
Can Aging Be Cured? - forloop
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/22/408025154/can-aging-be-cured
======
stcredzero
In a way, we've already "cured" aging. On average, we live a lot longer than
many of our ancestors. We can check many diseases and conditions that would
normally kill elderly people. The problem is like cancer, in that it's not one
thing, but a multitude of things. (And cancer itself is among that multitude!)

Not many people, outside of healthcare workers and AIDS patients know of
cytomegalovirus, but most of the population has it. What most people don't
know, is that if we could otherwise have a life expectancy of 200 years, many
of us would be dying from cytomegalovirus. (Simplified version: it takes up
memory slots in our immune system, but at a slow enough rate, we die of other
causes before that can happen.)

I suspect that "curing" aging will consist of extending the average lifespan a
decade at a time, as we cure dozens of different conditions. Something as
complex as a human body is always going to have some unforeseeable
epiphenomenal mode of failure, given enough time. We know from thermodynamics
and the Halting Problem that everything is bound to break down, and that we
won't be able to predict all of the ways it can happen.

(For a given degree of complexity in any turing complete mechanism, maybe an
overwhelmingly correct heuristic for the halting problem is a piece of paper
with the word "Yes" printed on it.)

~~~
Old_Thrashbarg
Thermodynamics doesn't say that "everything is bound to break down, and that
we won't be able to predict all of the ways it can happen".

I guess you're referring to the second law of thermodynamics. It says that the
entropy of the universe tends to increase. This is predictable and the lack of
"negentropy" won't be an issue for a long time. The heat death of the universe
is supposed to be on the order 10^100 years from now, so is not very relevant
when talking about curing aging.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I suspect they were referring to the ways our body is part of numerous pseudo-
closed local systems, and in each of those systems entropy will tend to
increase. It's true that we are also open systems in meaningful ways and can
be farmers of enthalpy inside our bodies. To some extent that's exactly what
life is--enthalpy farming equipment. But farming is tricky and requires
constant energy inputs. And it does seem like fighting the entropy of those
pseudo-closed (ie can be opened with effort) systems is a difficult if not
losing battle.

------
ffn
If we can finally cure aging, then, at long last, we will finally be able
feasibly tackle inter-galatic travel and planet-level terraforming.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Considering how little progress we've made, I hardly think that our lifespans
are the primary limiters in that venture. I mean you can travel to Mars in 8
months-3 years, yet we haven't.

Energy is our primary limitation right now. We have nuclear but are too afraid
of launching large quantities of the raw materials into atmosphere in case of
a catastrophic failure (and showering land OR sea with some heavy radioactive
metal).

We also have fossil fuels which are very energy dense, but still
heavy/expensive. And finally we have solar which has been a long-term popular
form of spacecraft energy, but it doesn't provide enough to travel between
planets YET.

Ultimately if we invented "infinite safe energy" tomorrow I don't see Mars or
greater space exploration as being too big of a challenge. In particular as
getting stuff into atmosphere is now energy-free, and your only limit is the
cost of the raw materials.

------
reasonattlm
Here is the transcript for those who missed that easily-overlooked link:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?story...](http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=408025154)

"Things that have only a 50 percent chance of happening in 20 years from now
are supposed to sound like science fiction."

This interview with de Grey is one part of a longer piece with other
interviews:

[http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/408023272/the-
fou...](http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/408023272/the-fountain-of-
youth)

Of which the one with Cynthia Kenyon is also interesting, particularly as a
contrast on fundamental philosophy and strategy in the approach to treating
aging as a medical condition:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?story...](http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=408027400)

\---

Aubrey de Grey is the cofounder of the SENS Research Foundation and
coordinator of rejuvenation research programs. Cynthia Kenyon worked on single
gene manipulations that extend nematode longevity back in the 1990s, efforts
that arguably kicked off the modern wave of interest in slowing aging.

In these two short interviews you can see illustrated the most important
division in the modern work aimed at intervention into the aging process: on
the one hand the mainstream approach of altering the operation of metabolism
so as to slow down aging, based on traditional drug discovery methodologies,
and on the other hand the radical, disruptive approach of repairing the damage
caused by the normal operation of metabolism, requiring the development of new
biotechnologies. The strategy here is to avoid changing the operation of
metabolism, because that is very hard and far too little is known of the
important details, but rather periodically clean up the consequences of normal
metabolic activity in order to prevent that damage from overwhelming and
altering biological systems so as to cause degenerative aging.

I'm greatly in favor of the latter approach because all the signs suggest it
should be far more efficient and effective at extending healthy life spans,
not to mention producing actual rejuvenation in the old. You can't greatly
help the old by slowing down aging: better technologies are needed.
Rejuvenation is needed. You can't bring aging under medical control by working
on metabolic alteration to slow aging. Repair is needed, not merely dialing
down the pace of new damage.

------
kristiandupont
Well if we "cure" aging, it will have the awkward consequence that every life
must end with an accident, disease or suicide.

~~~
imaginenore
Or not taking the cure.

~~~
dTal
Which can be decomposed into not taking the cure by choice (suicide) and being
deprived of it forcibly, which can be further decomposed into negligence
(accident) or malice (murder).

~~~
imaginenore
That's like saying shooting yourself in the head is just an allergic reaction
to lead.

~~~
Retra
I can't see the comparison...

------
joeyspn
Didn't know about this guy (Aubrey de Grey) but googling for him I just learnt
that's he's 52.. From that vid I thought he was a sleep-deprived 30-something!

------
atmosx
IIRC from my molecular biology class, the biggest (or maybe one of the
biggest?) problems is about Telomeres[1].

I was impressed by this study[2]: "Lifestyle Changes May Lengthen Telomeres, A
Measure of Cell Aging".

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere)

[2] [http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/09/108886/lifestyle-changes-
ma...](http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/09/108886/lifestyle-changes-may-lengthen-
telomeres-measure-cell-aging)

~~~
PetitPrince
Unfortunately, this "problem" was already solved a long time ago... by cancer
cells ! [1]

It turns out that having immortal cells (by either avoiding death signals or
by having "enhanced" replicative machinery is a great way to develop cancerous
cells. So you have to carefully regulate the lifetime of the cell... which is
what telomere are doing in the first place.

[1] Many many sources, but for instance the "Enabling Replicative Immortality"
of Hanahan&Weinberg 2011, "The Hallmarks of Cancer: the next generation"
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411001279)

~~~
jessriedel
Right. Furthermore, our cells have many of other mechanism besides telomeres
whose function is to prohibit immortality in a way that's difficult to bypass.
(If it were easy to bypass, then it would be less effective at suppressing
cancer.)

------
backtoyoujim
I wake from nightmares worlds where "aging" is cured but "forgetting" becomes
broken.

~~~
forloop
Do you have a deeper point—which I'm missing—or is this FUD?

~~~
pauleastlund
This is me reading between the lines -- so maybe not the parent commenter
meant at all! -- but I think the point is that all sorts of grudges,
prejudices, and regrets naturally expire through generational turnover, and in
a world without aging that natural expiration won't be there to help society
put the past behind us.

~~~
forloop
The loss of grudges/prejudices is also a loss of skills and unique
perspectives. That sounds as much an opportunity as a danger.

I could come up with ridiculous 'nightmares', and interpret them, as well:

I wake from nightmare worlds where 'world hunger' is cured but 'satiety'
becomes broken.

Interpreted as:

Without scarcity peoples' greed will continue to grow unabated. The lust for
consumption will result with the depletion of natural resources, and the
destruction of society.

The dream is a non sequitur; and even taken as a metaphor, it has gapping
holes in the logic!

1\. Prejudices are passed down through generations.

2\. People change their position on subjects, when new information becomes
available.

3\. There's nothing 'natural' about living short lives. Some species live
longer than us; and some are even negligibly senescent[0]!

4\. I've established there's at least one other mechanism by which people can
alter their ideas (point 2). Others could be found.

5\. Dying of cancer (and other diseases) seems like the _worst_ possible
solution to the problem. Torturing people who don't age, and then _not_ have
them die in the end seems more humane! (That may be the _second_ worst
solution). Killing healthy 150 y/o, so that there's generational turnover
would also work (I would prefer that to the status quo, personally). Under
such circumstance, I think it probable a reasonable remedy could be found
(sans death, pain, and indignity)!

Thanks for the interpretation, but you may have been overly charitable!

\---

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_senescence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_senescence)

------
sillygoose
Is aging a disease? :)

~~~
zanny
Its a cause of death. We like to avoid those. And we know multicellular
organisms exist that can maintain their telomeres and avoid senescence.

We are almost certainly going to be able to genetically engineer that into
future people at some point, among a lot of other useful things. Dunno if we
are going to manage to get gene therapy that can alter living humans so
drastically before they die, though. And who knows when it will happen, just
that it almost certainly will, unless we blow ourselves up.

~~~
meatysnapper
I would hate to be poor and immortal. That would be the worst. I feel like
immortality is something for the rich.

~~~
_random_
Becoming rich within 1000 years is more plausible than within ~80 years.
Unless the concept of being "rich" disappears due to progress.

------
anti-shill
yes, but it will take hundreds of years

------
spudtrooper
Step one: Buy a gun.

------
mkagenius
One reason why we age and die - might be because we(any living being) want to
evolve, and that pressurizes us to cross breed and give birth to new
generation before we die and finally die and not hog up all the resources
ourselves. And let the better generation live on.

That natural strategy might have become suboptimal since the progress in
science.

~~~
kolinko
You might be mistaking cause for a reason here.

~~~
mkagenius
No no, cause would be something like length of telomere being short or
something. The reason (evolutionary reason) would be that nature needs to
clear the previous generation in order to make room for a newer and better
generation.

~~~
Retra
Evolution doesn't work like that. You don't consider newer generations
'better', you consider the survivors better. So you're assuming your
conclusion and burying it in human moral terms, which evolution has no
obligation to apply.

~~~
mkagenius
Newer generation is supposed to be better at least thats what genetic cross
tries to do, pass on the better/survivor genes to next generation.

~~~
Retra
There is no 'better' in evolution, only 'survivor.' And if you cured aging,
you would survive better. End of story.

