What I'm saying is that supercentenarianism seems heavily overrated.
> supercentenarianism seems heavily overrated.
The oldest of the old don't have a quality of life that makes me (and many others) enthused about advanced age: cognitive-impairment, blindness, deafness, immobility, frailty, chronic disease-- all of these are "on the table" as normal expectations except for a few very rare exceptions.
Not to mention that at such advanced age, whether it's 95 or 105, people often need constant 24/7 care, usually from dedicated family members who sacrifice their time to extend the time of another.
The point? She had a very good life up to at least 90 years old, much more than most people I know personally. Reaching 100 is not the point, living 95 good years is.
Not the op, but after watching nearly all of my relatives loose their minds to dementia, altimeters (edit: mood swings can be a...) or something else in later life, the idea of being trapped in that state for any amount of time is terrifying. I know it sounds trite, but having a fast motorbike squirrelled away (even if it's entirely unrealistic in actuality, for a number of reasons) is surprisingly soporific.