Summary

The following report examines a groundbreaking study published in the journal Science, which suggests that genetic inheritance plays a far more dominant role in determining human longevity than previously estimated. While conventional medical advice emphasizes lifestyle choices such as diet and exercise, this new research indicates that the "genetic lottery" may set a hard ceiling on how long an individual can live, regardless of their health habits.

The Primacy of Genetics in Longevity

Research led by Uri Alon of the Weizmann Institute of Science concludes that aging is primarily a hereditary process. By analyzing data from Swedish and Danish twin sets—including twins reared apart—and over 2,000 siblings of American centenarians, the study suggests that genes account for more than 50% of the variance in lifespans. This is a significant increase from previous scientific estimates, which traditionally placed the genetic influence at approximately 25% or less. The researchers achieved this higher estimate by using mathematical models to filter out "extrinsic" causes of death, such as accidents and early-life infections, focusing instead on "intrinsic" biological aging.

Lifestyle as a Modifier, Not a Determiner

The study does not dismiss the importance of a healthy lifestyle, but it reframes its impact. According to Dr. Alon, optimal habits—regular exercise, a balanced diet, and avoiding tobacco—can add roughly five to ten years to a life expectancy already predetermined by one’s genetic profile. For instance, an individual genetically predisposed to live until 80 might reach 85 with perfect health habits or die at 75 due to poor ones. However, the study posits that reaching the age of 100 is nearly impossible without the specific genetic markers for extreme longevity, regardless of how healthily one lives.

Comparative Disease Risks and the "Gray Zone"

The analysis revealed that different conditions have varying levels of genetic correlation. Dementia was found to be the most heavily influenced by genetics, while cancer was the least likely to be dictated by hereditary factors. Despite the study’s strong conclusions, some experts, such as Dr. Bradley J. Willcox, argue that the line between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" causes is blurred. He notes that genes often dictate how the body responds to environmental threats, such as infections, suggesting that environment and biology are inextricably linked.

The Predictor of Family History

Experts involved in the research, including Dr. Thomas Perls of the New England Centenarian Study, suggest that the most accurate way to gauge one's chances of reaching age 100 is to examine the longevity of their immediate ancestors. While healthy habits significantly improve the quality of life and can prevent premature death, the study’s central takeaway remains sobering: while it is quite easy to shorten one’s life through poor choices, lengthening it significantly beyond one's genetic potential is a far more difficult challenge.

Transcript

Genes May Control Your Longevity, However Healthily You Live

A new study suggests that those with long-lived families probably have the best prospects of making it to a very old age.

By Gina Kolata

Jan. 29, 2026

Your potential life span is written in your genes, according to a new study. You can lengthen it a bit with a healthy lifestyle. But if your genetic potential is to live to be 80, for example, it is unlikely that anything you do will push your age at death up to 100.

That, at least, is the conclusion of a paper published Thursday in Science.

Uri Alon of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and other researchers drew the data for the study from three sets of data from pairs of Swedish twins, including one set of twins that was reared apart. To test how generalizable the results are, the group also examined data from a study of 2,092 siblings of 444 Americans who lived to be over 100. Their goal was to identify outside factors that can affect how long someone lives, like infections or accidents, separate from the intrinsic factor of genetics.

They report that aging is mostly hereditary, a conclusion that flies in the face of much conventional medical wisdom regarding dieting, exercising and healthy habits. These habits are important for the quality of a person’s life, but they run into another form of conventional wisdom: You can’t make someone into a centenarian, unless that person also has a genetic inheritance of longevity.

“If you are trying to gauge your own chances of getting to 100, I would say look at the longevity in your family,” said Dr. Thomas Perls, a geriatrician and the director of the New England Centenarian Study at Boston University. His study’s published data on U.S. centenarians were used in the new analysis, although he was not associated with the study.

“This paper has a pretty powerful message,” said S. Jay Olshansky, an emeritus professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who was not involved in the study. “You don’t have as much control as you think.”

“Some of us are driving a Mercedes and some are driving a Yugo,” he said, referring to the low cost, compact car from the former Yugoslavia.

The study’s conclusions — that genes are powerful drivers of how long people can live — is consistent with what is known about other species, said Daniela Bakula of the University of Copenhagen. Dr. Bakula, a co-author of an outside perspective published by Science alongside Dr. Alon’s paper, added that life spans of every other organism studied “have a strong genetic component.”

The new paper used statistical and mathematical models to eliminate causes of death that did not seem to be associated with aging in the cohorts they studied. That sort of analysis, Dr. Olshansky said, is difficult, and “exceptionally well done,” in the paper.

The researchers used mortality data on Swedish twins born between 1900 and 1935, a period that, despite world wars, the Great Depression and a flu pandemic, saw improvements in sanitation and medical care. It was, Dr. Alon said, “a natural experiment” — a number of extrinsic factors affecting mortality had gone down.

That led his group to study the effects of those factors. To test their results, they compared them with life span from another study, of Danish twins born between 1870 to 1900. In those years, there were many deaths at early ages from infectious diseases like diphtheria and cholera.

The Swedish studies included a few causes of death; cancer, cardiovascular disease and dementia. Dr. Alon and his colleagues found that cancer was least likely to be affected by genetics while dementia was the most likely.

Ultimately their analyses led to an estimate that genes account for more than 50 percent of the differences in life spans in a population, compared with the 25 percent or less that had been suggested in earlier research.

The reason for the disparity compared with previous studies, Dr. Alon said, is that those studies included people who had died at younger ages, from causes like accidents or illnesses that were not related to their genes. Then, if genes played a minor role, it was assumed that lifestyle played a major one.

Dr. Alon does not dispute that lifestyle is important. He calculated that certain healthy or unhealthy habits can add or subtract 5 years or so from a life expectancy determined by the “luck of the draw” represented by genes. A person with a genetic predisposition to live to be 80 might die at 75 if they had no healthy habits. If they had every healthy habit they might live to be 85.

Or, as Dr. Olshansky put it, reaching a very old age “is not possible unless you’ve already won the genetic lottery for longevity at birth.”

Dr. Bradley J. Willcox, director of geriatric research at the University of Hawaii, who directs the studies of aging at Kuakini Medical Center in Honolulu, called the paper “provocative.” But he said he was not entirely convinced.

“Drawing a clear, bright line between intrinsic and extrinsic causes of death is not possible,” he said. “Many deaths live in a gray zone where biology and environment collide.” For example, he said, genes can shape how lethal an infection becomes. “If you change how you label those borderline cases,” he added, “you change the results.”

The strong effect of genes on life span does not mean that lifestyle can be ignored, Dr. Perls said, especially for those who do not have the genes of centenarians. Sticking to a good diet, not smoking, maintaining a normal weight and getting regular exercise can all make a notable difference in how long a person lives. He added that good habits could be of even more help than Dr. Alon suggested when he had said the difference between age of death with nothing but good habits compared with no good habits can be 10 years.

Dr. Perls noted that observational studies from Harvard found that a woman who is 50 years old, with healthy habits, could live to be 93. If she had none of those habits — if she smoked, had an unhealthy diet, did not exercise, and drank more than very modestly — she would live to be 79. For a 50-year-old man, a healthy lifestyle could allow him to live to age 88 instead of 76.

But, Dr. Perls said, when it comes to living to a very old age — well over 90, or even 100, or more — genes are important contributors.

Yet even for people who have won the genetic lottery, Dr. Olshansky said, “it’s easy to shorten your life but very difficult to lengthen it.”

Google commands 90 percent of the search market. Seven in 10 of all Americans use Facebook. Amazon, Microsoft and Google control two-thirds of the internet’s cloud architecture — if any of it goes down, so does the web. Amazon owns 40 percent of the American e-commerce market.

What’s happening now, in one sense, is that the tech titans who have secured such large swaths of power over the digital world are increasingly comfortable wielding that power, openly, in the “real” world too; the tech oligarchs are becoming the American oligarchs, period, often using leverage from their digital platforms in tandem with their war chests of old-fashioned cash.

Pi Day: How One Irrational Number Made Us Modern – A Summary

The New York Times article “Pi Day: How One Irrational Number Made Us Modern” details the fascinating history of pi (π), the mathematical constant representing the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, and its surprisingly pervasive influence on modern technology and scientific advancement. The article traces pi’s journey from ancient approximations to its current calculation of trillions of digits, highlighting how each stage of refinement has unlocked new possibilities.

The story begins in ancient civilizations – Babylonians and Egyptians – who recognized the consistent relationship between a circle’s circumference and diameter, but lacked the tools for precise calculation. They arrived at approximations, with the Babylonians using 3 and the Egyptians employing a value around 3.16. These early estimations were sufficient for practical purposes like land surveying and construction, but lacked the precision needed for more complex mathematical endeavors. The article emphasizes that these weren’t failures, but rather pragmatic solutions for the needs of the time.

A significant leap occurred with Archimedes in the 3rd century BC. He devised a method of approximating pi by inscribing and circumscribing polygons within and around a circle. By increasing the number of sides of these polygons, he progressively narrowed the range within which pi must lie, ultimately arriving at an approximation between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71. This method, while laborious, represented the first rigorous mathematical approach to determining pi’s value and established a foundation for future calculations.

For centuries following Archimedes, progress was slow. Chinese mathematicians, notably Zu Chongzhi in the 5th century AD, achieved remarkable accuracy, calculating pi to seven decimal places – a record that stood for nearly a millennium. However, the article points out that this knowledge remained largely confined to specific regions and didn’t immediately translate into widespread mathematical or technological breakthroughs. The limitations were not in the understanding of pi itself, but in the broader mathematical framework needed to utilize such precision.

The Renaissance and the advent of calculus in the 17th century marked a turning point. Mathematicians like Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz discovered infinite series representations for pi, providing formulas that could, in theory, calculate pi to any desired degree of accuracy. These series, however, converged slowly, meaning a vast number of terms were needed for even modest improvements in precision. The article explains that this period wasn’t just about finding more digits, but about developing new mathematical tools – calculus – that fundamentally changed how mathematicians approached problems.

The 18th and 19th centuries saw a flurry of activity focused on refining these series and discovering new ones. Mathematicians like Johann Heinrich Lambert proved that pi is irrational – meaning it cannot be expressed as a simple fraction – a crucial theoretical breakthrough. Later, Ferdinand von Lindemann proved that pi is transcendental, meaning it is not the root of any polynomial equation with integer coefficients. This proof definitively settled long-standing questions about the nature of pi and had implications for geometric constructions, notably proving the impossibility of “squaring the circle” using only a compass and straightedge.

The 20th and 21st centuries witnessed an explosion in pi’s calculation, driven not by a need for greater accuracy in practical applications, but by the development of increasingly powerful computers. The article details how calculating pi became a benchmark for testing computer hardware and algorithms. Each new record for the number of digits calculated demonstrated advancements in computing power and efficiency. The pursuit of pi digits became a form of computational sport, pushing the boundaries of what was possible.

However, the article stresses that pi’s importance extends far beyond its role as a computational test. It is fundamental to numerous fields of science and engineering. Pi appears in formulas describing everything from the behavior of pendulums and the propagation of waves to the principles of quantum mechanics and the curvature of spacetime in Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s essential for signal processing, image compression, and the design of everything from bridges and buildings to smartphones and satellites.

The article highlights specific examples: the Global Positioning System (GPS) relies on incredibly precise calculations involving pi to determine location; the design of circular structures, like lenses and antennas, depends on accurate pi values; and even the seemingly unrelated field of statistics utilizes pi in probability distributions like the normal distribution.

Finally, the article touches upon the cultural significance of Pi Day (March 14th – 3/14), a celebration of this remarkable number that has grown in popularity, reflecting a broader public appreciation for mathematics and its role in shaping our world. It’s a reminder that even an abstract mathematical concept like pi has a tangible and profound impact on our daily lives, underpinning much of the modern technology we take for granted. The ongoing fascination with pi, the article concludes, is a testament to its enduring beauty and its central role in our understanding of the universe.