5 ms·

I'm in medical school and always want to improve my understanding of what thoughtful people see as symptomatic treatments that don't get at the root cause of pr

I'm in medical school and always want to improve my understanding of what thoughtful people see as symptomatic treatments that don't get at the root cause of problems. A huge amount of medicine is essentially treating the symptoms of aging.

carbocation 16y ago
What do you see as "aging," and do you see that as a disease process?
- orangecat 16y ago
  Decreased physical and often mental capabilities, and increased susceptibility to other diseases and incidents like heart attacks and strokes. Whether aging itself is a disease is just a matter of definition, but preventing it or undoing its effects would substantially reduce the need for other medical treatments, as well as saving tons of money and greatly increasing quality of life. It may not be possible, or may require currently unavailable capabilities like advanced nanotechnology, but I believe it's worth seriously investigating.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    The cause of the constellation of symptoms that we associate with aging remains outstanding. Perhaps it is environmental; perhaps it is genetic. Certainly, one cannot expect us to treat the root cause of that which we don't even have more than a rudimentary understanding. Gaining that understanding will (hopefully) be one of the defining achievements of the 21st century -- most likely too late for you and me, but of tremendous import for those to come later. If we had advanced nanotechnology that could do whatever you asked to ameliorate the root cause of aging, what would you ask it to do? I submit that we don't know yet, so trying to choose the right technology for the job (such as nano) at this point is a bit like putting the cart several feet in front of the horse. The above notwithstanding, I honestly fail to see how making people live longer would save any money. Presumably it would just delay the inevitable, expensive end-of-life care by a few (or many) years. Do you not see it that way? I would love to have a more optimistic view.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      Certainly, one cannot expect us to treat the root cause of that which we don't even have more than a rudimentary understanding. Agreed; gaining that understanding is the first step, and I believe it should be a top priority. The above notwithstanding, I honestly fail to see how making people live longer would save any money. If you have the physical health of a 25 year old indefinitely, your medical expenses per year would be far less. Yes, you'd still occasionally get sick and eventually die of something, but a greater percentage of your life would be healthy and productive.
      - carbocation 16y ago
        > If you have the physical health of a 25 year old indefinitely, your medical expenses per year would be far less. Yes, you'd still occasionally get sick and eventually die of something, but a greater percentage of your life would be healthy and productive. Having the health of a 25-year-old indefinitely seems unlikely ever to be achieved. If we can achieve that, then we will have eliminated virtually all inherited causes of death, and I would agree that we would save money. It seems more likely to me that we will continue to expand the gains that we had in the 20th Century: people will live better, longer, but will still ultimately age and suffer the consequences (though perhaps at 150-200 years instead of 65-100). If the former is true, then we'll save tons of money because we'll have eliminated chronic disease and aging. If the latter is true (which would fit with past experience), then we'll truly just have delayed the costs by a few years. If people are willing to work longer since they live longer, this won't be a problem. But if people were so noble, then we'd already be delaying Social Security and Medicare benefits until age ~75, since the average lifespan has widened since the programs were conceived decades ago. At any rate, I wholeheartedly agree it would be a huge net benefit; I suppose whether or not money gets saved is dependent on how society decides to partition out the costs and benefits.
        starkfist 16y ago
        Jack LaLanne managed to have the health of an athletic 25 year old into his 50s. And the health of an athletic 50 year old until his 70s. I have a great uncle who followed LaLanne's advice and is 84 and looks like a 45 year old bodybuilder with a 65 year old face. In contrast his brothers are dead, except for my grandfather who is fat and has diabetes and mild alzheimer's and is basically confined to his retirement apartment. I would say we already know how to be a 25 year old for much longer than than expected - the key is to exercise a lot more and a lot differently than you would think, and eat a diet similar to that of a 7th day adventist. Unfortunately this lifestyle is in opposition to pretty much every cultural and marketing trend in every society on the globe today. Personally, I would prefer to have the health of a 25 year old until I'm 90 and then croak, rather than live like an 80 year old until I'm 150.

carbocation 16y ago

What do you see as "aging," and do you see that as a disease process?

orangecat 16y ago
Decreased physical and often mental capabilities, and increased susceptibility to other diseases and incidents like heart attacks and strokes. Whether aging itself is a disease is just a matter of definition, but preventing it or undoing its effects would substantially reduce the need for other medical treatments, as well as saving tons of money and greatly increasing quality of life. It may not be possible, or may require currently unavailable capabilities like advanced nanotechnology, but I believe it's worth seriously investigating.
- carbocation 16y ago
  The cause of the constellation of symptoms that we associate with aging remains outstanding. Perhaps it is environmental; perhaps it is genetic. Certainly, one cannot expect us to treat the root cause of that which we don't even have more than a rudimentary understanding. Gaining that understanding will (hopefully) be one of the defining achievements of the 21st century -- most likely too late for you and me, but of tremendous import for those to come later. If we had advanced nanotechnology that could do whatever you asked to ameliorate the root cause of aging, what would you ask it to do? I submit that we don't know yet, so trying to choose the right technology for the job (such as nano) at this point is a bit like putting the cart several feet in front of the horse. The above notwithstanding, I honestly fail to see how making people live longer would save any money. Presumably it would just delay the inevitable, expensive end-of-life care by a few (or many) years. Do you not see it that way? I would love to have a more optimistic view.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Certainly, one cannot expect us to treat the root cause of that which we don't even have more than a rudimentary understanding. Agreed; gaining that understanding is the first step, and I believe it should be a top priority. The above notwithstanding, I honestly fail to see how making people live longer would save any money. If you have the physical health of a 25 year old indefinitely, your medical expenses per year would be far less. Yes, you'd still occasionally get sick and eventually die of something, but a greater percentage of your life would be healthy and productive.
    - carbocation 16y ago
      > If you have the physical health of a 25 year old indefinitely, your medical expenses per year would be far less. Yes, you'd still occasionally get sick and eventually die of something, but a greater percentage of your life would be healthy and productive. Having the health of a 25-year-old indefinitely seems unlikely ever to be achieved. If we can achieve that, then we will have eliminated virtually all inherited causes of death, and I would agree that we would save money. It seems more likely to me that we will continue to expand the gains that we had in the 20th Century: people will live better, longer, but will still ultimately age and suffer the consequences (though perhaps at 150-200 years instead of 65-100). If the former is true, then we'll save tons of money because we'll have eliminated chronic disease and aging. If the latter is true (which would fit with past experience), then we'll truly just have delayed the costs by a few years. If people are willing to work longer since they live longer, this won't be a problem. But if people were so noble, then we'd already be delaying Social Security and Medicare benefits until age ~75, since the average lifespan has widened since the programs were conceived decades ago. At any rate, I wholeheartedly agree it would be a huge net benefit; I suppose whether or not money gets saved is dependent on how society decides to partition out the costs and benefits.
      - starkfist 16y ago
        Jack LaLanne managed to have the health of an athletic 25 year old into his 50s. And the health of an athletic 50 year old until his 70s. I have a great uncle who followed LaLanne's advice and is 84 and looks like a 45 year old bodybuilder with a 65 year old face. In contrast his brothers are dead, except for my grandfather who is fat and has diabetes and mild alzheimer's and is basically confined to his retirement apartment. I would say we already know how to be a 25 year old for much longer than than expected - the key is to exercise a lot more and a lot differently than you would think, and eat a diet similar to that of a 7th day adventist. Unfortunately this lifestyle is in opposition to pretty much every cultural and marketing trend in every society on the globe today. Personally, I would prefer to have the health of a 25 year old until I'm 90 and then croak, rather than live like an 80 year old until I'm 150.