Is Aging Optional? -A Galaxy Insight

"It's a repair and maintenance approach to extending the functional life span of a human body. It's just like maintaining the functional life span of a classic car, or a house. We know -- because people do it -- that there is no limit to how long you can do that. Once you have a sufficiently comprehensive panel of interventions to get rid of damage and maintain these things, then, they can last indefinitely. The only reason we don't see that in the human body now is that the panel of interventions we have available to us today is not sufficiently comprehensive."

~ Aubrey de Grey, molecular biologist and author of End of Aging

Aubrey de Grey is 44 years old, going on 1,000. He says old age is optional and why any rational being would choose it, is nuts. But others think de Grey is the one who’s “nuts”. Even so, no one has been able to show that de Grey does not have plausible scientific theory on his side. His well-thought argument that some people alive today could live in a robust and youthful state for 1,000 years is theoretically possible. Possible maybe, but will it happen?

There are people with a lot of money who are betting that it can happen—if the cause gets enough funding. In fact, they’re willing to support the “mad” scientist in his ambitious goal to end ageing for mankind. De Grey, whose original academic field is in computer science and artificial intelligence, has become the darling of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who believe changing the world is just something you do. Peter Thiel, for example, the co-founder and former CEO of PayPal has already dropped $3.5 million on de Grey's Methuselah Foundation.

"I thought he had this rare combination—a serious thinker who had enough courage to break with the crowd," Thiel says. "A lot of people who are not conventional are not serious. But the real breakthroughs in science are made by serious thinkers who are willing to work on research areas that people think are too controversial or too implausible."

Back in 2005, the MIT Technology Review offered $20,000 to any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that de Grey's plan for treating aging as a disease—and curing it—was "so wrong that it was unworthy of learned debate."

The judges for the MIT Technology Review challenge prize were accomplished, respected, and highly intelligent scientists including Rodney Brooks, then director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer of Microsoft; and J. Craig Venter, who shares credit for first sequencing the human genome. What they found was that no one could punch any serious holes in de Grey’s unconventional ideas.

"In our judgment none of the 'refutations' succeeded," Myhrvold noted. "It was a bit ironic because they were mostly the work of established scientists in mainstream gerontology who sought to brand de Grey as 'unscientific”, but the supposed refutations were themselves unscientific.

"The 'refutations' were either ad hominem attacks on de Grey, or arguments that his ideas would never work (which might be right, but that is what experiments are for), or arguments that portions of de Grey's work rested on other people's ideas. None of these refute the possibility that he is at least partially correct.” Continues Myhrvold.

"This is not to say that the MIT group endorsed de Grey or thinks he has proven his case. He hasn't, but admits that upfront. All of science rests on ideas that were either unproven hypotheses or crazy speculations at one point. . . . The sad reality is that most crazy speculations fail. . . . We do not know today how to be forever young for 1,000 years, and I am deeply skeptical that we will figure it out in time for me!"

Even so, there is some reason to hope. There is plenty of precedence for “crazy” ideas changing the face of the planet. Here’s a classic example: On Oct. 9, 1903, the New York Times wrote, "the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years."

But it wasn’t ten million years later. In fact, on that very SAME DAY, on Kill Devil Hill, N.C., a bicycle mechanic named Orville Wright wrote in his diary, "We unpacked rest of goods for new machine."

One man’s version of crazy is another man’s version of “all in a day’s work.” But even if de Grey can conquer ageing, is it madness to want to live forever. Some people look forward to dying. But de Grey says that’s only because we all believe getting old and frail is inevitable—something he refers to as the “pro-aging trance” society is currently “trapped” in.

De Grey's version of the future is where everyone can stay perpetually healthy and young through a combination of innovative longevity sciences, and he believes it will be more affordable alternative to caring for elderly, frail bodies.  He has nothing against old people, he just thinks people should have the option to avoid ageing and death if they want to. There could be other benefits, as well. He says people would welcome eternity if they understood the benefits.

"If we want to hit the high points, number one is, there will not be any frail elderly people. Which means we won't be spending all this unbelievable amount of money keeping all those frail elderly people alive for like one extra year the way we do at the moment. That money will be available to spend on important things like, well, obviously, providing the health care to keep us that way, but that won't be anything like so expensive. Secondly, just doing the things we can't afford now, giving people proper education and not just when they're kids, but also proper adult education and retraining and so on.

"Another thing that's going to have to change completely is retirement. For the moment, when you retire, you retire forever. We're sorry for old people because they're going downhill. There will be no real moral or sociological requirement to do that. Sure, there is going to be a need for Social Security as a safety net just as there is now. But retirement will be a periodic thing. You'll be a journalist for 40 years or whatever and then you'll be sick of it and you'll retire on your savings or on a state pension, depending on what the system is. So after 20 years, golf will have lost its novelty value, and you'll want to do something else with your life. You'll get more retraining and education, and go and be a rock star for 40 years, and then retire again and so on."

For anyone who has ever felt that there’s not enough time to “do it all” in one lifetime; de Grey’s vision of the future is certainly intriguing.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Related Galaxy posts:

Enhancing Evolution: Do Humans have a Moral and Ethical Duty to Improve the Human Race?
End of Aging -The Next Great Paradigm Shift?
Can Humans Live to 1,000? Some Experts Claim We Can — Others Want to Prevent That
The Story of a Biologist & the Extension of the Human Life Span

Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103002222_pf.html

Comments

[I'll pay him $2000]

I say put your money where your mouth is.
If you die by aging (live to be only 100-120) your estate owes me $2000.
If I live to be 120+ I'll pay you $2000

I'm younger then this man yet I'm not deluded into thinking I'm going to live forever.
Sure eventually it might happen that we live a long time given the advances in medicine. However the progress so far sucks...It'll probably be another 100 years before we extend our lives 20 years never mind a few thousand.

This man is like a snake oil salesman. He talks and talks but never promotes anything thats remotely close to a solution.

[Jonathan]

Another example of science attempting to "progress" without asking whether or not it should. I seriously doubt anyone will be able to "cure" aging, but who knows? Maybe it will happen. That doesn't mean it would be a good thing. The world is already getting too crowded. If nobody died it would be exponentially worse along with lots of other problems linked to overpopulation (food shortage, pollution, etc.). How about we start by asking "should we?" rather than "can we?"

[Patrick]

We have to die. Cynicism grows exponentially!

[blutigr999]

This idea of living "multiple lives" is outlandish. I could not imagine living my life as an acountant and then retiring to play golf for 20 years and then saying ohhh I want to be a rockstar, now i will come out of retirement to live my second life as a rockstar. I agree that there are so many things that I would want to achieve in my life but the thing is right now, we have only so much time and we don't know when our time is up and you just have to make the best of what you have. Sure in many years we may evolve to live longer, and there may be improvements in "anti-aging" but if you had "unlimited lifetimes" wouldnt you get sick of earth? or even life itself?

[SoulMyst]

Whats all the fuss about?? you really want to live longer just to see the mini skirt come back into fashion for the 1000th time? want to vote for the next "I promise you I'm the best" president over and over and over and be disappointed yet again??? how many re-runs of Malcolm in the middle do you want to watch?

lol just kidding...as long as they don't re-animate the dead it's all fine...*cough* mother in-law anyone??

[Ivan]

Aging and consequently dying is a natural and necessary function to a population. A population that grows exponentially consumes its resources and will kill itself. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we evolved from ageless organisms that died until one evolved to age.

[Hmmmm]

It takes no great skill to imagine a world of immortal humans, but Aubry should add a little substance to his vast wellspring of hyperbole.

There is nothing unnatural about animals that live forever. I think I read something about some microbial worm that lives until it is stepped upon.

Also, none of us think it unnatural to have an average life span of 75 years, something unheard of a few generations ago. What's unnatural about 140 years, or like that tortoise, 400 years?

As for overpopulation. I don't think that will be a problem. If there is one thing that mankind excels at, its murdering each other off.

[Quite Possible]

The life span is controlled by genes -- it's why your dog is geriatric at the end of it's first decade while a human is only just getting started.

Genes are just a kind of computer code for life, and with the current rate of increase in both computing and genetic knowledge, it is very likely that anyone who gets an extra 20-year boost from medicine might live long enough to see the next breakthrough and get a 100-year boost, which could see him through to the 400-year boost and so on.

All you need is effort and funding for the project.

[catbeller]

He isn't proposing immortality; he's proposing that aging is a disease and can be cured. If you want to criticize people claiming you'll live forever, go find a church and argue with *them*.

[Jack]

"It'll probably be another 100 years before we extend our lives 20 years never mind a few thousand."

I'm sorry, but wasn't this kind of quote and thinking addressed in the article with the Wright Bros. citation? I'm not saying youe'r wrong (well, I am), but if you're going to debate, you shouldn't prove the other side's point by making their case for them!

[i need a job]

Oh great, people will now be able to suck welfare for an eternity for real.

[ferrisoxide]

My son once freaked my wife out with this little gem:

"Mum, one day you're going to get old and die.. but that's OK because things need to die to allow new things to come into this world."

A very wise little 5 year old (at the time). I hope he carries that philosophy through his adult life. If we selfishly cling to life with the assumption that our time is more important than anyone else's we doom the race to a petty, repetitive, small-minded and self-obsessed culture, without the hope of change and renewal that natural death offers.

Put another way, as Bob Geldof once sang "Mortality is the cheap price we pay for existence".

Maybe I'm wrong. It would be interesting to see what sort of culture would emerge where death was just an option. Maybe dying would end up being something special, something of value: "You here that Pete got to die the other day?" "Yeah.. good bloke.. he deserved it."

[roont]

i dont see why anyone would WANT to live for 1000 years. god that would be boring.

so is hunger a disease too? sleep? should we try and cure that?

[Anonymous]

boring? If high school is boring than should be live past 20? Maybe 1000 years is not for everyone but living a while longer with out degrading might mean something to some. Anyone can take there own live if they cant stand living anymore. Imagine what we could accomplish if the top minds in this world could stay in there prime for just 100 more years. Why over populate the planet when we could live on a self sustaining star ship. As far as dying and letting my child take my place, Ill wait till there are plenty of resources available before i have one(which people today dont do). Continue to criticize the idea but as long as technology advances, aging will eventually be cured.

Cured hunger? Already did that, just eat. Now availability of food, that's a different problem.

Cure sleep. Already did that. I don't recall the name of the chemical and they didn't publish the results from long term effects but its as if you just napped for 8 hours with no side effects. probably not recommended for extended use.

[Pete]

The way I see it, progress of the human race is slowed down by a few things. One of those things I think is the time it takes to gain maturity and wisdom and then the time left with your life to accomplish something. Only so many of those years can be productive, if you bother trying to contribute to "human wisdom and knowledge".

If someone could live 1000 years, they'd have time to master lots of things and could potentially have plenty of time to dedicate to advancing knowledge in a field they're interested in.

I for one have an insatiable thirst for knowledge and if I had the chance to live 1000 years, I'm pretty sure it would be the best thing that would ever happen to me.

[Dr AdrianT]

I am an emergency medicine physician who has followed this debate about whether extending human life will be possible, now for about 20 years.

It is not yet in our reach. It is inevitable that it will be achieved however. Those who are not keen on it can let themselves die. There are enough people out there who will take up the option to live to 1000, that it will become the norm.

The thing to keep in mind then is NOT 'is it right or wrong', but that it is definitely going to happen, and to focus on 'what needs to be done to make sure that the consequences are largely good not bad'.

There is no doubt that there are good things that will come of it. There is no doubt that there are bad things that will come of it.
To those who rant and rave, suggest you get over it and start looking at reality.

NOW, the reason why people make such stupid decisions and vote for such stupid politicians, who don't look after the environment and many other problems is because they presently have the lifespan of an insect.
Short in length and short on vision. If people had to live through the changes that they are setting in motion, they would have a different attitude!

There is nothing graceful about growing old... it is something we say to make ourselves feel better about what we think is inevitable.

Problem is that it is not inevitable, and so the psychological defense setup above is harming not helping you/us.

The major obstruction to living longer is social awareness of the medical possibility. Money and time will make the advances required happen either sooner or later, depending on when social awareness, and coping with the idea improves.

Most people, as above, cannot cope with the idea that they might live a very long time, but maybe not. They would rather just shut do the debate as it makes them nervous.
Cognitive dissonance at it's worst!!!

Regards
Dr AdrianT

[DR. K]

Don't worry about overpopulation, if you can beat aging, you will have technology to build houses suspended on the air take energy directly from the stars, or even venture out to different galaxies if you want to.

But I don't think aging is going to be problem, Once start building computers that replicates a human mind, we will be able to download our conciseness make copies, have wireless connection with one another and live multiple lives simultaneous. You can have one conciseness on mars as a mars rover and another on the moon, one on earth with designer body one male one female, one as a classic car cursing down the street all experiencing things and sharing with one another as if it was one.

We all look for intelligent beings in our universe by trying to find planet that looks like earth. Think for a moment, if you are 1000 or millions of years ahead than earth in terms of technology, will you need a planet like earth to survive ? You would have unraveled the mysteries of the universes you could transform yourself to what ever you want and experience life like how starts and galaxies do.

If you think for a moment, this earth we live in is smaller than the size of a proton inside an atom if you compare it with the universe yet there is so many thing happening inside this earth.

We look at an atom and say its so tiny, we break them into smaller particles, if you were one of those particles you would see 100s times smaller particles than your self and that would be same thing for the smallest of the smallest.
Look at the string theory, they say there is something so tiny that are vibrating, what is beyond that ? nothing ? how can something be created out of nothing ? When you can't answer it just bring God and then you don't have to think.

Just like the size of the universe is infinity, the size of the tinniest particle is also infinity.

Anyways I am trying to say that, don't worry about aging, wait for the singularity. Once we do, we will leave our body and experience life how the super intelligent aliens do.

Stop worrying about population, wars, politics, economy what ever other problem you can think of, cause you will be able to create your own reality, your own world.

[Andrés]

I recommend you guys read "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" by Cory Doctorow. It's a great sci-fi book about a society where death has become optional and people can essentially live forever. People regularly "backup" their brains and can be "restored" to a clone if they accidentally die. The author has made the full text available for free here: http://craphound.com/down/download.php

[TheThomas]

When I woke up this morning I wanted to live throughout the day (not consciously). Tomorrow when I wake up I will probably feel the same way. That is how you get to be 1,000 without hating life; one day at a time.

Aubrey is on the search for the "Fountain of Youth." Every expedition that seeks the fountain of youth believes it is a real, and attainable, goal. The leader believes that he will be one of the first to attain mortality. History tells us not to trust this man's vision; instinct, or socialization, tells us we want to.

Eventually aging will be overcome, but Aubrey's just a true-believer. He has no foundation for his belief but the recognition that "death is just an engineering problem." Nonetheless, his goal is an important goal, and when aging is stopped the beneficiaries will be thankful to every man who sought fountain of youth, including Aubrey.

[Frank Glover, Rochester, NY]

"Another example of science attempting to "progress" without asking whether or not it should."

The history and goal of medicine has been nothing *but* increasing the health and length of human life. Why would one ask whether or not we 'should' intervene in aging, any more than any recognized disease? ("Hmm, I don't know, *should* we cure cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's, etc?")

Particularly as, unlike those diseases which we may or may not get, we are all guaranteed to 'come down with' aging?

"I could not imagine living my life as an acountant and then retiring to play golf for 20 years and then saying ohhh I want to be a rockstar, now i will come out of retirement to live my second life as a rockstar..."

Your lack of imagination does not prevent some people from having multiple jobs and careers, even today...

"... but if you had "unlimited lifetimes" wouldn't you get sick of earth? or even life itself?"

There's only one way to really know, isn't there?

(And strangely, when people come to that same 'sick of life' conclusion today, we generally try to *stop* them from taking their own lives, as if withering away with age is better than a quick, clean demise...)

[vatsal]

1000 years ? an individual???? i wonder if the whole human race can exist for that long unless we colonize somewhere else!!!

[sg]

Here's something worth considering: Is the rate of technological change accelerating? Yes, according to Kurzweil and others. Is longevity increasing in a similar fashion? Again, yes... What is so hard about thinking that we are so very stupid today? Cognitive dissonance? Is that what's keeping us from trying to develop ways to have healthier and longer lives? My, perhaps we are very stupid.

One just has to look at the low science literacy rates in the US to start to get the picture. Maybe if people weren't so ready to meet God and be in Heaven they would give more of a shit about making our lives on Earth better--even if it meant we had to be humble about just how blind we can be about some things. Simply "knowing" that non-emergent life forms (created by "intelligent designers) is a perfect example of how a priori (without experiment) knowledge gets in the way of understanding even the most basic things we are.

If I sound frustrated it is because I know the US government scientists at NIST are pulling one over on people about the WTC because they are so illogical and unscientific that they can so easily be distracted from seeing what should be obvious by now. Blind belief is sheer stupidity.

Hats off to those whose imaginations are paired with honest scientific sensibility.

[Elizabeth]

It sounds wonderful to never age or deteriorate another day, but to do this for longer than a normal lifetime would require us to stop procreating... and to do that would be to stop the progress of humanity that comes from generation following generation.

If people had stopped procreating 200 years ago, think of all of the people who would never have been born to do the great things they did. Would those things have been done without their unique qualities and experiences? Maybe, but maybe not.

I dunno. Just seems like a very sad idea.

[Frank Glover, Rochester, NY]

'If people had stopped procreating 200 years ago, think of all of the people who would never have been born to do the great things they did."

Or...the bad ones.

Consider all the productive individuals who are no longer here to continue doing so, because of aging.

And never forget, anti-aging and life extension does not equal unconditional immortality. Even someone 500 years old can still die in a plane (or starship) crash, be murdered, etc. People will always die of *something.* There just need not be the inevitability that it will be something age-related.