
Longevity and anti-aging research: ‘Prime time for an impact on the globe’ - apsec112
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/anti-aging-research-prime-time-for-an-impact-on-the-globe
======
kristofferR
This recent interview with Aubrey de Grey (main popularizer of anti-aging
science) is really worth listening to:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMFST20xHwk)
(1.5x speed is fine)

He seems to think that anti-aging science has speeded up drastically recently,
both in terms of the science itself, the funding and the popularity. I really
love what the SENS Foundation is doing in terms of spinning research avenues
into startups, since most investors are far more likely to fund high-risk
investments than non-profit ones.

He also mentions other positive developments in terms of legislation and
advocacy.

~~~
xiphias2
I'm still not sure if SENS should stay non-profit. It produced great results,
it would get much more money if it would convert to a for profit company. At
the same time it's important to keep the control near Aubrey de Grey, as he
has a great track record of staying focused.

~~~
Nasrudith
Non-profit doesn't mean they can't make money - just that they can't outfunnel
it to shareholders/owners.

Whether they would get more research funding from accepting investment instead
of donations or if the mission would survive is a separate topic.

~~~
xiphias2
The main goal of going for a for profit company would be to increase funding.
It's sad that Vitalik Buterin had to be the biggest donation giver when there
are so many people much richer than him (and with shorter expected remaining
lifespan).

------
sanxiyn
This is a great news. Fighting aging is one of the most important challenge of
our time.

This is also encouraging:

"Gazette: Are there regulatory hurdles? When we've spoken in the past, you've
mentioned that the FDA considers aging a natural process and therefore won't
approve drugs to treat it.

Sinclair: I've been part of a group that talked with the FDA, and they are
willing and also quite enthusiastic about considering a change that defines
aging as a disease."

~~~
netsharc
And not climate change? In my mind's model of the future we're going to die
within 50 years, this research is useless when the infinitely aged doesn't
have clean water to drink.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
One of the main connections to longevity people usually miss in this whole
"climate change" discussion is one of the main psychological reasons people
don't take care of the environment in the first place: and it's arguably their
lifespan. Everyone in the west knows that they will die at most ~100 years of
age, and if you are basically not in some top percentile morality-wise (and
also at that point in your life where all more important problems are resolved
and you even have energy to care about the environment), you just don't care
about it because you know you're going to die anyway. Of course many people
think about their children and the other people etc, but many don't.

If we manage to extend the expected (or even just possible) generic lifespan
of normal people - that will be one of the best promoters of environment-
thinking of normal population. Because suddenly the choices they make today
become very real in terms of impact on the environment in the next 50-100-200
years, because there is a good change that this same person is going to be
living at that time.

~~~
lm28469
But that's two sides of the same coin, individualism.

Even if we lived 120 years in average, do you think the game would change a
lot, I don't. I don't see drastic changes in young people today, yet they'll
most likely be alive in 60-70 years. And for argument's sake, even if it does
we still end up with much more people living on the same resource limited
planet at the same time.

You can already bump your life expectancy (and end life quality) quite a lot
by eating health, exercising, quitting drinking/smoking. Most people don't do
it because it's too much effort and "that's not life", again
individualism/short sightedness.

We need a cure for laziness / individualism, then, maybe, we can start talking
considering longevity.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
> because it's too much effort

This is exactly the reason these scientists are focusing on genetic and other
medical ways to increase lifespan, which are going to be packaged in products
that can be used without effort. One might say what they want about people not
wanting to expend unnecessary effort, one might call it lazy or just smart, or
a drive of progress, it doesn't matter. The fact is if you give people a
method that requries less effort, more people will use it. Thus we will have a
greater general effect on the population with these methods.

~~~
lm28469
But again, what's the goal ?

Giving lazy people the opportunity to continue living lazily longer while
ravaging the planet ? Welcome to transhumanists paradise I guess.

------
dtujmer
"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a
great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging:

[https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html](https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)

And here it is in video form as well:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY)

~~~
antt
Imagine a world in which Stalin was still in power. That is what amortality
looks like.

I can't help but think that this would also completely retard scientific
progress. Imagine tenure that lasts a milenium or more. We would still be
discussing scholastism.

~~~
adrianN
Imagine a world where Newton could still contribute, peak scientific output
wouldn't be before the age of 35, and politicians would tackle long term
problems because they will be affected by them too. That is also what
amortality looks like.

~~~
neekburm
I'd be worried that Newton would be spending an even higher percentage of his
time on alchemy research than he already did, and using his reputation to push
promising scientists to do the same.

~~~
adrianN
Modern chemistry was born from Alchemy research. I find it unlikely that
Newton would have continued to do exactly the same kinds of things for
centuries more.

------
raugustinus
What makes people think we want to have them around any longer? To extend life
is to decrease it's value. Simple economics tells us it's inflation.

edit: I think Neil deGrasse Tyson says it a lot better than me:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3G9LOJZTmM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3G9LOJZTmM)

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
This makes no sense. Longer productive lifespan means that people can acquire
more expert skills and become more proficient at what they do. Or for example
switch professions if the economic climate has changed - which will be still
much faster than teaching a completely new individual to learn that
profession, if there is even a little overlap between them.

I'm not saying that economics should even have any say in making people live
longer (I don't think the purpose of life is to make the economy work well,
it's the other way around), but even from the point of view of economics, we
would want to make everyone live longer.

~~~
raugustinus
From the point of view of economics maybe. Switching professions can be done
in a current lifespan and is not done very often. I don't see people changing
just because their life is extended. I just don't understand people's fixation
on having a longer life. Seems to me people just keep looking at the horizon
to bring them what they want and they forget what's right in front of them.

~~~
frobozz
One reason not to switch professions is affordability. Few established mid-
career professionals can afford to either take time out to train and qualify
in another trade, or jump back down to the bottom rung and take a junior role
in something else.

If, at 60, you have paid off your mortgage, amassed some savings, and seen
your adult children leave home, then you can consider it. However, by then,
you only have 5-7 years left until your pension kicks in and 10 before
cognitive decline starts to take hold (either may have already happened), so
you will probably just plod on doing what you already know. You might not even
have enough time to really get to the interesting part of being a whatever-
your-new-career-is.

If at 60, you are still in the prime of your life, with 60 more years on the
clock, and 30 more years of full cognition and physical fitness available to
you, then the idea of a career shift becomes more attractive.

Even without the affordability question, there is likely to be a point in most
people's careers where the pursuit of mastery stops and the doldrums set in.
The longer the working life, the more likely you are to reach that tipping
point at a point when you have time to do something about it.

------
jz_
If anyone is interested in tracking progress of clinical trials for age
related diseases, there's this roadmap: [https://www.lifespan.io/the-
rejuvenation-roadmap/](https://www.lifespan.io/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/)

------
grondilu
"Prime time for an impact" is kind of an ironic title IMHO.

People already live quite long, so it takes a long time for longevity to take
any significant effect.

If a 20yo man became immortal today, he will be 100 in 2099. Who knows what
kind of world we'll be living in then?

My point is : longevity is such a slow motion process that its impact on
society is not as relevant as the pace of technology in other fields.

~~~
adrianN
Having a treatment that allows 20 year olds to live healthily to 120 likely
helps the contemporary 85 year olds to live a few more years without being
dependent on other people. Ageing populations are a huge problem in many first
world countries.

~~~
xiphias2
Not really. What you're talking about works with solutions that are minimizing
the damages building up in your body, but Audrey is specifically researching
repairing the damages.

------
Erlich_Bachman
There is a very good recent more informal-type long-format discussion with
this doctor (David Sinclair) discussing a lot of longevity topics on the Joe
Rogan channel:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0HS7aq4)

------
Aaargh20318
If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem
than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments
available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get
sterilised at the same time.

~~~
adrianN
Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's caused
by people having too many babies. It is also not a problem in countries where
anti-aging treatments are likely to be available first and even less of a
problem in the rich population that will be able to afford them at first.

On the other hand, the promise of remaining able bodied until you die from an
accident might reduce the number of children because you don't have to have
children that take care of you when you're too old to take care of yourself.

~~~
Aaargh20318
> Overpopulation right now is not caused by people getting too old, it's
> caused by people having too many babies.

Exactly, so if we don't sterilise people who get anti-aging treatments, what's
to stop them from having a litter of children every century or so ?

~~~
adrianN
I propose we worry about that when it's actually a problem. We don't know how
people behave when they can keep youthful bodies for decades longer than now.
Maybe we're lucky and they just don't want more children.

------
RickJWagner
Advances against aging are great, but they also call for advances in finances
for the aged.

With every advance in medicine, your chances of outliving your money go up as
well. Better feed the pig!

~~~
magduf
What are you talking about? If people live longer, healthier lives, then they
can work a lot longer.

~~~
magduf
In case anyone is still reading this, I'd like to add to this. Think about
humans in terms of corporate employees. A single human in today's society
costs an absolute fortune to raise to adulthood in resources. It takes a lot
of investment by society and the parents both to have the child, then to
educate it. It takes many years of education to turn the child into a citizen.
It takes more education (college) to turn the citizen into a highly productive
one. Then, assuming all goes well, they go into the workforce and then there's
a lot of ramp-up time, gaining expertise, etc. If they go the postdoc degree
route, that's more time. Even worse, look at all the training/education needed
for specialized doctors and surgeons. People aren't usually really productive
until they're 25-30 years old. Then they only have so many decades until
they're too feeble to really contribute a lot, and during that time they're
expected to have kids of their own, which is basically a second job. (Even
worse, women need to have those kids in their 20s-30s, which is exactly the
wrong time career-wise.)

In short, the actual _overhead_ needed to produce useful citizens in today's
complex society is enormous, relative to the total lifespan of that person.

It wasn't a problem in the hunter-gatherer days because we didn't need much
education to learn some simple non-written language, nor much training to go
throw a spear and kill some animals and cook them. Things are very different
now.

Extending useful and healthy human lifespans would change that equation, and
be a huge boon for modern society. Just look at how many women end up
postponing having children, or giving up on it altogether, because it just
doesn't fit in with a high-paying career. As a result, developed nations are
seeing negative population growth, which isn't sustainable.

------
PavlikPaja
What you actually see if you study aging carefully is that it isn't anything
like accumulation of damage the body cannot repair, it's the accumulation of
damage the body can repair.

In fact, among the most consistent things you can see is the accumulation of
iron, and to a lesser extent other minerals, such as calcium. The body seems
to have a really big trouble regulating those minerals, it doesn't even have
its own way to get rid of excess iron, the only way you can get rid of it is
blood loss.

Now, what does it mean? One thing, the body doesn't really makes much
distinctions when absorbing metals so that when there is excess iron, it
cannot absorb other divalent metals without poisoning itself with iron. So it
cannot absorb manganese without absorbing too much iron, and manganese is
essential for preventing oxidative damage.

A second thing is, the experiments on rats show that lanthanum (and possibly
other rare earths) change the homeostasis in the brain so that the amount of
iron decreases, while it normally accumulates with age. Multiple rare earths
have been shown to bind preferably to proteins, usually over calcium, but
possibly also other metal ions, zinc seems to be a kind of universal element
that can bind to almost any place that isn't taken. Neurons even seem to
dramatically increase in capacity (with each neuron carrying its own signal,
instead of many almost exactly the same thing over and over) as the
concentration of lanthanum increases in vitro. (it's worth noting though, that
lanthanum has been seen as an essential nutrient for decades in China, so if
it cured aging, it would be known)

I thing we need to consider the possibility that there is no such a thing as
aging, but is the result of some sort of imbalance caused by early
agriculture, metallurgy, or whatever human activity that changed the
environment in a way that our bodies, and other mammal bodies have no way of
dealing with. The rumors of longevity from history and various isolated places
are seen as myths, but they may not all be.

~~~
lawlessone
Gonnna need citations for all of that..

~~~
PavlikPaja
Iron is known to accumulate with age:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237353](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237353)
It has even been proposed as the mechanism of caloric restriction:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2481398/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2481398/)
Here is some literature review that I just found:
[https://res.mdpi.com/metals/metals-05-02070/article_deploy/m...](https://res.mdpi.com/metals/metals-05-02070/article_deploy/metals-05-02070.pdf?filename=&attachment=1)
The absence of iron excretion mechanism shouldn't be controversial, here is
the wikipedia article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_iron_metabolism#Iron_rec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_iron_metabolism#Iron_recycling_and_loss)

Both iron and manganese are transported by the same molecules and the
nutrients inhibit each other,
e.g.:[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2058577](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2058577)

The need of Mn for MnSOD also shouldn't be controverisal:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOD2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOD2)

lanthanum changing the concentration of iron in the brain:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842740...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378427406000580)

Review of lanthanide effects, cites the higher affinity of certain lanthanides
to proteins:
[http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/4_2000/1107.pdf](http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/4_2000/1107.pdf)

Lanthanum increaseing the capacity of neural transmission, (together with
[https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)31646-5](https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(18\)31646-5)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00198-7?utm_sourc...](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00198-7?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral#references):
[https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Acute-functional-
neuro...](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Acute-functional-
neurotoxicity-of-lanthanum\(III\)-in-
Gramowski-J%C3%BCgelt/fb6f59438fb3b4d54cd55ef707c14fd4920f57a3/figure/0)

The longevity myths are well known, there are local myths of 100+ year old
mountain men, (caucasus + some other range in south asia) and the myths of
ancient "golden age" when people didn't age are almost universal, and many of
the earliest written sources insist on "implausible" ages of certain people.
Surprisingly many religions (virtually all, in fact) agree that people started
aging when they previously were not and longevity was the normal state until
aging was inflicted on people, only the reasoning why it happened varies. -
all the abrahamic religions, a very important part of hinduism mentioned in
many texts, the greek religion, sumerian, etc.

------
mms1973
Anti-aging: the last nail in the coffin of Social Security

------
killjoywashere
Yawn ... This is the resveratrol guy again. Media hound.

