29 ms·

But the inverse problem also exists. Cure aging, great... but if you haven't also cured cancer and heart disease, your life still isn't likely to be that much l

by lukev 15y ago

But the inverse problem also exists. Cure aging, great... but if you haven't also cured cancer and heart disease, your life still isn't likely to be that much longer. We need to attack the problem on all fronts. Also, it's worth pointing out that whether we "cure aging" is not a boolean proposition. All we can talk about is increasing the average lifespan. Curing cancer and heart disease will definitely do that.

srl 15y ago
He's saying that aging is a major contributor to cancer and heart disease (or at least, that we think it is). This is true. "Curing aging" means a dramatic reduction in the overall rates of cancer, heart disease, etc.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
Curing aging would imply that humans would have a theoretically infinite life expectancy, modulo the various other things that kill us, which have a certain chance of occurring per unit time, based on various factors. In practice, that does mean a finite lifespan, but it vastly amplifies the effectiveness of any other cures or treatments we devise. That would entirely change the dynamic of many forms of disease prevention and cure. Suddenly, fighting diseases would no longer have a shadow of "staving off the inevitable", particularly in the elderly or those faced with chronic illness. So, sure, we need to continue playing whack-a-mole, but we need the cure for the fundamental bug too.
orangecat 15y ago
Also, it's worth pointing out that whether we "cure aging" is not a boolean proposition. All we can talk about is increasing the average lifespan. No matter how well you take care of yourself, you're going to be significantly less healthy at age X+20 than at age X if X>25. Curing aging would mean that would no longer be true. There would no doubt be diseases remaining, but your susceptibility to them would be that of a 25 year old regardless of your biological age.

by lukev 15y ago

srl 15y ago

He's saying that aging is a major contributor to cancer and heart disease (or at least, that we think it is). This is true. "Curing aging" means a dramatic reduction in the overall rates of cancer, heart disease, etc.

JoshTriplett 15y ago

Curing aging would imply that humans would have a theoretically infinite life expectancy, modulo the various other things that kill us, which have a certain chance of occurring per unit time, based on various factors. In practice, that does mean a finite lifespan, but it vastly amplifies the effectiveness of any other cures or treatments we devise. That would entirely change the dynamic of many forms of disease prevention and cure. Suddenly, fighting diseases would no longer have a shadow of "staving off the inevitable", particularly in the elderly or those faced with chronic illness. So, sure, we need to continue playing whack-a-mole, but we need the cure for the fundamental bug too.

orangecat 15y ago

Also, it's worth pointing out that whether we "cure aging" is not a boolean proposition. All we can talk about is increasing the average lifespan. No matter how well you take care of yourself, you're going to be significantly less healthy at age X+20 than at age X if X>25. Curing aging would mean that would no longer be true. There would no doubt be diseases remaining, but your susceptibility to them would be that of a 25 year old regardless of your biological age.