Longévité speakers
Conférenciers sur la science et la stratégie des vies longues — durée de vie en bonne santé, vieillissement biologique, vie à cent ans — pour conseils et séminaires.
Speakers Associates represents 9 speakers on Longévité, including Dr Christina Yan Zhang, Lara Lewington, Nick Ayton, Amanda Hamilton, Peter Diamandis, Carl Honore, Alexis Abramson, Andrew Scott, et Lynda Gratton.
The 50+ consumer controls a disproportionate share of discretionary spending in most developed markets. Brands still design products and craft messaging as if youth is where growth lives. Entire segments worth trillions are treated as demographic footnotes, served by assumptions about ageing that are fifteen years out of date.
Wellbeing programmes have multiplied, but the workforce health metrics that matter, energy, sleep, metabolic health, mid-life retention, are not improving. Employees are sceptical of corporate wellness when it arrives as a posters-and-apps bundle with no clinical substance behind it. The gap is not enthusiasm. It is credibility.
Most organisations have stress-tested their strategy against geopolitical risk and AI disruption. Few have asked the same question about longevity. The shift to longer lives is already restructuring labour supply, consumer behaviour, healthcare costs, and fiscal policy, simultaneously. Boards that treat demographic change as a background condition, rather than a structural economic force, are calibrating long-term strategy around assumptions that have already been invalidated.
Organisations are structurally biased toward speed and most leaders know it is costing them. Decisions made too fast, problems solved too shallowly, and talent dismissed too early are not isolated failures. They are symptoms of a culture that treats pace as a virtue and age as a liability, rather than as variables to be managed.
Most boards are now expected to take a public position on AI and immersive technology before the rules that will govern them exist. They are making capital decisions on cities, infrastructure and customer environments under standards that are still being drafted. Knowing who is writing those standards, and how to align to them early, has become a leadership question, not a technical one.
Boards are being asked to make calls on artificial intelligence and health technology before the evidence base has settled. Most senior teams have a strong grasp of the hype cycle and a weak grasp of what the science actually supports, where the ethical exposure sits, and which innovations will reach customers and workforces inside the planning horizon. The gap between confident vendor pitches and defensible internal judgement is widening.
Hybrid working has settled into an awkward truce, and most operating models still reflect 2019. Boards want productivity, fairness and retention at once, and the workforce has changed underneath them, with longer careers, blurred role boundaries and higher expectations of how work fits a life. The question is no longer whether to redesign work, but how to do it without breaking the business in the process.
Boards are being asked to make irreversible bets on AI, quantum, and biotech without a credible internal voice on where these technologies are actually heading. The instinct is to delegate the question to consultants who repeat last year’s consensus. That leaves the most consequential decisions with leaders who lack the horizon to judge them.
Most leadership teams plan in linear increments while the technologies reshaping their industry compound exponentially. The gap between the speed of internal decision making and the speed of external change is where incumbents lose. The question is no longer whether to act on AI, robotics, biotech and space, but how to redesign the operating model so the organisation can place serious bets without breaking itself.