The Secret to Living to 100? It’s Not Good Habits

If you want to live to your 100th birthday, healthy habits can only get you so far.

Research is making clearer the role that genes play in living to very old age. Habits like getting enough sleep, exercising and eating a healthy diet can help you stave off disease and live longer, yet when it comes to living beyond 90, genetics start to play a trump card, say researchers who study ageing.

“Some people have this idea: ‘If I do everything right, diet and exercise, I can live to be 150.’ And that’s really not correct,” says Robert Young, who directs a team of researchers at the nonprofit scientific organisation Gerontology Research Group.

About 25% of your ability to live to 90 is determined by genetics, says Dr. Thomas Perls, a professor of medicine at Boston University who leads the New England Centenarian Study, which has followed centenarians and their family members since 1995. By age 100, it’s roughly 50% genetic, he estimates, and by around 106, it’s 75%.

Knowing what enables some people to live very long lives has consequences for the rest of us. Ongoing research into very old age may help provide insight that could eventually be used to develop drugs or identify lifestyle changes to help people live healthier for longer, says Dr. James Kirkland, president of the American Federation for Aging Research.

Who makes it to 100

Centenarians make up a growing share of the U.S. population. There are about 109,000 centenarians living in the country in 2023, according to Census Bureau projections, up from about 65,000 10 years ago, thanks in part to decades of advances in medicine and public health.

Despite a decline in life expectancy, which dropped to 76.4 in 2021, Perls estimates that roughly 20% of the population has the genetic makeup that could get them to 100 if they also make consistent healthy choices.

Not only do centenarians live longer, but data suggest they manage to avoid or delay age-related diseases like cancer, dementia and cardiovascular disease longer than the general population. Among the New England Centenarian Study participants, 15% are “escapers,” or people with no demonstrable disease at the age of 100; some 43% are “delayers,” those who didn’t develop age-related disease until age 80 or after.

Chuck Ullman, who is 97 and lives in a retirement community in Thousand Oaks, Calif., says he is free of health problems—aside from a sore right shoulder from a recent electric biking accident—and has no desire to live to a particular age. He hopes to live as long as he feels good and can do the things he loves, such as woodworking, attending political discussion groups and getting dinner with some of his many friends.

“There are 350 residents here, and I have 350 friends,” Ullman says of his community. He also spends time with Betty, his wife of 77 years. “My objective is to enjoy each and every day that comes along.”

Genes that matter

Researchers have identified some genes and combinations of them that are associated with longevity, such as the presence of a variant of what’s known as the apolipoprotein E gene called e2, a trait thought to help protect against Alzheimer’s. They emphasise each trait is a small piece in a large, complicated puzzle, which can factor in socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and climate.

Living past 100 requires a combination of many genetic variants, each with a relatively modest effect, says Perls of the New England Centenarian Study.

Gene variants that offer protective qualities, such as repairing DNA damage, are especially beneficial, he says.

People who are curious about how long they might live should start by looking at their family histories. Your relatives’ lifespans are one of the strongest predictors of longevity, says Perls. Ullman, the 97-year-old, says his mother lived to 90.

If multiple members of your family have lived into very advanced age, “you’ve potentially won a much greater chance of having purchased the right lottery ticket,” says Perls.

Good habits

Neurologist Dr. Claudia Kawas has been tracking the habits of the “oldest old,” those older than 90, in Southern California since 2003, as part of a study at the University of California, Irvine. She and a team of researchers have found links between longevity and even short amounts of exercise, social activities such as going to church, and modest caffeine and alcohol intake.

“Super-agers,” or people over the age of 80 whose cognitive abilities are on par with those 20 to 30 years younger, reported having more warm, trusting, high-quality relationships with other people than cognitively normal participants, investigators at Northwestern University found.

“Keeping in good relationships could be one key to healthspan,” says Amanda Cook Maher, a neuropsychologist at the University of Michigan and lead author of the study.

Your outlook also matters. Harvard researchers identified a link between optimism and longer lifespans in women across racial and ethnic groups. Among the study participants, the 25% who were the most optimistic had a greater likelihood of living beyond 90 years than the least-optimistic 25%, according to the 2022 study published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

Jeanne Case, 100, says she has taken a glass-half-full approach to life.

She plans to outlive her colon and skin cancers and keep enjoying swing music and Mexican food as long as she feels physically and mentally well.

A day in her life can include walking a mile, conversing with her writing group or noshing on fish tacos with friends. The Irvine, Calif., resident has always exercised but also enjoys indulgences like cheesecake and lemon bars.

“I try not to let stress bother me,” she says.

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

The Secret to Living to 100? It’s Not Good Habits

Good genes matter more the older you get

Who makes it to 100

Genes that matter

Good habits

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.