4 ms·
Maybe you've read the book Lifespan, but the research talked about in it feels far more optimistic than what you've outlined. [1] Certainly there is already a d
by blawson 6y ago
Maybe you've read the book Lifespan, but the research talked about in it feels far more optimistic than what you've outlined. [1] Certainly there is already a decent amount of money being spent on it, and more and more each year with promising results. [2]
Reading this book, aging feels like an area where we might see huge advances in the next 15-20 years.
There are already really strong results for extending vital life by significant margins in other species, including rhesus monkeys. There are already drugs people take that seem to have some of this effect, though I think currently they come with some dangerous side-effects that might not be worth it if you didn't have the underlying disease the drug was intended for.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/1501191977 https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont-Have/dp/150...
[2] https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(17)30171-3 https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-779...
- keenmaster 6y agoGreat book. David Sinclair makes a good case for why aging is the primary disease, and increased risk for cancer, heart disease, neurological decline, etc...are symptoms of the same disease. Even a universal cure for cancer would not increase lifespan drastically, because you'd just die from another collection of age-related ailments a few years later. We should try to find a direct cure for aging. Aging research in the past 5-10 years has been promising.