3 ms·

Never really understood this argument, as aging is a risk factor for practically every form of malignancy. Less aging = less malignancy.

• ben_w 6y ago
  It is a risk factor, but not the only risk. There are plenty of carcinogens, sometimes even viruses can cause cancer (HPV). It would still be fantastic improvement to have the body of a 25-year-old for all my adult years even if my lifespan didn’t change — but while I assume [0] it would extend life expectancy, preventing aging isn’t enough by itself to prevent all illnesses. [0] I am not involved in medicine or biology and this would be way outside my area even if I had gone down that path, so my knowledge is “watched documentaries” level
  • hyko 6y ago
    Yes, there are many known carcinogens, however age is the largest risk factor: almost 90% of cancer patients are over the age of 50, and 50% are over 70! Preventing the core pathology of aging itself would of course not prevent all illness (even young people get sick), but it would eliminate an enormous amount of the disease burden we face.
• Odenwaelder 6y ago
  You age inevitably, because your genetic code will degrade over time, increasing the chances for malignacy. If you can reverse that in each of the 10^16 cells in your body, you will stop ageing.
  • hyko 6y ago
    I think the current understanding of the relationship between aging and cancer is a bit nuanced than this; e.g. immune system distinction is thought to play a major role in failing to eliminate precancerous cells.
• pessimizer 6y ago
  When people talk about stopping or reversing the aging process, they're not actually talking about stopping or reversing time.
  • hyko 6y ago
    Your risk of dying from cancer increases with aging, not age. Old people face a greater probability of getting cancer each year because their bodies are being progressively damaged. If you could hold the probability at the level of an 18 year old, that would massively reduce the incidence.