What is a 120-year life for?

What is a 120-year life for?*l

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-what-is-a-120-year-life-for

Letter of the day

The Straits Times 

2026-06-08

Ravi Velloor’s commentary on the prospects of living to 120 and beyond (Preparing for a time when living to 120 is commonplace, May 27) raises important questions about how society must adapt to extended lifespans.

As a gerontologist who has spent two decades studying ageing in Singapore, I want to suggest that the most important question his piece raises is one it cannot fully answer.

Velloor rightly notes the economic, social and political implications of longer lives. But the hardest question lurking beneath all of them is this: What is a 120-year life for? And on what basis do we assert that the person at 110 with severe cognitive impairment still has dignity worth protecting?

The commentary’s most chilling passage is the suggestion that there might need to be a “cut-off year” at 120 for state support, or that people should be allowed to “retire from Planet Earth” once they reach a certain age. These are not merely policy questions. They are anthropological ones. The answers depend entirely on what we believe a human person is worth when he can no longer contribute economically.

Taro Aso’s infamous “hurry up and die” comment is not an outlier. It is the logical conclusion of a framework that locates human worth in productivity. Once a person’s contribution ends, that framework has no principled reason to continue investing in their well-being.

Gerontological research is clear that what humans need most – beyond physical care – is purpose, belonging, and the sense that their life still matters. No amount of longevity science addresses that. Extending the healthspan without addressing the question of meaning produces not a flourishing but an extended existential crisis.

Singapore has among the most sophisticated ageing infrastructures in the region. What we have not yet built is a compelling account of what a long life is for – one that holds firm even when the person in question is no longer useful by conventional measures. That account is not primarily a scientific or policy question. It is a human one. And it is urgent.

Wee Shiou Liang