"Is There a Biological Limit to Longevity?" Asks World's Leading Aging Expert

 

          

 

Dr. Aubrey de Grey is a biomedical gerontologist based in Cambridge, UK, and is the Chief Science Officer of SENS Foundation, a California-based 501(c)(3) charity dedicated to combating the aging process. He is also Editor-in-Chief of Rejuvenation Research, the world’s highest-impact peer-reviewed journal focused on intervention in aging.

"Medicine is about transcending biology," says Cambridge University aging expert, Aubrey de Grey. Gerontologists and demographers have argued about the biological limit to longevity for a long time, with the balance of opinion heavily influenced by the changes seen in the wealthiest nations’ “survival curves” — graphs showing, broadly speaking, the proportion of an initial population that survived to a given age.

Until a couple of centuries ago, these curves looked very much like radioactive decay curves, because one’s chance of dying at any given age was pretty much the same. As medicine emerged and we became protected from most infectious diseases, the curve became more rectangular, implying a biological limit that most people were getting fairly close to.

Then, since about 1960, the pseudo-rectangle has just got longer, without becoming more rectangular, suggesting no limit (or at least no close one). Very recently, however, the tip of the curve (repreenting those reaching the oldest ages, over 110) has become more rectangular again, swinging the pendulum back in favor of the existence of a limit.

 

                  

From a biological perspective, this demographic analysis is all a bit curious: in a sense it is obvious that such a limit must exist. This is because so much of aging is independent of lifestyle, diet, stress level or anything else that might distinguish some people from others — in particular, a great deal of the rate of aging is determined by the chemistry associated with oxygen consumption.

In a nutshell, breathing is bad for you … but it’s rather non-negotiable.

So, why am I exercised about this? de Grey asks Simply because the belief in a biological limit to longevity is very often elided into a belief in a medical limit. And unfortunately, this inference is being taken seriously by influential observers and commentators, with all that that entails for public policy going forward.* I spend a painful amount of my time disentangling innumerable misconceptions about aging harbored by various groups, but this particular one ranks very high on my list of bugbears, on account of its rare combination of seductiveness and idiocy.

How do we keep 50-year-old VW Beetles on the road? How did Jenner or Pasteur save so many lives, despite knowing hardly the first thing about the immune system?

Technology is about transcending what nature has created. To say that the biological limits to longevity are any kind of evidence of what we can do with medicine is a mixing of apples with oranges of the most egregious nature. And the reason it matters, of course, is that those who have not the time or intellect to see through it have the power to dissipate society’s enthusiasm for attacking aging, by reinforcing the age-old belief that it is as immutable as the heat death of the universe.

The result is a delay in the defeat of aging with medicine, the unnecessary loss of life and the unnecessary perpetuation of the untold suffering caused by aging. This cannot be allowed.

We must clarify, loud and clear, that medicine is about transcending biology.

Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey. Biological Versus Medical Limits on Aging: A Distinction We Must Not Elide. Rejuvenation Research. June 2012, 15(3): 255-256. *doi:10.1089/rej.2012.1354

The Daily Galaxy via http://www.kurzweilai.net

Image credit: Percent of people surviving to a given age in various decades, based on data from the Dept. of Demography, UC Berkeley: C. A. Everone/fis.org

Top of page photo via Shutterstock

 

Comments

[jedi council]

sith lord

[Bob]

I have to agree. The money quote is: "Technology is about transcending what Nature has created." The question "Is there a biological limit to longevity?" is the wrong question to ask. The question we should be asking is "What can we do next to raise the technological limit to longevity?"

[Matthew]

I really think the key to humanities advancements in all areas of science will be quantum computing. When these computers become mainstream and programmers can actually utilize there awesome calculations potential. This will spread to all areas of science especially genetics. I think within 50 to 100 years humanity will achieve such mastery of our dna that living to hundreds of years or possibly forever will be within our grasp. Disease will be wiped out, and viruses along with them. This is assuming we don't completely trash this planet in the name of profit, making it uninhabitable.

[Trantorian]

The fear of the consequences of living forever is quite understandable. That's what keeps people in most superstitious, largely religion-biased or just pessimistic societies (yes, all three include the United States) from pushing for anti-aging research.

But why are they so afraid? It's not something to take lightly, even if you happen to support the research effort. Beyond obvious religious implications, just consider for a moment a cancer as fundamentally a bunch of defective cells who terminantly refuse to die. Now think about it for a while and try not to have one single doubt.

[Robert O. Becker]

@trantorian :
Unfounded superstitions would be the reason behind starving off longevity research ?

It would not have any relation whatsoever to the fact that oppenly reproducing immortals within a dirt-poor rest of the world is a recipe for chaos ?

[Matt Rhodes]

It's strange how at odds culture is with the acceptance of death and the finality of life and consciousness.

Why try to delay the inevitable?

Even IF a human being could be treated/engineered to live hundreds of years, the brain only has a finite amount of free space to use before it begins to discard old info as it learns new info. It's neuroscience!

Oh fantasies of immortality!

Contextually however, it is possible to 'live' beyond your years - in the form of memes, and the values, legacy etc you leave behind. There is a certain immortality in that - but nothing further.

Seriously all - Get busy living because it's the only life you're ever gonna have.

[Matthew]

@ Matt Rhodes we already have experiments to augments human brains with memory chips. You really should keep up with current technology before making statements as fact.

http://gizmodo.com/5813821/scientists-create-first-memory-expansion-for-brain

[Narendra Nath]

Age is a period that separate birth from death. Born must die. The length of life is more or less stable around 100 years for human beings. All biological cells and in combination in muscles, skin and membranes run the body functions as programmed by brain.Then, there is a mysterious non-physical component called spirit/soul/life force. Many a times healthy people die suddenly and extremely, medically hopeless cases survive beyond the limits put by medical scientists! Thus, the matter makes any scientific study incomplete. Thus, neurologists of all medical people have started to believe in some relationship with consciousness and spirituality. Three International Conferences have been held to study such expanding paradigms between science and the beyond science factors.

[George Botha]

Hi everybody, what an insightful article!

This is probably one of the most hotly debated TDG posts that I have come across in a long time.

And the strange thing about it is not one single one of the comments posted is negligible. They are all serious. No comic relief here.

This can only mean that this topic has touched upon quite a sensitive nerve in all of us.

Our life here on this Earth planet is very much inextricably connected to our environment. It is a very material life and believe me I fully realize how a material life is one very specific form of spiritual life.

However, for us to think in terms of eternal life requires a qualitative shift of conception (not just quantitative). A common theme which pervades the posts is the concept of the human material brain getting “full” of life experiences.

Yes and no. The brain is finite, like the branches of a tree. But the brain is so interconnected that it can continually reshuffle associations almost ad infinitum. Yet obviously in a finite brain object there has to be a limit somewhere.

I think as much as we don’t like to compare ourselves to computers we have to think in terms of consciousness as RAM and in terms of long-term memory as hard-drive space. Intelligence would then obviously be processing capacity.

But the main thing I think that we are currently overlooking is the concurrent existence of many more dimensions along with the four we know so intimately. I believe that these dimensions are not empty, but are filled with consciousness.

If we work from the perpendicular principle of dimensions, then it is possible for an eternity to happen while time in our own lives is frozen at an eternal instant.

The material existence which we perceive is undoubtedly memory-based. I do believe that the huge spiritual existence behind it is also memory-based.

And then finally, if this be the case, as we continue on the road of consciousness after our Earthly death (and even now at crucial times), we shall gain access to the eternal memory of the universe, which never had a beginning, but has always existed. In other words, the memory of the universe is infinite, which is very hard for our semi-infinite minds residing in our finite brains to conceive of.

[Bob Greenwade]

While I don't believe we will ever achieve true immortality, in the sense of being immune to death or even extending the natural lifespan to infinity, I do think we're on the verge of finding ways of extending out lifespans into the centuries. There are at least a couple of research projects going on right now that I know of that could result in that (I'd provide links but that would take more time than I want to use right now).

As for Matt's assertion regarding the human brain, we don't necessarily need the artificial expansion Matthew cites. While it's a proven myth that we only use 10% of our brain capacity, our brains are capable of much more than we've generally been taught. Take a look at people with hyperthymesia for just one example.

[George Botha]

Have to agree with you Bob. And even only extending the lifespans of some fortunate biologically capable individuals into the centuries would hopefully enhance our spesies' understanding of life and consciousness and not necessarily boost the egos of the pioneer entities.

[George Botha]

Typo "species'" Ha-ha

[Allan W Janssen]

I think that within the next few years the question will change from "how long can we live," to "how long do we WANT to live?"

[George Botha]

The brain is really amazing in the respect of never actually feeling old, unlike the body. And this is something which only older people like me would know by experience.

So Allan's last post is really the philosophical end-point where we get to when we talk about aging and longevity. It is the ultimate question we can ask right now and it does not have an easy answer ....

[George Botha]

I like Matthew's post on quantum computing and I also like Narendra's sentiments expressed in her post.

What I might add is that there is such a lot at the moment on the doorstep of science that I think we need not call on the extreme firepower of aircraft carriers just yet ....

[TheVitalVariant]

There is one VERY positive thing about death that intrigues me; a feeling that most (in my experience) do not relate to. Death is the final NEW experience.

In our younger years, days were ages long, because everything we did was new to the brain and recorded with extreme detail. As we age and our days become more structured/routine, the brain does not store repeated experiences (unless something surprising happens). This (as I understand it) is why time seems to accelerate as you age. And old age, I imagine, will be marked with rarely "new" experience... except for the last one.

Death is something you will have never witnessed (first-hand) until it comes. And no one, despite all our religious and scientific speculation, honestly KNOWS what comes after (if anything). This aspect of it excites me. Death will be the last moment of my human existence when I can absorb truly new and unique information. It is the final punctuation to my story.

If I were given the option to avoid death, I wouldn't do so for long. Eventually (and this may just be me) curiosity about what lies "beyond" will take hold. I need to know what death IS (or not, in which case: meh). But above all, by that point I will just want to rest. Life is exciting, especially from the perspective of my young age. The ups and downs are exhilarating, and I'm grateful to understand (or speculate as best I can from where I sit) my place in the universe. But eventually, I will move on to whatever awaits me whether that be answers from some bearded creator, eternal sleep, or something more abstract and unimaginable.

There is a quote in a song I really like, that is apparently from a 1990 film I've never heard of, Jacob's Ladder:
"If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth. "

-V

[Janusz Czoch]

The comment made by VitalVariant sounds extremely dangerous mind-warping nonsense. A siren call to oblivion. Think of the words of the theme song to M*A*S*H. I do not wish to be rude about other's posts, or start a debate on this issue. Please protect yourself by ignoring poetic nonsense of devils into angels etc.