Why did she refuse it?”

Or:

“Why did the treatment fail?”

Death would remain tragic, but its moral vocabulary might change.

And inequality could become existential in a new sense.

A society in which everyone dies eventually is unequal in many ways.

A society in which some groups routinely receive centuries of healthy life while others receive decades would create an inequality not only of wealth or opportunity, but of experienced time itself.

That possibility is speculative because the technology does not exist. But if radical life extension ever becomes effective and scarce, distribution would not be a secondary policy question. It would be part of the meaning of the technology.

The singularity turns longevity into radical uncertainty

Longevity becomes even stranger when placed beside the idea of a technological singularity.

The singularity need not be treated as a prophecy with a date attached.

For this discussion, its most interesting feature is epistemic:

what happens when technological change becomes fast enough that long-range prediction becomes increasingly unreliable?

Ordinary life planning assumes that some features of the future will remain roughly stable.

A 30-year-old saving for retirement can make imperfect but meaningful assumptions about aging, work, housing, family, and mortality.

But imagine making a 200-year plan during a period in which artificial intelligence, biotechnology, neurotechnology, robotics, and medicine are changing rapidly.

Your problem would not merely be that the future is far away.

It would be that the rules governing the future may change repeatedly before you arrive there.

Longevity escape velocity is an extreme expression of this.

It proposes that you do not need the final technology for radical life extension today. You need enough progress to survive until the next generation of technology, then enough to reach the generation after that. (de Grey, 2004)

This produces a peculiar psychological state.

Suppose a healthy 55-year-old is told that no existing therapy can make them live for centuries.

Scientifically correct.

But suppose they also believe there is a meaningful probability that within twenty years some intervention will provide another twenty healthy years, during which AI-accelerated research may produce substantially stronger interventions.

Now the relevant question is no longer:

“How long can today’s medicine keep me alive?”

It becomes:

“Can today’s medicine keep me healthy long enough to reach tomorrow’s medicine?”

That is psychologically different.

It changes health from something valuable primarily because it improves quality of life into something that may also preserve option value.

Exercise, prevention, sleep, vaccination, cardiovascular risk reduction, cancer screening, avoiding unnecessary hazards, and other ordinary health behaviors do not provide longevity escape velocity. But in a world where future medicine is uncertain, remaining healthy longer preserves the possibility of benefiting from whatever comes next.

This can easily become irrational if people begin treating speculative future technologies as guaranteed.

That is the danger.

Someone convinced that rejuvenation is inevitable might take more risk because they expect future medicine to rescue them.

Someone convinced that death is about to be “solved” might spend irresponsibly, defer relationships, avoid commitments, or pursue unvalidated interventions.

The rational response to technological uncertainty is not certainty in the opposite direction.

It is optionality.

The psychological singularity may therefore arrive before the biological one.

Long before anybody lives 200 years, behavior may change because people assign a non-zero probability to living 200 years.

Research already shows that perceived lifespan influences planning, that perceived future time influences goals, and that merely imagining extreme life extension affects psychological continuity with the future self. (Carstensen et al., 1999; Hershfield, 2011; van Solinge & Henkens, 2010; Tausen et al., 2020)

Civilization does not need to achieve radical longevity before radical longevity starts influencing civilization.

It only needs to become credible enough to enter people’s models of the future.

The hardest problem may be living without a deadline

There is a tendency to treat radical longevity as a purely positive arithmetic operation.

Take a good human life.

Add more years.

Therefore, obtain more good life.

Perhaps.

But psychology is not arithmetic.

A hundred additional healthy years could provide time for love, knowledge, exploration, creation, friendship, science, art, play, travel, family, and experiences that cannot fit into an ordinary lifespan.

It could also create psychological problems for which current humans have little preparation.

One is procrastination at civilizational scale.

People often postpone important actions even with short lifespans.

What happens when you sincerely believe there will always be another decade?

The finite life contains a brutal motivational mechanism:

There are only so many summers.

Only so many opportunities to see your parents.

Only so many years in which your children are children.

Only so much time to create something.

Longevity cannot eliminate local forms of irreversibility. Children would still grow. Relationships could still end. Historical moments would still pass. Opportunities would still disappear.

But the individual’s own approaching death is the ultimate deadline behind many other deadlines.

Remove or postpone it far enough and humans may need to become better at creating meaning voluntarily instead of inheriting urgency from mortality.

Another challenge is commitment.

Today, the phrase “for the rest of my life” carries enormous moral force partly because a life has a comprehensible scale.

How would that phrase feel if both people could plausibly live another 400 years?

Perhaps commitments would become weaker.

Or perhaps the opposite.

Perhaps very long lives would make reputation, trust, and relationships more important because one must coexist with others for centuries.

We simply do not know.

A third challenge is psychological identity.

Future-self research already suggests that even across ordinary time horizons, humans can experience their future selves as partially separate people. Imagining life beyond the current human lifespan can deepen that discontinuity. (Hershfield, 2011; Tausen et al., 2020)

A radically extended life might require a new psychological skill:

maintaining enough continuity to care about your distant self while allowing enough discontinuity to keep changing.

Too little continuity and you may repeatedly sacrifice your future.

Too much continuity and centuries of life could become a prison constructed by decisions made by someone you used to be.

Perhaps a 400-year-old should not remain bound psychologically to the ambitions of their 25-year-old self.

Longevity might therefore force us to reconsider what personal identity is for.

Maybe identity is not a permanent object that must survive unchanged.

Maybe it is infrastructure for coordinating successive versions of a person across time.

Under ordinary mortality, that coordination problem spans decades.

Under radical longevity, it might span centuries.

And at very long horizons, artificial intelligence could become part of the solution.

AI systems might help us preserve autobiographical memory, revisit forgotten periods of life, model long-term consequences, communicate with future versions of ourselves, manage commitments, and maintain continuity across stretches of time too large for unaided human cognition.

That is speculation.

But it follows from a real asymmetry: extending biological lifespan does not automatically extend human cognitive capacity, memory, attention, or ability to reason across time.

A civilization serious about radical longevity may eventually discover that keeping people alive is only half of the problem.

The other half is teaching minds how to inhabit lives that long.

What an open-ended life would demand from us

The most intellectually honest position today lies between two forms of certainty.

One says:

Humans will always live roughly as long as they do now.

We do not know that.

Aging biology is an active research field, multiple mechanisms of aging are experimentally tractable, and future interventions could change demographic trajectories in ways that historical extrapolation cannot capture. (López-Otín et al., 2023; Olshansky et al., 2024)

The opposite certainty says:

Radical life extension is coming, so people alive today may live indefinitely.

We do not know that either.

No existing intervention has demonstrated anything close to indefinite healthy human lifespan, and present demographic evidence does not show radical life extension occurring. (Olshansky et al., 2024)

The strange reality is more interesting.

For the first time, technologically sophisticated people can plausibly spend part of their lives not knowing which lifespan regime they inhabit.

A 40-year-old today may live another forty years.

Or sixty.

Perhaps more.

There is no scientific basis for promising them 150.

But there is also no law of nature stating that medicine in 2080 must resemble medicine in 2026.

That creates a new kind of life-planning problem.

We may need to think simultaneously on multiple horizons.

Live as though life is finite, because it is.

Protect health as though future medicine may become dramatically better, because it might.

Do not postpone meaning until rejuvenation arrives.

Do not assume rejuvenation cannot arrive.

Make commitments meaningful now.

Preserve the freedom to revise them later.

Care about the person you will be in thirty years.

Learn how to imagine the person you might be in one hundred.

Perhaps even ask what obligations you would have to a version of yourself living centuries from now.

And above all, distinguish healthy longevity from mere survival.

Research on desired lifespan suggests that people do not simply want an arbitrarily large number of years independent of condition. Expectations about disease, disability, loneliness, health, and quality of later life shape how long people want to live. (Rupprecht, Martin & Lang, 2022; Lang & Rupprecht, 2019)

That distinction may determine whether radical longevity is experienced as liberation or burden.

The real aspiration is not to make dying difficult.

It is to make living continue to be worth doing.

There is a final irony here.

For thousands of years, philosophers have asked how awareness of death should shape a good life.

The coming question may be different:

How should uncertainty about death shape a good life?

If mortality changes from a predictable horizon into a moving technological frontier, we may have to redesign more than medicine.

We may have to redesign education, relationships, careers, retirement, inheritance, political institutions, memory, identity, and our concept of a life well lived.

The singularity, if anything like it occurs, may therefore confront us with a problem stranger than machine intelligence.

Not merely:

What happens when machines become radically more capable?

But:

What happens to the human mind when a person can no longer assume that their life has the duration humans have always planned around?

Death is still real.

Mortality is still real.

Aging is still undefeated.

But the deadline that has organized human cognition for millennia may be becoming less intellectually secure.

And perhaps that is the beginning of the real transition.

Not immortality.

Uncertainty.

References

Burke, B. L., Martens, A., & Faucher, E. H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 155–195. DOI: 10.1177/1088868309352321.

Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165.

Chen, L., Benjamin, R., Guo, Y., Lai, A., & Heine, S. J. (2025). Managing the terror of publication bias: A systematic review of the mortality salience hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 129(1), 20–41. DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000438.

de Grey, A. D. N. J. (2004). Escape velocity: Why the prospect of extreme human life extension matters now. PLOS Biology, 2(6), e187. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020187.

Ersner-Hershfield, H., Garton, M. T., Ballard, K., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., & Knutson, B. (2009). Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow: Individual differences in future self-continuity account for saving. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), 280–286. Full text.

Hershfield, H. E. (2011). Future self-continuity: How conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235, 30–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06201.x.

Klein, R. A., et al. (2022). Many Labs 4: Failure to replicate mortality salience effect with and without original author involvement. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 35271. DOI: 10.1525/collabra.35271.

Lang, F. R., & Rupprecht, F. S. (2019). Motivation for longevity across the life span: An emerging issue. Innovation in Aging, 3(2), igz014. DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igz014.

Lifshin, U., Greenberg, J., Soenke, M., Darrell, A., & Pyszczynski, T. (2018). Mortality salience, religiosity, and indefinite life extension: Evidence of a reciprocal relationship between afterlife beliefs and support for forestalling death. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 8(1), 31–43. DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2016.1238841.

López-Otín, C., Blasco, M. A., Partridge, L., Serrano, M., & Kroemer, G. (2023). Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe. Cell, 186(2), 243–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001.

Olshansky, S. J., Willcox, B. J., Demetrius, L., & Beltrán-Sánchez, H. (2024). Implausibility of radical life extension in humans in the twenty-first century. Nature Aging, 4, 1635–1642. DOI: 10.1038/s43587-024-00702-3.

Rupprecht, F. S., Martin, K., Kamin, S. T., & Lang, F. R. (2022). COVID-19 and perceiving finitude: Associations with future time perspective, death anxiety, and ideal life expectancy. Psychology and Aging, 37(2), 260–271. DOI: 10.1037/pag0000661.

Rupprecht, F. S., Martin, K., & Lang, F. R. (2022). Aging-related fears and their associations with ideal life expectancy. European Journal of Ageing, 19, 587–597. DOI: 10.1007/s10433-021-00661-3.

Tausen, B. M., Csordas, A., & Macrae, C. N. (2020). The mental landscape of imagining life beyond the current life span: Implications for construal and self-continuity. Innovation in Aging, 4(3), igaa013. DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igaa013.

van Solinge, H., & Henkens, K. (2010). Living longer, working longer? The impact of subjective life expectancy on retirement intentions and behaviour. European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 47–51. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckp118.