Verified by 
Having gone to one two-day workshop sponsored by Harvard Medical School 10 years ago, I got onto their mailing list and continue to get all kinds of flyers about upcoming programs.
One that they seem to do every year is titled “Aging: Treatment Perspectives and Challenges.” I am struck by the fact that a possible implication of this title is that aging is a disease that must be treated, and that treating it is not easy. (And, as a senior citizen, this does not give me a warm, cozy feeling.)
I was looking at the flyer from a couple of years back, and noted that the first presentation was “The Art of Aging” by Dr. Sherwin Nuland. That sounded like the name of someone who’d written a bestselling book about death some years back, so I looked him up.
Yes, I was right, he did have a bestseller in 1994 titled How We Die: Reflections on Life’s Final Chapter. But I doubted that he’d be spending much time on this in his “art of aging” talk, since this is one artistic creation that most of us would rather put off as long as possible.
Turns out that Nuland’s talk was probably based on a later book of his, titled The Art of Aging. That certainly sounds like a more cheerful topic than that of his earlier book but, based on a discussion of the The Art of that I found online, it doesn’t sound all that fun to me. The book points out that there is, in normal aging, “loss of physical vigor; vision impairments, such as sensitivity to glare; hearing losses; more fragile bones due to loss of calcium; and some memory loss.”
Now what was I saying? Oh, yes, it was about Nuland’s recent book, and, presumably, his presentation. But there is a bright side – if you can see it with your impaired vision. According to Publisher’s Weekly, the book reminds us that “our bodies are like cars, and taking good care of parts extends their usefulness.”
Yes, but on the other hand when your car breaks down, you can get a new one.
An intriguing but, for me, disturbing title of another session as “Living to 100: Genetic and Environmental Determinants of Exceptional Longevity.” I’m fine with the with the “environmental determinants” part, since I can do something about those. But I don’t like this genetics stuff, especially not with parents who died at 68 and 79. A friend of mine, both of whose parents lived to 97, might have been happy to attend this talk, but not me.
Apparently, the presenter, a Dr. Tom Perls, has developed an instrument called “The Living to 100 Life Expectancy Calculator,” which I found online. I am very reluctant to try it, and here’s why.
I’m 70. Suppose it shows that my life expectancy is 69? Or even 71? Just looking at the first page of the 40-item questionnaire, I could sense that I might not do so well. For example, there is this item on that first page:
“Do you regularly engage in brain activities that are both new and challenging to you (e.g. learning a new subject, playing someone in a hard game such as chess or Scrabble, solving crossword or Sudoku puzzles)?” The choices are: “at least 2 times a week, once a week, between once a week and once a month, rarely, not at all.” If it weren’t for the very occasional Scrabble game I play with my wife, my answer would have to be “not at all,” and this can’t be good.
And that’s one of the environmental things! At least I could play Scrabble more often, and start doing Sudoku puzzles, as soon as I find out what they are. On the other hand, I assume there’s a genetics section and I definitely don’t want to go there. (The “calculator” won’t let you advance the page until you fill out the one you’re on.)
I filled in responses to a number of items, and was finding the whole thing pretty depressing. In fact, with respect to one item on the first page, I think I’d change my response based on what I’ve been reading. It asks, “Are you optimistic about your aging, or pessimistic?” and the choices are “(1) I feel I am aging well and that my older years will be fulfilling ones, (2) I am dreading my older years, and (3) Something in between the above two options.”
Prior to finding that workshop program and looking some stuff up, I think I might have answered (1), but now it’s getting much closer to (2).
Thank you, Harvard Medical School!
