What ‘AgeTech’ Can — and Can’t — Do

As the founder and director of MIT’s AgeLab, Dr. Joe Coughlin is one of our leading thinkers on the differences technology can make in our lives as we age. So the stance he took in his piece on “Buying Longevity” grabbed my attention.

In the piece — written just before the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas —  he noted the explosion of “AgeTech” devices and products aimed at the average consumer.

“Sleep trackers. Recovery scores. Health dashboards. Coaching apps. Devices that promise not just productivity or entertainment, but longevity itself,” he wrote. “What used to live in clinics, research labs, or wellness retreats is now packaged, priced, and placed on retail shelves.”

And his reaction: Hold on a second. While this technology provides some benefit, its costs are beginning to add up. And more importantly, technology by itself will not put more life in our years.

I feel the same way. I’ve often talked about how housing and healthcare — two crucial elements of quality of life for older adults — work best when the element of community is mixed in.

Community produces belonging and engagement, which in turn helps create a sense of purpose for each of us. And that, to me, is the secret sauce that makes the difference as we grow older.

Joe has noted that increases in longevity mean at traditional retirement age, one can expect to live, on average, 8,000 more days. Technology can do a lot for us in those 8,000 days, but it can’t deliver a sense of purpose.

As Joe writes, “The risk is not that we are investing too much in longevity science or technology. The risk is that we are underinvesting in the lived experience of longevity, such as connection, structure, meaning, and mattering to other people.”

In the end, it’s not a stat from a wearable device or feedback from a fitness app that motivates us to get out of bed each day. It’s much something much simpler: our relationships with other people.