The Rift in Longevity Science

From a recent article on the film To Age or Not to Age:

It's easier to change lifespan than previously thought, notes Dr. Austad. "We already know how to make animals live 25-40% longer." But no one really know what all this means for humans... yet.

Gerontology expert Aubrey de Grey, long dismissed as a fringe thinker in the field because he doesn't think we should have to age at all, believes it will be a short leap from a 150-year lifespan to 1000. He notes that, with the speed of the current research, "If you're only 50, ... there's a chance you could pull out of the dive." He is beginning to be considered more mainstream.

The current rift between de Grey's philosophy and the other scientists, records Pappas, is that de Grey wants to get rid of aging altogether, while they just want to extend a healthy lifespan.

I'm with de Grey on that point: if the opportunity is there to do the job properly, then do the job properly. No half measures in the face of the greatest destructive force suffered by humanity: more than a hundred thousand lives extinguished every day, and hundreds of millions of others suffering in their declining years.

By all reasonable arguments, it shouldn't actually be any harder or more costly to repair and reverse aging than to safely slow it down by a significant fraction. An additional and important point is that reversal of aging through damage repair will be beneficial to old people, unlike a slowing of aging, which only lowers the ongoing rate at which new damage occurs. The path ahead is quite clear from a technical perspective, but people who favor the repair of aging are still a minority in the scientific community. More is the pity - and this one of the many things that advocacy and education must change if we ourselves, rather than our descendants, are to live far longer healthy lives.

Comments

I don't understand the people who "just" want to extend the healthy lifespan. Do they imagine that people can be healthy, healthy, healthy, and then suddenly drop dead after 5 minutes of minor discomfort?

"Healthy old people" can only be old people who have not aged. And if they haven't aged, they won't die.

Posted by: William Nelson at July 30th, 2010 10:48 AM

The question to repair partly begs the anaology
to Modern Dotoring,that is, why cure when you can treat, besides its more profitable to treat.

Posted by: Frank J. Ujlaki at August 2nd, 2010 1:05 PM

"if they haven't aged, they won't die"

Young people who haven't aged yet die now.

Agelessness is not equivalent to deathlessness.

Yes, you can be perfectly healthy and still die in an accident, homicide or even unintentional suicide.
perhaps being preoccupied with not dying and avoiding all possible risks can make extended life "boring"

Posted by: nikki at August 3rd, 2010 4:35 PM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.