

Why We Need a War on Aging - MikeCapone
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/001669.php

======
fdschoeneman
I think we have too many wars going on right now: The war on drugs, the war on
poverty, the war on teenage pregnancy, the war on illiteracy. Plus the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. And they all seem to have Czar's, you know? But the
thing about wars is that they're black & white. Us against them. Good vs. bad.
And aging just isn't like that. I mean it's cool having a war to go after
Osama Bin Laden. I think most of us can get behind that one. But I don't think
that most of us can get all motivated and suited up to fight, claw, struggle
and sacrifice so that baby boomers can have a few more years in charge. So
Sylvester Stallone can make Rambo 18. So tenured professors can keep their
jobs forever. Or so that a bunch of dirty hippies can sit around in their
nanotechnology enhanced 150 year old bodies telling kids about how awesome the
60's were and how lucky those kids are to have all that debt.

~~~
eru
A war on wars?

~~~
jamesbritt
or maybe just a war on "war on"

------
run4yourlives
One concern I see with destroying aging is that it will most certainly result
in the destruction of a very precise cycle of evolutionary innovation, even
within our species. It's like a giant "no retirement" program, never allowing
younger generations to be placed into positions were they are forced to create
change, innovate and fail; all the while bettering the human race.

It's no accident that innovation comes mostly from youth - the inexperience
that makes you foolish occasionally creates species changing progress.

This is the Pandora's box of unintended consequences, all in the name of
refusing to accept a key aspect of the human condition.

Evolution has almost exclusively adopted destructive aging processes in every
form of life on the planet. The fact that we can't conclusively answer why
this is so is reason enough not to temp fate in this way.

~~~
robotrout
You're right that aging seems to have an evolutionary advantage. That
advantage is increased diversity within a species. Super successful
individuals, who would otherwise "take over" a species, are replaced, so that
other strains can get a chance. Diversity in a species is as important as
diversity in a stock portfolio. What's working great today, may not work great
tomorrow, so portfolios and species that survive plagues, asteroids, and
global warming fanatics tend to be diversified.

However....

I contend that the human race has moved beyond evolution. No longer do only
the fittest survive. We protect our weak and stupid, and they mate just as
frequently and successfully as our strong and smart. We've wrestled the
destiny of our species away from evolution, and taken control of it ourselves.

Now, how that experiment turns out, it's too early to tell. So far, so good.
But since the ship has already sailed anyway, any argument that something is
"against evolution" is a moot argument.

I would like to live for longer than 100 years myself, so I admit to being a
bit biased on this issue. I think a case can be made that the "best and the
brightest" of our current governing and business class could use some
augmentation. We've had some great leaders in our past, it might be nice if
they were still active. Closer to our hearts here, what if we still had
Richard Feynman? What if we still had Arthur C Clarke? Wouldn't the world
probably be better? We are not so brimming with extra talent that we can just
throw it away after a few decades.

~~~
rsheridan6
Evolution is still happening. It's not weeding out what you call the weak and
the stupid, but that's not its job - it only selects those who are best
adapted to their environment, whatever that may be.

Some people are still having 8 kids, some are having 2, and some are having
none. This is not randomly distributed across genotypes, so some are being
selected.

~~~
gravitycop
_Evolution [...] selects those who are best adapted to their environment_

Are you sure it is not, instead, selective-pressure that does that?
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=437043>

~~~
rsheridan6
If you want to be pedantic, yes, evolution includes drift, but it's not that
important when you're dealing with large numbers like 6.7 billion.

~~~
gravitycop
_yes, evolution includes drift_

Who are you agreeing with? Drift was neither mentioned nor intended to be
implied.

Evolution is not (and does not include):

    
    
      * Natural selection.
      * Artificial selection.
      * Selective pressure.
      * Drift.

~~~
rsheridan6
gravitycop -Wall -pedantic

------
MikeCapone
If you want to actually help with scientific research in areas that
traditional big pharma DOESN'T cover, please donate to the Methuselah
Foundation:

[http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=mj_do...](http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=mj_donations_donate)

Thanks!

------
c1sc0
I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. Here's why: it is uncertainty, pain
and infirmity I am afraid of, not death.

We don't need a war on aging, we need a war on suffering. Not because of some
wishy-washy feel-good philosophy, but simply because it is crucial for the
survival of our species. Which currently depends as much on innovation as it
does on adaptation (evolution). We need to improve overall quality of life so
we can tackle the challenges ahead instead of worrying about food, shelter,
resources, infirmity and old age.

I'd be even more ambitious and say we need a war on long-term, trans-
generational suffering. Why? Because it seems like some of the problems we are
facing today as a species cannot be solved in a single lifetime, not even an
enhanced lifetime.

Let's solve the natural resources problem first, _then_ tackle aging, maybe
... I'll concede this: the 'death problem' is worth solving, but who said it
needs to be solved in _your_ generation?

~~~
gravitycop
_I [...] disagree. [...] it is uncertainty, pain and infirmity I am afraid of,
not death. [...] We don't need a war on aging, we need a war on suffering._

You don't think it is possible to be aged (senesced), but not dead?
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=466749>

Could you call your war on suffering, a war on senescence?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence>

------
dmm
Thus you can throw yourself flat on the ground, stretched out upon Mother
Earth, with the certain conviction that you are one with her and she with you.
You are as firmly established, as invulnerable as she, indeed a thousand times
firmer and more invulnerable. As surely as she will engulf you tomorrow, so
surely will she bring you forth anew to the new striving and suffering. And
not merely "some day." Now, today, every day she is bringing you forth, not
once but thousands upon thousands of times, just as every day she engulfs you
a thousand times over.

\- Erwin Schroedinger, My View of the World, 1964, p.21

------
asciilifeform
If you oppose anti-aging treatments, _refuse to take them._ But of course, you
want to decide for the rest of us. Well, death lovers: _you first_! How about
_right now_? For the good of the species! What, no takers? I smell rancid
hypocrisy.

Anyone opposing anti-aging research should be seen as _trying to kill you_ and
treated accordingly.

On a different note, "war" is very much the wrong metaphor to use when
promoting a research effort: <http://yarchive.net/med/conspiracies.html>

------
jsmcgd
<cynic>Alternative title: "Concepts, that if accepted by many people, would
make funding much easier"</cynic>

<devil's advocate>Death by old age is there by (non-intelligent) design. It's
no accident (leaving aside the process of natural selection).</devil's
advocate>

I've said it before on Hacker News, I'm indifferent towards life extension.
The pros and cons are very evident but one doesn't seem to trump the other.
I'm very much undecided on the issue and would like to be otherwise.

~~~
dasil003
I find this longevity research very disconcerting, especially the tone of this
page in particular.

It's thinly veiled egotism to say "people should not grow old and die". What
the advocate is really saying is, "I'm terrified of death and I will do
anything to prevent it, no matter the consequences to society or humanity".

I'm reminded of Tolkien's Akallabeth.

Death is the fundamental strength of all species. Sure we should try to pursue
advances in health care that improve longevity, but attacking the cause of
aging itself is abhorrently idiotic.

~~~
gravitycop
_attacking the cause of aging itself is abhorrently idiotic._

Because it is good for society that 30-year-olds, because of aging-related
processes, tend to have lower IQ's (and worse joints, poorer eyesight, poorer
hearing, etc.) than 20-year-olds?

~~~
dasil003
Do you not see how there just might be a few unintended social consequences
with people living forever?

~~~
inklesspen
So your argument is "Let's not fix a horrible problem, because fixing it might
expose other problems with our civilization"?

~~~
run4yourlives
Why and how is aging a "horrible problem"?

~~~
gravitycop
Why and how is aging a "horrible problem"?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cost+of+aging%22>

<http://news.google.com/news?q=cost+aging>

People do not retire (become unproductive members of society) because they
simply _want_ to. People retire because they become physically degraded. Many
nations outlaw old car-drivers. Many professions force retirement at threshold
ages. This loss of productivity hurts everyone.

~~~
run4yourlives
_This loss of productivity hurts everyone._

Sorry, so let me make sure I understand you: Aging is bad because it hurts
productivity?

I must say that if life is simply an application of productive output, you are
missing the point.

~~~
TooMuchNick
Aging is bad because it hurts quality of life. Right now, people live longer
than their bodies can perform at full capacity. Most people would prefer to
remain healthy for their entire lives. No matter how ready someone is to die,
no one _wants_ to spend ten years in a nursing home. So everyone could find a
way to die before then, or they could find a way to stay healthy even if that
doesn't increase their life expectancy. You can guess which option is more
likely to catch on.

The argument over whether we _should_ fight aging is one worth having, but
only as a philosophical exploration. The reality is that we always have fought
aging, and we always will, because those who think otherwise have a tendency
to die first.

------
rbanffy
Aging is a degenerative disease most lifeforms have that's 100% fatal.

It's somewhat like that xkcd strip, <http://xkcd.com/203/>

------
juliend2
I think a good start would be to do some physical exercise...

Ah well, just give me this pill so i can live longer!

------
jacquesm
Death is probably what is driving us towards all our progress, after all if
you live forever why do anything today, you might as well put it off until
tomorrow.

Fear of death is a natural thing, just as natural as dying.

Long term my money is on the grim reaper, he'll just have to get a bit more
inventive in case we breed out of control. If we haven't already passed that
point.

~~~
jodrellblank
Just as natural as dying of diarrhea, exposure, septicemia, TB, polio,
contaminated water, aids, starvation...

"Natural" != "good" or "desirable".

I don't want to give up clothes, shelter, clean water and farming just to be
'natural', nor do I want to accept aging just because it's 'natural'.

~~~
jacquesm
Well, wanting to accept it and having to accept it are two very different
things.

The age of something is simply the measurement of elapsed time since something
came into its present configuration. A 'war on aging' makes as much sense as a
war on pi or a war on stone, aging is a simple fact, easily observed and
unavoidable.

~~~
jodrellblank
Oh come on, now you're changing the terms. I've never heard anybody wanting a
war on the _measurement_ of aging.

It's the human bodily degeneration and weakness, physical and mental, that
results from the biological processes of life running for tens of years that's
the undesirable part. Commonly known as "old age" and "aging".

~~~
gravitycop
>> The age of something is simply the measurement of elapsed time

>now you're changing the terms.

Ambiguous use of terminology (e.g. _age_ defined one way vs. _age_ defined
another way) is _equivocation_.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy>

May I suggest the term _senescence_ , or _biological senescence_ , be used
instead of the term _age_? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence>

------
cmars232
Hmm, not without space colonization to match the demand for real estate and
natural resources.

~~~
gravitycop
Most of the space humans take up is accounted-for by farming. Farming need not
take up as much space as it currently does:
[http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0...](http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR06.txt)

 _PhytoFarm techniques could feed a hundred times the world's present
population - say 500 billion people - with factory buildings a hundred stories
high, on one percent of present farmland. To put it differently, if you raise
your bed to triple bunk-bed height, you can grow enough food on the two levels
between the floor and your bed to supply your nutritional needs. [...]

Only two hundred years ago, half of the diet of Sauk and Mesquakie Native
Americans came from hunting, and "It took 7,000 acres to support one human."
Phytofarm's one acre, which supports 500 or 1,000 people, represents an
increase in productivity per acre a million times over compared with the
Native Americans. [...]

Nor is this any "ultimate" limit. Rather, these gains are just the result of
research over the past few decades [...] It is likely that before the world
gets to 500 billion people, or even to 10 billion, the maximum output per acre
will be increased much beyond what PhytoFarm achieves now._

------
peregrine
I'd rather have this only for the smartest, to keep them immortal during their
prime.

~~~
jacquesm
What you'll get is the opposite, geriatrics with the vote making laws against
'newcomers'.

------
dmm
You can never live forever. If we don't die of old age we will die
accidentally. I imagine car accidents alone would restrict most people to a
few hundred years.

~~~
gravitycop
_I imagine car accidents alone would restrict most people to a few hundred
years._

<http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx>

    
    
      Fatalities per 100 Million
      Vehicle Miles Traveled: 1.37
    

At that rate, if one drove 10,000 miles per year of his life, he could expect
to live around 7,300 years.

Also, accident rates do not exist in a vacuum. They are affected by other risk
factors, such as heart-disease and cancer, such that a world with less death
from disease could be expected to be less risky in other ways as well. If the
number one risk of death in your world were accidents, wouldn't you try to
compensate for that by being more cautious?

