While it is true that most of us will die of some disease that old age has made us more vulnerable to, I have seen relatives die slowly of old age itself. They have essentially wasted away, losing appetite and will to live as they have become too weak to do anything they love doing.
I agree that we will (and should) slay the monsters of alzheimers, stroke and other disease. This will, of itself, increase average lifespan by up to 20 years.
Old age is its own phenomena however. The cells that make up our bodies lose the ability to make accurate copies of themselves. They slow down in their ability to copy at all, making trivial cuts turn into dangerous wounds. Bones become brittle, and breaks become death sentences. Muscle tone becomes weak, until we are invalids. All of these without a direct disease involved.
Then there are some real practical questions. Perhaps we will develop anagathics. If so – who will get them. If they are very expensive (and I can’t see them being cheap – demand will see to that) will they exacerbate the class divide? Will progress slow to a halt as the population gets older and older, and people aversion to risk increases continuously? Will we (the entrenched older population) end up in warfare against the young that we will not step aside for? If the birthrate does not drop precipitously (and I think it would), how will the earth supply the ever increasing population without death by old age?
Many of these practical questions have ethical dimensions. I suspect that anagathics will be developed and their use begun long before we will have come to grips with these questions. Like all other fields of science, progress does not wait on ethics, but rather, we discuss our ethical qualms long after the damage has been done.
Many of these practical questions have ethical dimensions. I suspect that anagathics will be developed and their use begun long before we will have come to grips with these questions. Like all other fields of science, progress does not wait on ethics, but rather, we discuss our ethical qualms long after the damage has been done.
I do not agree. We are still a relatively long way away from anything that resembles a control on the diseases of aging. Not as far away as people think, but still comfortably far. And people spend a lot of energy expressing their ethical concerns.
I have seen relatives die slowly of old age itself. They have essentially wasted away, losing appetite and will to live as they have become too weak to do anything they love doing.
You have to define what you mean by “becoming weak”. Sarcopenia is a common medical condition where, indeed, muscles waste away. We all lose about 1% of our muscle mass every year. We have little data on it because it lacks recognition, but it does seem fairly easy to alleviate it, like diabetes. However, it is generally not treated at all, which is a problem.
Another common problem is depression. As we age, we become more likely to fall into depression. But, again, that’s probably treatable.
And so forth. One must define his terms… and what one means by “weak”.
In Canada, for 2012, here are the causes of death:
30% are caused by cancer
20% are caused by heart attacks
5% are caused by strokes
2.5% are caused by Alzheimer’s
2.5% are caused by diabetes.
And so forth. Accidents represent less than 5% of all deaths. There is no “slowly dying of old age” as a cause.
The actual mechanism is that people become less fit as they age and more likely to fall sick and die. It is really that simple. They don’t die of aging per se.
Old age is its own phenomena however. The cells that make up our bodies lose the ability to make accurate copies of themselves. They slow down in their ability to copy at all, making trivial cuts turn into dangerous wounds. Bones become brittle, and breaks become death sentences. Muscle tone becomes weak, until we are invalids. All of these without a direct disease involved.
Aging is its own phenomena and it affects all of us starting at age 25 or so. We all become less fit and more prone to diseases with each passing year. But we cannot keep people who grow increasingly frail healthy. That’s simply not feasible beyond a certain point. You are not going to keep people free from cancer if their immune system is gone or dysfunctional.
People who currently live to a hundred did not catch cancer at 60 and Alzheimer’s at 70. They live to be a hundred because, at 80, they had the health of a 50 year-old (probably due to exceptional genetics).
You can, indeed, slightly extend the life of the very frail, and we have done some of that, but it only takes you so far. It gets exponentially more difficult to keep ever more frail people alive.
Then there are some real practical questions. Perhaps we will develop anagathics. If so – who will get them. If they are very expensive (and I can’t see them being cheap – demand will see to that) will they exacerbate the class divide?
I address the issue of cost in my blog post. A therapy that could prevent Alzheimer’s would likely very quickly pay for itself many times. Almost anything that could prevent cancer would pay for itself.
There is a scenario where you need some Moon dust or hand-crafted molecules to control the diseases of aging… but it seems an unlikely scenario. The thing is… any therapy that has billions of potential patients, and a strong preventive effect… is very likely to end up cheap. We do have such therapies right now, they are called vaccines. It is very expensive to produce one vaccine, but once you have it, you can administer it very cheaply to millions.
Will progress slow to a halt as the population gets older and older, and people aversion to risk increases continuously?
The absence of new technology in our case would lead inexorably to an ever growing burden caused by the diseases of aging. In Japan right now, a quarter of the population is above 65. We will soon reach the same levels and more. That too will have consequences.
If nothing changes, more and more people will need to spend more and more time caring for sick older people.
Will we (the entrenched older population) end up in warfare against the young that we will not step aside for? If the birthrate does not drop precipitously (and I think it would), how will the earth supply the ever increasing population without death by old age?
I also address this in my blog post. Countries where longevity is highest are precisely countries where the population count is falling. Defeating the diseases of aging brings about, at best, a slight increase in the population count everything else being the same. It is easily understood: it is the birthrate that drives population because it has an exponential effect… whereas old-age mortality has only a linear effect. Unless, of course, you think that old people are going to start having babies in great numbers… No impossible, mind you, but probably not in the cards.
Great essay and comment response Daniel. Thorough, enjoyable, and well communicated. It is a shame that we have to continually counter the same old arguments, fallacies, and protests to life- and health-span extension. You’ve provided a valuable contribution here.
While it is true that most of us will die of some disease that old age has made us more vulnerable to, I have seen relatives die slowly of old age itself. They have essentially wasted away, losing appetite and will to live as they have become too weak to do anything they love doing.
I agree that we will (and should) slay the monsters of alzheimers, stroke and other disease. This will, of itself, increase average lifespan by up to 20 years.
Old age is its own phenomena however. The cells that make up our bodies lose the ability to make accurate copies of themselves. They slow down in their ability to copy at all, making trivial cuts turn into dangerous wounds. Bones become brittle, and breaks become death sentences. Muscle tone becomes weak, until we are invalids. All of these without a direct disease involved.
Then there are some real practical questions. Perhaps we will develop anagathics. If so – who will get them. If they are very expensive (and I can’t see them being cheap – demand will see to that) will they exacerbate the class divide? Will progress slow to a halt as the population gets older and older, and people aversion to risk increases continuously? Will we (the entrenched older population) end up in warfare against the young that we will not step aside for? If the birthrate does not drop precipitously (and I think it would), how will the earth supply the ever increasing population without death by old age?
Many of these practical questions have ethical dimensions. I suspect that anagathics will be developed and their use begun long before we will have come to grips with these questions. Like all other fields of science, progress does not wait on ethics, but rather, we discuss our ethical qualms long after the damage has been done.
Many of these practical questions have ethical dimensions. I suspect that anagathics will be developed and their use begun long before we will have come to grips with these questions. Like all other fields of science, progress does not wait on ethics, but rather, we discuss our ethical qualms long after the damage has been done.
I do not agree. We are still a relatively long way away from anything that resembles a control on the diseases of aging. Not as far away as people think, but still comfortably far. And people spend a lot of energy expressing their ethical concerns.
I have seen relatives die slowly of old age itself. They have essentially wasted away, losing appetite and will to live as they have become too weak to do anything they love doing.
You have to define what you mean by “becoming weak”. Sarcopenia is a common medical condition where, indeed, muscles waste away. We all lose about 1% of our muscle mass every year. We have little data on it because it lacks recognition, but it does seem fairly easy to alleviate it, like diabetes. However, it is generally not treated at all, which is a problem.
Another common problem is depression. As we age, we become more likely to fall into depression. But, again, that’s probably treatable.
And so forth. One must define his terms… and what one means by “weak”.
In Canada, for 2012, here are the causes of death:
And so forth. Accidents represent less than 5% of all deaths. There is no “slowly dying of old age” as a cause.
The actual mechanism is that people become less fit as they age and more likely to fall sick and die. It is really that simple. They don’t die of aging per se.
Old age is its own phenomena however. The cells that make up our bodies lose the ability to make accurate copies of themselves. They slow down in their ability to copy at all, making trivial cuts turn into dangerous wounds. Bones become brittle, and breaks become death sentences. Muscle tone becomes weak, until we are invalids. All of these without a direct disease involved.
Aging is its own phenomena and it affects all of us starting at age 25 or so. We all become less fit and more prone to diseases with each passing year. But we cannot keep people who grow increasingly frail healthy. That’s simply not feasible beyond a certain point. You are not going to keep people free from cancer if their immune system is gone or dysfunctional.
People who currently live to a hundred did not catch cancer at 60 and Alzheimer’s at 70. They live to be a hundred because, at 80, they had the health of a 50 year-old (probably due to exceptional genetics).
You can, indeed, slightly extend the life of the very frail, and we have done some of that, but it only takes you so far. It gets exponentially more difficult to keep ever more frail people alive.
Then there are some real practical questions. Perhaps we will develop anagathics. If so – who will get them. If they are very expensive (and I can’t see them being cheap – demand will see to that) will they exacerbate the class divide?
I address the issue of cost in my blog post. A therapy that could prevent Alzheimer’s would likely very quickly pay for itself many times. Almost anything that could prevent cancer would pay for itself.
There is a scenario where you need some Moon dust or hand-crafted molecules to control the diseases of aging… but it seems an unlikely scenario. The thing is… any therapy that has billions of potential patients, and a strong preventive effect… is very likely to end up cheap. We do have such therapies right now, they are called vaccines. It is very expensive to produce one vaccine, but once you have it, you can administer it very cheaply to millions.
Will progress slow to a halt as the population gets older and older, and people aversion to risk increases continuously?
The absence of new technology in our case would lead inexorably to an ever growing burden caused by the diseases of aging. In Japan right now, a quarter of the population is above 65. We will soon reach the same levels and more. That too will have consequences.
If nothing changes, more and more people will need to spend more and more time caring for sick older people.
Will we (the entrenched older population) end up in warfare against the young that we will not step aside for? If the birthrate does not drop precipitously (and I think it would), how will the earth supply the ever increasing population without death by old age?
I also address this in my blog post. Countries where longevity is highest are precisely countries where the population count is falling. Defeating the diseases of aging brings about, at best, a slight increase in the population count everything else being the same. It is easily understood: it is the birthrate that drives population because it has an exponential effect… whereas old-age mortality has only a linear effect. Unless, of course, you think that old people are going to start having babies in great numbers… No impossible, mind you, but probably not in the cards.
Great essay and comment response Daniel. Thorough, enjoyable, and well communicated. It is a shame that we have to continually counter the same old arguments, fallacies, and protests to life- and health-span extension. You’ve provided a valuable contribution here.