Why Age? Why Die?

Why age? Why die? The answer today is because we have little choice in the matter. But what if we did have the choice tomorrow? The first real, working rejuvenation therapies, those based on clearance of senescent cells, are under active development in a growing number of companies. Pilot human trials have started at one non-profit, Betterhumans. Funds are flowing into this field of development as the evidence becomes ever more compelling. Adventurous individuals can even, with a little effort, obtain and use some of the early senolytic drug candidates for rational self-experimentation in destroying their own senescent cells. These compounds are not enormously expensive even now, prior to mass-manufacture. Given greater appreciation of this point, given more support, this and a range of other forms of human rejuvenation - approaches based on repair of the forms of cell and tissue damage that cause aging - could be moving much more rapidly towards the goal of reliable clinical treatments that are available to everyone at a reasonable cost.

Given the will to move forward, given popular support, we can give ourselves the choice of whether or not to age. Not quite tomorrow, but within a small number of years. Soon enough to matter. Soon enough that we should be thinking about it today, about how to help make this happen more rapidly, with greater quality of results, with fewer false starts. On this topic, the people behind the popular YouTube channels Kurzgesagt and GCP Grey, with some help from the volunteers of the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation, have put together a couple of videos that are attracting a fair amount of attention. Speaking as a generator of unrelenting walls of text, it is always a pleasure to see quality advocacy work carried out in other mediums. See what you think, and if you happen to know people who are primarily consumers of video rather than the written word, you might point them to these works.

Of the people who give the prospects for the defeat of aging a few moments of thought today, some few will go on to join and support our community tomorrow. Many hands make light work. We don't have to persuade the whole world, just enough people to fund the various necessary lines of rejuvenation research to the point at which they can be proven, picked up by the medical industry, and carried forward by the massive demand for health and working treatments for age-related disease. That is happening for senescent cell clearance, stem cell medicine, and some forms of amyloid clearance today, but there are many other areas that need as much success and attention, and it all needs to move more rapidly than is the case right now. We can do something about that, if we choose to.



Posted by: Ariel at October 20th, 2017 8:31 PM

Very good videos!

Nevertheless, there are some errors:

- The dates in the survival curves at the beginning are wrong by an order of magnitude. The change from triangular to rectangular curves started around 250 years ago, not 2100 years ago: https://youtu.be/I1hlLM-LTmU?t=665

- We don't spend and increasing part of our lives being sick and in need of care. We spend more years, but the % is the same (there is a good link here at FA! but I can't find it now).

Posted by: Antonio at October 21st, 2017 3:30 AM

A few factual errors but great stuff all the same. We have seen a great deal of interest in these videos on all social media platforms we are active on. Reddit has exploded with these videos in particular.

This is the kind of high profile publicity the movement needs and we will be relentless in seeking more opportunities like this.

Kurzgesagt Part 2 is next month which talks about the solutions and I am really keen to see that one.

Posted by: Steve Hill at October 21st, 2017 4:51 AM

I've got to wonder if videos of this quality were produced on a monthly basis (even if they just covered exactly the same topics with different pretty cartoons) would this lead to an appreciable upswing in support and donations for SENSRF/LEAF? Or would it achieve not much at all?

Would these videos need a call to action at the end? "Go donate here" or "Go and do a charity fundraiser here"?

Posted by: Jim at October 21st, 2017 6:19 AM

Jim: Yeah, I was thinking along those lines too! A what-can-you-do-now video (pointing to gerontology fundraisers but also to, say, cryonics providers) would be great!

Posted by: Antonio at October 21st, 2017 9:06 AM


Hi Jim !

My 2 cents, I think the videos should not be too begging, but rather giving the option and enticing, like a sort of call to donate if they so wish; if they so wish - you don't put it as 'go' donate here or there; but rather - To donate, donate here and there.. The go word makes it sounds like forcing you to Go donate after watching this. If they say 'you *can donate here and there'; it's better but not with enough impact or feels like just 'asking permission, not convincing. Rather - 'To donate, Donate here and there'; donate here and there is not forcing anyone; but it's giving the door open (to those who wish to donate) and it sorts of 'assumes' that Some will donate - without forcing anyone or playing beggar.

Many may not really believe (more) after watching the videos and/or care to donate (and it is not for 'not donating'/not for a lack of donating, they've donated before and it is not going to be for that). So it is just a choice of wording or how to put it; your action is perfect and will surely entice many to do so; because these are enticing videos and really do cast a great light.

PS : My opinion of the videos is that they are very high quality, (I loved them), and they use common sense and show lots of common sense - that is what is needed and they convey that. The cartoons are of incredible quality yet they thrown in some science to show they are not full of it. It is nice because they use simple logic and, almost, everything said is true.

The only part I am worried is the car analogy repair the parts. The video showing the car being repaired, makes sense they use many graphic analogies (excellent way to illustrate to the public). But, repairing a car is not the same as repairing a human, i.e. there are intrinsic limits that we circumvent that the car does not have. As such, it is slightly misinformed/disingenuous/'putting in error'/hopeful/bittersweet/hopeless. Aging should not continue, it should end, same thing for the 'the reaper' in this video. The big bad grim reaper (cartoon have the power to make something so deadly so cute and almost 'untouching/unreaching' (death...it's a joke.). It should be a a joke we solved long ago, sadly it isn'T thus we have to continue at it because it is no joke people still age & die. But I like their non-defeatist and non-pessimistic approach, it is what is needed. I am not sure these videos will change much though - they are pretty and show want it is we wish to achieve - but how many other videos, in the past, have done about the same (though these ones really get to the bottom of it and also solve the 'thitonnus' problem of 'Should' we age or 'is it good' (as if That was a question (for us it's a non question and a non answer, like non news; it's NOT good in way you see it cause you die and dying should not be some celebration but have some vilification instead). Though, I like how they don'T do the 'accusating tone' they are just stating things, aging means you will die and it Should Not Be that way...simple. And we are on our way towards that.

I like that idea that the video says : ''If or Not we live about 120...'' that is more realistic because they realize that we may not End Aging. We MAY end it or may not.
Currently, there is too much stuff that tells us LEV is only a possibility and, that'S just my 2 cents, it leaning towards Not possible with what there is now (because the 7t herapies do not address other intrinsic 'limits' and as such aging is far complex than we thought). But sens could give 120-150 so these videos help that image get through immensely and, perhaps but very doubtfully, 'end aging' which is LEV. Longevity Escape Velocity is only feasible if ALL limits are broken otherwise it is not; 7 therapies now do not offer that feasability but they offer that possibility (it'S the 'we don't know..it 'could' 'in paper theory' but we have to prove it 'in a mice'), because it is assuming that damage repair 'repairs' everything and life continues. It's more nuanced than that (the car analogy thus fails). Tehre is more to it than just 'damage'. Aging is a multitude of 'limits', and 1 of them is damage accumulation.
And the motto that 'just enough repair will do it to keep on 'running'' like a pimped/reved up and repaired 'oldies' car on its last miles', is hopeful but bittersweet because of other biological limits we have found or have yet to find. I still think these videos are very good and show a lot of potential - they talk about diseases and that's important - people hook on 'diseases' by getting old, that'S the main hook. We would like them to hook on 'aging is the CAuse' that needs to be solved to live Long 150 yaers+ lives, but many don'T want that so what can we do to convince them - solve diseases and make for Healthy lives. These videos show that very clearly with 'crippled/decripting' state and the 'you don'T want to get old to see others die'. So it's good videos and I'm happy that they say as it is - END aging. Cure Death. END the Grim Reaper himself. Just like in that video where you see a long shadow and he's in the back ''I'm Coming to Get You''....this time WE are coming to get him/it/whatever It is - we are going to END the End (Grime Reaper).

PPS: I just read a great new research news that explains what happens after death. New Japan research as said that the brain is not technically 'dead' after dying (when the heart stops beating/last breath). In fact, there is a state of 'hyper-awareness' - AFTER death, apparently from this study. Which is recounted by people Whom died and were REVIVED. And Could Tell What Happened during their 'death' they were technically 'dead', their heart had STOPPED completely..and thus were dead for Hours and it is a wonder they survived (no more blood oxygen flow to brain equals brain tissue damage). Perhaps they were frozen enough, either body preservation keeps the organs intact (no damage just like when they put organs in cold temperature after death). These people whom died said that they Heard the people aroudn them (litterally) say 'the patient is dead'...so they heard Others say they were dead, thus very well KNEW they were dead 'so to speak ok'. This is akin to a 'out of body' experience told by many people whom sometimes die either in dreams or not, but feel 'out of their body' like their soul is 'clinging' around like some ghost wandering about in limbo near the cadaver. As such they have a 'godly' 'omniscient eye' where their brain is Still functionning after 'death' (heart stopped completely). The sutdy said that the brain is capable of still 'functionning' after death and collecting memories - and also, having certain 'input' from certain body sense working - independetly from the whole thing (i.e. it is not because you are dead that certain senses are totally off, because technically they should be - no more sight, no more tactile, no more smell, no more electrical impulses, no more nerve conduction, et...all to the brain).The brain, it seems, is capable of functionning toally Alone after death and thus why people who died and were revived, tells us that what happens after death is a state of 'hyper awareness' (the brain gets on a mode of 'ok I'm dead'...so what's next...oh right..i have to die...). And so what happens after death is that we die but we go in this 'last mode' of 'the brain is lingering and soon going to turn off...but not yet...' there is this last hyperawareness stage - and then YOU ARE DEAD because the brain finally shuts off (AFTER dying already). But people who are REVIVED break that last stage - are 'saved' at that stage and have a REVERSAL back to living -because they were 'hanging on' but with a 'brain' in its last stage (and apparently a last stage that can be Reversed and you come back to life as they did and could recount it). It's scary yet makes sense; we are fully fully dead after dying, our brain is 'finishing it' and if we are revived before that final clean up by brain - we can come back to life.

Still it's pretty scary that we will be 'just in our brain' for a little while before, truly gone...analogy : Robocop film, the cop dies and wakes up in the hospital as a cyborg - the only thing left on him is his face, that's it - he lives in a brain and face/head...the entire body is 'fake/cyborg/robotic'. Think of robocop during that last 'after death' brain stage.

Posted by: CANanonymity at October 21st, 2017 10:10 AM

You've been repeating the same thing for close to 24 months and it's still mostly wrong.

Let me help you look at the problem from a new light - instead of dreaming about immortality figure out how we can get to the number 120 you've pulled out of your ass. Because right now that seems much more of a tall order than living beyond 120 after we get most people to that age.

Posted by: Anonymoose at October 21st, 2017 12:15 PM


Hi Anonymoose, I respect your views but I guess I have to respectfully (agree to) disagree. 120 is not a number like that, ok it might seem 'like that', but it isn't. Jeanne Calment the oldest women (known so far) that ever lived, lived 122 years old and 164 days. It's the main barometer because she 1 person out of 7+ billions who reached that age (although since genetics repeat themselves, there is a likeliness that someone reached that before her, and for example an Haitian woman died at 120 years old very recently here in Canada; just 2 years shy of beating Jeanne). I do agree with you on the fact that we should aim for 120 and try to make it to that (first). But you have to realize something, these videos are not about that - they are about what I have been thumping for 24 plus months. Which is to end aging - the title (and content) of videos : Why Age ? Should We End Aging Forever ? End Aging ? and, Why Die ?. Anyway you look at that - you are going to have to talk about that moment where we would go on to live ABOVE 120 and that means (possibly) immortality, but we can rename that as 'endless lives or eternal life, live as long you want and wish (as you want and wish until you don't; and pull the plug on you); that means, possible eternally. There is nothing wrong about talking about further Longevity above the current 120 or so. But people don't accept it, I think we should, as you said, concentrate our efforts just on reaching 120. But there is nothing stopping us from 'wondering' above 120. Why Age ? Why Die ? Why Die at 120 ? Why not, not die at 120 and Continue on ? These videos talk summarily about that but use a very realistic approach 'we may or we may Not live above 120 or so after humans doing upcoming rejuvenation therapies'. So, I think there is point to be made about living above a century and you are right we should mostly focuse on that. But we should never just focuse on living to a 120; that's it that's all 0 because that is Not Ending Aging at all. I know I might be dreaming in color a bit, and I know we can't dream our life away but that is the hopeful side (maybe gullible a wee bit but wko knows); I rather talk about it and have it included in the conversations - than avoid it and act as if - it is assured you're dead before 120. When LEV may (or most likely may not) give a possibiliy of goign over 120-122, maybe 150...who knows. My 2 cents is just that, the current powers of these rejuvenation could allow it but theoritically it is just that certain limits are not yet overcome thus it would make very unlikely to reach LEV (for now or in near 20-30 years, unless the limits are broken; and aging is thwarted in all its limits).

Again, just my 2 cents. I change it often.

Posted by: CANanonymity at October 21st, 2017 5:45 PM

Wow someones salty today lol

Posted by: Steve Hill at October 21st, 2017 8:20 PM

Look at the number of people viewed and liked these videos! About 2 million views in one day?! I can't believe it! That's amazing!!!!!
And right now it says #11 and #12 on trending!!!!

Posted by: veriti at October 21st, 2017 8:40 PM

@CANanonymity "it would make very unlikely to reach LEV (for now or in near 20-30 years"

Grasping for future obstacles is a form of escapism. There is an almost insurmountable one in front of you right now. Not in 80 years. Right now. Focus on that one.

Secondly and more importantly you're not proposing solutions for the imaginary problems you've not yet identified yourself. You just constantly moan about them - that is to say - your fears and anxieties. Unproductive. Not helpful. Altogether kinda annoying.

Try to be a bit more short and to the point with your posts. They are very long and very rarely say something that can't be summed up in 2 to 3 short sentences. It's very hard to have a conversation with you when I know I'll have to waste 10 minutes reading a wall of disjointed thoughts. Your prior post for instance can be summed up to:

● Jeanne Calment is the oldest woman recorded so I think her age is important.
● I think it's important to talk about living beyond 120 because Jeanne Calment lived to that age and I think we should talk about it now.

Concentrating on Calment is a waste of time. We have a very sizable statistical database of people who died in their 100s and 110s and the causes of death are in most cases well documented. And the more people we get to that age the more well documented it's going to become.

Posted by: Anonymoose at October 21st, 2017 8:56 PM


Again, I will respectfully disagree. But that is your opinion Anonymoose and just that.
Now with that said, if my post is too long you don't have to read them if you don't want too. I can not respond to you, ok. Perhaps it is better ? It's not my intention but it sounds like it. I have been here for a long while and I enjoy coming back; because I suffer from something very bad. Not that it matters. I had people say the same and I did cut back a lot. So I am a regular here (I came here before you as you verify my history). I don't mind new people sharing their thoughts. It is just the style I write, I apologize if it is long but I don't really do well the 2 lines and thank you. I know people love that online, I don't and I try to cut back and summ it up in 2 3 lines; but it does not work (as well as I would like). Or let's say, it makes me say half-assed stuff.

Your prior post for instance can be summed up to:

● Jeanne Calment is the oldest woman recorded so I think her age is important.
● I think it's important to talk about living beyond 120 because Jeanne Calment lived to that age and I think we should talk about it now.

It could very well be summed up into that, but it was not just that; it was more winded response to you Anonymoose; a rebutall not just some 2 liners and sound serious. Because these two lines do not really transmit what I said. Yes, in very summed way, that's what I said; but it is not what I said (not entirely that is). So, to make very fast lines ilke that is very unnuanced and just not my style of writing (by the way, I don't if you have noticed but english is not my language also).

Anyhow to answer about Calment (I will try to be briefer for you), I never said one second that there is no data about centenarians; my point was that she is one of the Eldest to have reach that; you can count the number of people who reached 122 on your one hand (or single finger).
That is Why I said 120 is pretty much what is 'aimed' from these videos and what rejuvenation wishes...that's why I said that. It's true more people will get to that age - but how many will surpass 122-130; hoefully more with rejuvenation.

''Grasping for future obstacles is a form of escapism. There is an almost insurmountable one in front of you right now. Not in 80 years. Right now. Focus on that one.
Secondly and more importantly you're not proposing solutions for the imaginary problems you've not yet identified yourself. You just constantly moan about them - that is to say - your fears and anxieties. Unproductive. Not helpful. Altogether kinda annoying.''

Imaginary problems ? Anonymoose, seriously ?... Ok let me identify this I make stuff up.... I remember I had to the same with other people who said that to me (long ago on this website...). Anyway, in short, tons of sh*t. I don't want to start a long winded post to convey anything or you. And no I'm no I'm not imagining anything, I have studied over 50,000 research papers over 10 years - since I was going to die; if you think I spout bs that's ok.

Anyways, I hope we can solve this aging problem and these videos are great.

Posted by: CANanonymity at October 22nd, 2017 1:16 AM

Seriously guys, two really important longevity videos are released that could do a huge amount of good for the movement and you two are having a pointless slap fight!

In other news, a third video was also posted on the subject by Thunk:


Posted by: Steve Hill at October 22nd, 2017 10:27 AM

We should recognize women live about 5 years longer than men on average, and that holds all the way to 120. Not only that, but men and women use somewhat different genetic pathways to achieve longevity. Epigenetically, women test lower on the aging scale from birth and maintain that difference throughout life. Women are born with slightly longer telomeres, and that persists to the elderly. There are at least a half dozen other reasons women live longer, so we can reasonably conclude now that the maximum lifespan of women is about 120, and 115 for men.

Posted by: Biotechy at October 23rd, 2017 8:23 AM

@Biotechy But women lose their fertility much earlier than men lose their ability to procreate by regenerating semen.
Thus, the perceived evolutionary attractiveness of women to the opposite gender plunges beyond age 45 already, therefore aging is evolutionarily more devastating to women.

(Example: George Timothy Clooney is 58 years old as of 2019-05-06, yet women still repeatedly describe her as highly attractive. Women at that age can not nearly be equivalently as attractive, even former "super models".)

The male brain is evolutionarily programmed to seek health and fertility in women.
Female attractiveness is based on fertility, which aging renders dysfunctional.
The evolutionary purpose of female attractiveness is emitting a vibrant visual signal of fertility and reproductive potential, which is perceived as attractive by the opposite gender, which elderly women can not deliver due to the age-related damage to their now unserviceable reproductive system.

Men however produce semen in abundance, and keep generating them well into old age.

In other words: Women tend to live longer, but also age worse.

That's why women desperately instinctively attempt to look youthful.
However, artifically looking youthful does not undo the damAge (pun intended) to their reproductive system (and any other internal biological damage).

In addition, some people utilize an inhumanely unethical method of artificially looking younger (yes, I am pointing towards you, Sandra Bullock!).


Nevertheless, aging is devastating to both genders and increasingly, currently irreversibly, parasitically demolishes the human body and slaughters people we love, then ourselves, into death.

Human beings deserve better than that!

Old age has been described as a pit of doom, which I fully agree with.

Contrary to popular belief, Gerascophobia is not "crazy" or "pathetic", but means being more knowledgeable and aware about how (destructively) aging affects life.

Posted by: A. Sharafi at October 12th, 2019 6:39 PM

Not only would a life with indefinite health span be much more wonderful, but all worries about age and mortality would be gone!

Imagine all family members were perfectly healthy!
No more worries about the health of one's grandparents, and zero worries about one's own health decades ahead!

Wouldn't that be beautiful?

How about spending 20000 years with the family, in good health, instead of just a few mere decades?

Not only does indefinite youth make life much healthier, but also defeats the greatest fear in life. The fear of being doomed to biological demise.

Death means that one will miss out on everything in the future forever. Does that sound like fun to anyone?

All those exciting inventions, scientific innovations are worth nothing to a dead person.

Death is eternal nothingness. That doesn't sound nice to me.

Also, "death gives life purpose" is a quote designed to glorify non-existence.

Not death, but health gives life purpose (among other things)! Health, integrity, vitality and peace!

Posted by: A. Sharafi at October 13th, 2019 7:19 AM

@A. Sharafi

>death gives life purpose"
It is just that if you any to lose something you start to value it much more. And if there's no immediate danger you pay less attention.

And btw, being forget young doesn't automatically make you immortal. There are a lot of risks we take in our live that might bring the average life expectancy to 800 to 2000 years. For now we accept those risks as they don't significantly affect the life expectancy. In a way 200 years ago the society was ok with much higher risks since the life expectancy was about 40, and am army cold lose 30to 50% if the soldiers due to non combat issues, therefore the acceptable risk were easy higher than today.

Posted by: Cuberat at October 13th, 2019 9:46 AM

"George Timothy Clooney is 58 years old as of 2019-05-06, yet women still repeatedly describe her as highly attractive." - I meant "him"!

Sorry for the mistake.


@Cuberat Thank you for your response.

There are a lot of risks we take in our live that might bring the average life expectancy to 800 to 2000 years.

These risks are certainly better than getting slaughtered into death by the aging process in the second half of life, after watching the same thing happen to one's grandparents, then parents, aunts and uncles, etc. .

Current life spans of humans still are unfortunately tragically short, despite significant improvements since decades ago.
80 or 100 years (, of which the second half consists of biological decay, deterioating health issues and incremental, progressive loss of body functionality) is still not much time.

Yes, everyone should indeed have healthy life style, but ultimately, it does not indefinitely rescue a person from age-related death.
Even Arnold Schwarzenegger's super-genetics are still currently prone to it, just like every other person at the moment.

It is just that if you any to lose something you start to value it much more. And if there's no immediate danger you pay less attention.

This is correct, I agree.
Most people take their intact limbs, not relying on a wheelchair, not living in North Korea, not having down syndrome or diabetes, and living in the third millennium (Internet, mobile phones, etc.) for granted, while I feel grateful for it every single day.
A priceless privilege.

However, many people use "death gives life purpose" in a context to glorify aging and death, also like other euphemisms such as "to go" (what an aggressive, trivializing euphemism for death) or "golden years", which could not be further from truth.

Imagine being trapped unconsciously in eternal nothingness, missing out on everything that will ever happen, and not being able to do anything ever again.
Does that sound like fun to anyone? Because that is death.
Sorry, but this does not sound like something I would appreciate.


Metaphorically, Aging is the wife of Death.

Together, they have destroyed more human lives than anyone and anything else combined.


> A. H.: "I have killed more than 6 Million people in just 4 years!"
> Aging: "How pathetic. Is that all you can do? I kill that many during each two months. Get on my level."

Posted by: A. Sharafi at October 15th, 2019 7:48 PM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. 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.