More in the Debate Over Whether or Not Aging Should be Called a Disease
Here I'll point out a recent objection to the formal classification of aging as a disease, which seems to merge at the edges with an objection to treating aging at all, or an objection to aiming high, or the belief that significant progress in this field is not plausible. The latter is, sadly, a common position in the field of aging research. At the very least there is a strong separation of the ideas of aging and disease, which doesn't seem to me to be justified. Aging and age-related disease are only made separate in concept, divided by the names we give to various states and processes. At the low level in our cellular biochemistry it is the same forms of damage that give rise to what is called normal aging and what is called an age-related disease. Matters of degree only separate "healthy" (in decline, less than they were) senior individuals from patients diagnosed with specific age-related diseases.
Is aging a disease? Mutaz Musa answers this question in the affirmative. In response to his article, we suggest that, aside from containing fundamental logical flaws, Musa's argument produces a simplistic picture of the complexities of aging, both as a concept and as an actual phenomenon. While the author's opinion appears to be driven by a sincere desire to optimize people's lives, his approach might in fact be counterproductive: by pathologizing aging, he creates more, not less, challenges to ascribe meaning to age-related physical decline. The questions raised in Musa's piece are nonetheless thought-provoking, as he confronts assumptions about what constitutes disease and what causes aging. In particular, Musa asks us - researchers who study the various processes of aging - to consider how we define aging, disease, and the causes and effects that link these phenomena.
There are logical flaws in Musa's opening statements. "No longer considered an inevitability, growing older should be and is being treated like a chronic condition," he writes. This proclamation contains argumentative entanglements that are common in the field of aging research, and which should be considered carefully. Musa's first claim, that "growing older is no longer considered an inevitability," only makes sense if you consider "growing older" not as a descriptive term for the latter stages of the time that passes from birth to death, but as another way of denoting the state of becoming frail, diseased, mentally and physically infirm, and so on. Aging researchers have found that such decline is not an inevitable occurrence associated with aging (backed up and famously articulated in research frameworks such as Successful Aging). But stating that some or all of these effects may be avoided is not the same as saying that "growing older is no longer considered an inevitability."
Another illustrative example of shifts in logic and meaning occurs when Musa writes about age-related changes in the body, arguing that some of these show "that perfectly normal processes that are critical to survival will quite naturally lead to disease. In a biological sense, the mere passage of time is pathological." Here, Musa turns the fact that some routine processes lead to pathology into an argument that these processes are, therefore, pathological. That some processes lead to pathology does not mean that these processes are responsible for disease. Even a process like the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) through mitochondrial function does not automatically lead to dangerously damaged DNA - it can, but only if there are no antioxidants available, and if DNA repair mechanisms are compromised in some way. We don't define smoking as a disease, we define lung cancer as a disease: smoking is a risk factor, but does not always lead to lung cancer. By collapsing causal risk factors and pathology into one, aging researchers will not become better equipped to deal with the complexity of either part. Nor will anyone benefit from a pathologization of bodily processes that happen in everyone, at all times.
Further, to propose, as Musa does, that if some process over time leads to pathology, then "the mere passage of time" in a biological sense is pathological, is an inductive fallacy. A fallacy that ignores the multiple processes and effects happening in the body over time, all the time, where some have effects most people want, and some do not. Regardless of our abilities to traverse our senior years illness free, we will all, eventually, die. Conflating aging and illness, however, weakens our ability to impart meaning to such inevitability. It seems that while Musa comes to represent an approach to aging that will undoubtedly attract research funding that will help scientists find ways to allow people to live physically healthier lives, it is also an approach that seeks to reduce complex issues to more simple models, thus creating an illusion - or at least the hope - of control and of biotechnological solutions to issues that also have existential and social aspects. This approach overemphasizes the importance of prolonging life at the expense of coming to terms with the possibilities of frailty and various forms of decline - not to mention death - in later life. This will not create less suffering. It will create unrealistic expectations of future scientific mastery of the human condition, telling us that frailty and decline should be avoided at all costs. This is neither a healthy psychological reaction to frailty and decline, nor will it ultimately lead to anything but individual disappointment and a mistrust of a science that promises more than it can deliver.
Link: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47849/title/Opinion--Aging--Not-a-Disease/
Once again both sides of the argument could have benefited their readers by setting out quickly what exactly they think aging is. I think Musa would have benefited from that in particular, because then his detractors would have been forced to refute those points. Instead they could waffle on semi mystically about the complexity of aging.
I guess Aubrey's observation that "It is hard work being a heretic" is correct. When confusion or general ignorance reign you have be be clearer than you opponents about your arguments. If the audience is still confused at the end of the debate then the side defending the status quo have won.
"Conflating aging and illness, however, weakens our ability to impart meaning to such inevitability."
Gosh... again that nonsense that death gives meaning to life?
"This approach overemphasizes the importance of prolonging life at the expense of coming to terms with the possibilities of frailty and various forms of decline - not to mention death - in later life."
Oh, yeah... This is like saying that cancer research is done at the expense of taking away from you the possibilities of experiencing the growing of a good old tumor or the interesting cachexia.
"It will create unrealistic expectations of future scientific mastery of the human condition, telling us that frailty and decline should be avoided at all costs."
It isn't that the purpose of medicine?
"This is neither a healthy psychological reaction to frailty and decline"
What is a healthy psychological reaction then? Becoming a masochist like you?
Hi, Happy New Year 2017 ! Just my 2 cents,
''...Regardless of our abilities to traverse our senior years illness free, we will all, eventually, die. Conflating aging and illness, however, weakens our ability to impart meaning to such inevitability. It seems that while Musa comes to represent an approach to aging that will undoubtedly attract research funding that will help scientists find ways to allow people to live physically healthier lives, it is also an approach that seeks to reduce complex issues to more simple models, thus creating an illusion - or at least the hope - of control and of biotechnological solutions to issues that also have existential and social aspects. This approach overemphasizes the importance of prolonging life at the expense of coming to terms with the possibilities of frailty and various forms of decline - not to mention death - in later life. This will not create less suffering. It will create unrealistic expectations of future scientific mastery of the human condition, telling us that frailty and decline should be avoided at all costs. This is neither a healthy psychological reaction to frailty and decline, nor will it ultimately lead to anything but individual disappointment and a mistrust of a science that promises more than it can deliver.''
Unless SENS can't completely reverse the aging process (and my guess is that it may be the case which I don't hope),
then yes most likely, ''Regardless of our abilities to traverse our senior years illness free, we will all, eventually, die.'' Including
Aubrey de Grey (despite using his SENS once finished), Me and everybody on the internet right now.
LEV is still very much a concept and a AdG paper theory, it makes a lot of SENSE but in reality/application
we don't know - it should work, it could work should it work but there is a could/maybe.
Seeing aging is so more complex than we thought, it's most likely Much More difficult than expected
(and it often happened that way in the past with other failed tries, rarely was it a simple easy path to glory).
Plus, there is a whole other pack of problems (people out there who are opposed to life extension because of ethical
reasons and because 100-120 years expiry date is 'good'nough/time to be replaced''), FDA/health regulation,
initial cost of therapies and supposedly they should be offered for free with health insurance care later on ?
(when the 2 Northern American countries can't even give health insurance that is adequate, how can they give
these ultra expensive 'tourist/overseas' therapy here ? We will all be cured in Europe so have
to travel there for health therapies ?? For those living in Europe, Good for You (Europe has the Cash obviously the real reason)..
you might be the first to reap from this. It's funny the country making the therapies can't even give it to its own American citizens because
of ridiculous non-existant health care price, only the Ultra-Rich - then later on, as FDA/Health Canada releases it by the trickle,
as it is mass marketed maybe the general US and Canadian population will get some - that is almost 10-15 or 20 years LATER)).
''...This will not create less suffering. It will create unrealistic expectations of future scientific mastery
of the human condition, telling us that frailty and decline should be avoided at all costs. This is neither a
healthy psychological reaction to frailty and decline, nor will it ultimately lead to anything but individual
disappointment and a mistrust of a science that promises more than it can deliver.''
Well, I'm in the middle; it's important to be optimistic yet not gullible/dreaming in color/unrealistic while
holding some doubt/restraint/some slight pessimism that it may not turn out like we tought if you will -
'being realistic' (yes hold a certain bitter-sweetness, all films don't have a happy ending, some go well all along and end badly).
I kind of agree and disagree with them. Frailty and decline are almost 100% assured,
but it's the degree of decrepitude/quality of life (healthwise) that counts and how much it's 'liveable'/depending if you are a survivor, escaper or delayer of your diseases
(because there is morbidity compression as you reach 100 and from a past study your chance of dying any time when you reach 100 are 500X-Folds. Meaning
any day after a 100 and it could be over. That's why there are so little supercentenarians (110 years and over club)
or ones reaching 120 years or over. The ones that reach 120 and over, count them on your 1 hand).
It's not necessarily false hope or 'unrealistic expectations' to tell people that frailty and decline
should be avoided - although I do agree that that saying 'at all costs' can be misleading or making false hope a bit because
we all know, that most likely, there May Be some decrepitude and frailty involved despite being on SENS therapies
- it comes with it - with aging - the trick is lowering as best as we can. SENS might not Totally at a 100% stop
everything and that could be very true; so what then ? It means some suffering (and some needed adaptation to that)
is most likely in plans...the less the better. Remember that centenarian humans or other centenarian animals
Survive, they can have tons of frailty, disease in a short space of time but they still made it and they had
to adjust/suffer 'some...always remember the survivor centenarians, they teach us that they don't escape diseases,
they Plow into them straight on and get hurt by them - but it does not stop them - of course, they must have suffered
and have been in pain - some won't accept that (prefer to die than hurt/suffer debilitating diseases),
How strong are you, how much abuse can you take (of course a body can take so much before giving up), but a part
of that has to do with your Will to Live/Placebo effect/Pain sensors in brain. Will you accept pain, will you let yourself die if it's too painful,
do you accept defeat and turn the lights out because you are in agony, what is your pain threshold, will you tough it out
and fold the second you feel a deadly stab in you. I think people today are not faced for this long journey of pain,
and as such many are not going to Acccept it, their Will, will dictate them to End It Quick/The (self) Misery.
While other (such as Centenarian Survivors) will be Walking Plagues who are Plagued-Full of Diseases...à la Mummy
if you will..they carry tons of pain and each of their wound has a 'wrap bandage' that tells a story of pain and
'surviving some'more pain'. They are Survivors and their Will is to Survive their frailty and decrepitude - like a
Mummy - IT does not want to die, IT wants to LIVE; to Survive - to become Young Againg (Rejuvenated) and End
the suffering by getting younger again (SENS hopefully being the ticket to that goal).
: P
Evolution works the same way - Who Will It Select/Survive ? Those who are in Pain and Pull the Plug ? Or Those
who Tough It and Survive To Another Day ? Adaptation is the key work of Evolution, here, for us, Adaptation to Pain.
Adapt to it, Get Used to It, 'Like It' even if there is nothing to like about it - it is Part of Life,
there is Pain in Life - if you want to Live, you may or will face Some pain.
''A Sucker For Pain'' (is born everyday and if they want a long life, they keep at it) = Survivor.
''...Regardless of our abilities to traverse our senior years illness free, we will all, eventually, die.''
True. True That.
That very true (to a certain extent ;).
But...''When''..we will all, eventually, die, IS what is important...not the almost assured fact that we will die.
If - When - I die is in - 10 years vs in a 1000 years - i'll take the last option anyday anytime anyplace anywhere
over the first. Heck, even a 100 years, I'll TAKE it. Many TAKERS HERE...Give Us : )...of course a 10 year
extesion by doing calorie restruction or running etc or if SENS is basically all that (10-20 years tops)...
is not exactly what we hoped (it amounts to a 'non extension').
I believe we have the power to make people live at least 200 years, and if we push this, we could very well
make it to 500 years - I feel it deep down it's possible. Above 500 is very shady stuff, no animal goes that far,
except immortal jellyfish or ancient trees basically. Each human SHOULD have 500 years, at the very least,
on their biological calendar. In the Bible Enoch, Noah and others reach 900 'biblical' years...which in real
years mean divided by 10, so 90 years old...I aim that 900 biblical as a Real number, but 500 is more reasonable
and feasible. Animals reach 250 years old, it's only a multiple by 2, to reach 500. Some quahog clams live
20 years, some live a 100, some live 150, some 200, some 250, some 300 some 500..see..it is not Impossible.
Our mission lies into studying why a 500 clam reaches 500 and another clam of the same species dies in 5 years.
(simply put it's down to biology, damage avoidance, epigenetic drifting avoidance and redox properties
maintenance (oxidative stress avoidance), metabolistic slow down (Reduce junk accrual by improve proteasome/immune)),
The only wat it's going to happen is if we keep ourselves biologically young (so only people below 40-50 can truly
aim for 500 years lifespan; because only they are 'still close enough' to 20 biologically - which needs to be
maintain for as long as needed to reach over a 100 years. We know that 'early' phase of life needs to be
Extended to be able to push back, as long as needed, the final last part of life (downward slope after 50-60 years old)).
How do you push back the last part - you keep being at 20...rejuvenation does that...but that's in theory..
What scares me, though, is some people have said almost exaclt waht I said (''I want to live forever !'')
and they are dead (some died Really Young...really scary...), it makes you realize that life is so short
and so small/precious, it ends so soon, you could die tomorrow.
The Grim Reaper doesn't care it comes to get you when you are smiling or angry or saying you're a tough survivor.
It comes out of the blue to get you, being a (mentally) little prepared helps;since it's almost always a surprise.
PS: I believe it goes about something like this (for now),
The reversibility window:
0-50 years old (here it is not fixed, rejuvenation can be repeated and keep being at an early age, because the downhill slope (especially the epigenetic transcriptional drifting and telomere changes) is still not starter and far enough, that reversibility is possibility (or should I say 'flexibility/unfixedness'...the genome/system can 'bounce back/bend' back to its original configuration as such the damage incured is reversible).
The irreversibility window:
50-100 yeas old (because the downhill slope has already started, it is irreversible - you can only post-pone it a bit but this small window of 50 years stays about the same - it's a Fixed 50 years window - rejuvenation or not.) Some damages in that part are irreversible and contribute to the steady and continued decline until death. Once you reach that period, you are almost 'trapped'by it and getting out it is very much a mop up/catch up game, and now my pov is that is impossible to get out it; it is irreversible/fixed - at that late advancement point in life. Turning old iPSCs into 'rejuvenated' cells by epigenetic reprogramming (as it happened) could change my pov completley if they could do this for every human cell; until then, it's most likely just a surface thing and certain cells in old people may not be Rejuvenatble by epigenetic reprogramming.
PPS: Let us remember many studies in flies, nematodes, mice etc..who reached the conclusion that CR, rapamycin and other methods like that (employing about that same pathways like mTOR, IGF, DAF and so on) have show that lifespan was extended -but most of the time and in most of the results, the animal barely lived that much longer than the control one. Meaning quality of life was improved but the anomalous maximum lifespan stayed about the same. The longest living mutant one vs the longest living control one was about the same - the mutant just had a better quality of life - but the fixed window stayed roughly the same (I say fix, but even that word is anomalous just like maximum lifespan is...still, from what we see, it's the 'general range' that sticks for this species and the mutant don'T excedd all that much. And we saw recently that Macaques fed on calorie restriction had exactly the sam effect, they live healthierly with less mortality, thus longer - but not longer than the longest-living non-calorie restricted fed ones...the longest living non-CR fed ones just had a harder time getting there by compromised health - but like survivor centenarians they too could reach the long life - without calorie restriction (and thus shows that calorie restriction is for the most part non-translatable (and thus minimal) in humans and primates from mice studies results (because of divergin evolutionary specie goals affecting human genetic towards gene longevity/reduced sexual output while mice are compromised gene longevity/increased sexual resources relocation output (mice and rats reproduce so many times (very costly)/humans make very little offspring (more
resources left and relocated for somatic tissue/DNA maintenance)))),
As such the 'fixed window' is in part applicable, the species as a sort of anomalous maximum lifespan that has 2 time-windows, the young early reversible and old late irreversible one. Calorie-restriction fed animals post-pone the
late one a little bit - as such the animal can beat the maximum lifespan.
But not that much and this is very important :
If the animal STart Later, like starting Calorie Restruction at 80% of its lifespan completed - the effect are - even less - ; and now there is Absolutely No post-poning of whatsoever,mortality is barely reduced either. (
again the iPSCs reprogramming thing of cells in old people is very early stuff that proves nothing until made for all cells)
Showingg without a doubt, the sooner the better to Reverse things - and that there is an ''Expiry date'' (reversibility window) to Reverse aging.