No matter how much we argue about philosophy, politics, economics or history, there are two accepted universalities deemed inescapable and often horrifying — everyone has to pay taxes, and everyone will grow old and die.
In preparation for our inevitable demises, we are at our quirkiest. Some jump out of airplanes, while others find religion and some even cryogenically freeze their heads.
No matter what we do, we share an unbreakable unity in our mortality.
But something is missing from this rationality. Outside of the certitude of death lies the incertitude of when it will come. The good die young, and sometimes people like Jeanne Calment, of France, die very old — and apparently very bad — at the age of 122.
While I’d like to believe I could live for another 100 years, most of us would agree it isn’t likely.
What does 100 years of life really mean objectively? Obviously, 21 years means something different than it did 60 years ago.
My own grandmother was already a mother by the time she was 20.
By our contemporary standards, she just barely missed being a candidate for MTV’s Teen Mom.
In her day, it was expected.
The age of 40 is now a milestone where we can be athletic and sexy  — think Brad Pitt.
But there was a time when being 40 meant funerals and caskets, as the average life expectancy in 1880 was 39.4 — something Jeanne Calment might have been able to recall.
Despite our ability to live on average almost twice as long in the United States as we did 131 years ago, our increased longevity can be attributed to nothing more eccentric than improved medical care, disease control and more stable diets.
However, our longer lives still seem bound to the inevitability of severe aging, but not all believe this to be true.
Anti-aging scientists have long held the belief that aging does not have to be part of life.
These scientists have used plants, whales and sponges as examples of creatures that live centuries beyond our own years.
While it is true our own physiology is different from a 100,000-year-old Posidonia plant, startling research shows that we can learn from such organisms.
Common biological themes run through these seemingly immortal organisms. All of these entities extensively use a protein called telomerase throughout their lives.
This protein, which protects DNA when cells copy, is limited to human stem cells.
Researchers at Harvard Medical confirmed late last year that telomerase stimulation in humans has the potential to become a veritable elixir of life.
Coupled with other breakthroughs in anti-aging science, it is possible we could experience life spans of up to 100 to 200 years in our own lifetime.
As we push the envelope of anti-aging medicine, there is no reason we should die what are considered “natural deaths,” or age at all.
The social ramifications of essentially limitless lifespans are confusing and unprecedented.
Many social constructions bank on the idea that we will not be living for very long.
Social Security is a safety net that is already buckling under the weight of an older populace.
If our country experiences an explosion of viable, healthy 100-year-olds, Social Security and retirement in their current form may no longer make sense.
In fact, there would be no reason for professionals to limit themselves to one career.
Spending 20 to 30 years as an actor and later learning to be a physician would be quite feasible.
These considerations may seem farfetched and outlandish now, but they could become reality in our own lifetimes.
Maybe we are only fooling ourselves by trying to defy nature, but if not, I’ll be able to say, “I told you so” in about 100 years.
Chris Freyder is a 21-year-old biological sciences junior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Cfreyder.