6 ms·

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? Whe

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 8y ago
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.
- guzik 8y ago
  That's why he said "one of the most important challenge".
- kristofferR 8y ago
  If "old people" weren't sure they would die within the next 30 years anyway, then perhaps they would actually start caring about the planet.
  - jhayward 8y ago
    As an "old person" this feels personal. What evidence do you have that supports such a claim for "old people"?
    - kristofferR 8y ago
      https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-younger-americans-worried.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-y... Only 29% of Americans over 55 think climate change will pose a serious threat in their lifetime :(
      - jhayward 8y ago
        That's a cherry-picked stat if I ever saw one. In context of this thread you seem to be equating that with "think climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed", which is an entirely different question. Most of us don't want to see our kids lives ruined. In fact, the headline stat of that linked survey is "56% of Americans over 55 worry a great deal about global warming".
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  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.
  - tomp 8y ago
    No the main psychological reason is that people are bad at rationally assessing risks. E.g. most fear flying more than driving. Then there's also other (more economical, but you could say that's caused by psychology as well) reasons, such as tragedy of the commons.
    - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
      Perhaps a bit OT, but it is interesting that people keep bringing fear of flying as "irrational risk". People fearing flying more than driving are not afraid of the relative chances of dying (which are low either way). They are afraid of the feeling and experience of spending long time in a falling plane knowing that you are going to die, being stuck in one seat and not being able to do anything about it. This does not happen when you are driving, if there is an accident, you usually either die instantly or in some rare cases receive some injuries, but at least then you can lie at the site of the accident and hope that medics will come. It's not the same as being stuck in a box for 10s of minutes knowing you are most likely about to crash to a painful death. You have to spend time in that experience, to feel it, in a completely hopeless state. That's why people afraid of flying, not because of some statistics.
guzik 8y ago
Aging is a disease, there should be no doubt in that. What makes aging unique is that it affects 100% of the population.
- lm28469 8y ago
  That's also the only thing that keeps our population in check. Let's see how we handle the incoming retirement issues, that'll give us a good indication (less workers, more retired people pretty much everywhere in the west, peaking in the next few decades). Living long won't help much if it just means more people consuming our limited natural resources and weighting on our social infrastructure. At any rate most country would shift their retirement age accordingly and life would be the same but longer, I fail to see the appeal of that (albeit it's the ultimate realization of our "us vs nature" western mentality) We should figure how to live well before we try to live longer, and we still have some things we're nowhere close to figure out (energy, pollution, retirement, increasing pop, &c.) But all of that only applies if everyone has access to this tech, which I doubt. Most likely it will be a "cure" for the rich. Seems to me that scientists are working toward goals that kind of look nice on paper (curing aging, genetic modifications, &c.) without stopping even one second and thinking about the moral/social/economical consequences down the line.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Don't worry, poor people will still age and die.
    - lm28469 8y ago
      We'll make a lesser version of it available to everyone who gets a mortgage > 50 years and a new electric car. It'll involve weekly injections though, that way as soon as you stop paying you go back to where you belong.
    - xiphias2 8y ago
      Do you realistically think that it will not be worth to scale the solution? Many medications stay expensive because not big enough number of people are affected. Also don't think U.S. only: how do you stop people from going to China to get the cheap (but well tested) copy of a medication?

netsharc 8y ago

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.

guzik 8y ago
That's why he said "one of the most important challenge".
kristofferR 8y ago
If "old people" weren't sure they would die within the next 30 years anyway, then perhaps they would actually start caring about the planet.
- jhayward 8y ago
  As an "old person" this feels personal. What evidence do you have that supports such a claim for "old people"?
  - kristofferR 8y ago
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-younger-americans-worried.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/234314/global-warming-age-gap-y... Only 29% of Americans over 55 think climate change will pose a serious threat in their lifetime :(
    - jhayward 8y ago
      That's a cherry-picked stat if I ever saw one. In context of this thread you seem to be equating that with "think climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed", which is an entirely different question. Most of us don't want to see our kids lives ruined. In fact, the headline stat of that linked survey is "56% of Americans over 55 worry a great deal about global warming".
Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
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.
- tomp 8y ago
  No the main psychological reason is that people are bad at rationally assessing risks. E.g. most fear flying more than driving. Then there's also other (more economical, but you could say that's caused by psychology as well) reasons, such as tragedy of the commons.
  - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
    Perhaps a bit OT, but it is interesting that people keep bringing fear of flying as "irrational risk". People fearing flying more than driving are not afraid of the relative chances of dying (which are low either way). They are afraid of the feeling and experience of spending long time in a falling plane knowing that you are going to die, being stuck in one seat and not being able to do anything about it. This does not happen when you are driving, if there is an accident, you usually either die instantly or in some rare cases receive some injuries, but at least then you can lie at the site of the accident and hope that medics will come. It's not the same as being stuck in a box for 10s of minutes knowing you are most likely about to crash to a painful death. You have to spend time in that experience, to feel it, in a completely hopeless state. That's why people afraid of flying, not because of some statistics.

guzik 8y ago

Aging is a disease, there should be no doubt in that. What makes aging unique is that it affects 100% of the population.

lm28469 8y ago
That's also the only thing that keeps our population in check. Let's see how we handle the incoming retirement issues, that'll give us a good indication (less workers, more retired people pretty much everywhere in the west, peaking in the next few decades). Living long won't help much if it just means more people consuming our limited natural resources and weighting on our social infrastructure. At any rate most country would shift their retirement age accordingly and life would be the same but longer, I fail to see the appeal of that (albeit it's the ultimate realization of our "us vs nature" western mentality) We should figure how to live well before we try to live longer, and we still have some things we're nowhere close to figure out (energy, pollution, retirement, increasing pop, &c.) But all of that only applies if everyone has access to this tech, which I doubt. Most likely it will be a "cure" for the rich. Seems to me that scientists are working toward goals that kind of look nice on paper (curing aging, genetic modifications, &c.) without stopping even one second and thinking about the moral/social/economical consequences down the line.
- ionised 8y ago
  Don't worry, poor people will still age and die.
  - lm28469 8y ago
    We'll make a lesser version of it available to everyone who gets a mortgage > 50 years and a new electric car. It'll involve weekly injections though, that way as soon as you stop paying you go back to where you belong.
  - xiphias2 8y ago
    Do you realistically think that it will not be worth to scale the solution? Many medications stay expensive because not big enough number of people are affected. Also don't think U.S. only: how do you stop people from going to China to get the cheap (but well tested) copy of a medication?