We challenged experts across fields to imagine a new way to solve the problems of human aging. Our question: What if Humans were Designed to Last?
By S. Jay Olshansky, Robert N. Butler,
and Bruce A. Carnes
When Michelangelo painted The Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, he portrayed the Renaissance view of humanity as having been molded by the hand of its creator, a "perfect" physical specimen. Charles Darwin, when drafting his theory of evolution, presented imperfections in humans' anatomic structures and functions as the strongest evidence for his theory. It now appears they were both right. A coordinated network of molecular processes providing cells with nearly flawless surveillance, maintenance, and repair capabilities exemplifies the "perfection" of the human body. Living things need this precision in order to survive to reproductive maturity in the face of a hostile environment and the toxic debris that the cellular machinery of life generates. Meanwhile, subtle changes and imperfections at every level of biological organization give rise to the diseases and disorders associated with aging and impose limits on the duration of life, but ultimately, these changes and imperfections drive the evolutionary process itself. The juxtaposition of Michelangelo's perfection and Darwin's flaws embodies the linked stories of reproduction and death. Evolution has given humans a beautifully orchestrated set of genetic programs to carry most of us through to sexual maturity, but we have also been given a brain large enough to ponder our demise. Yet, if the molecular, cellular, and genetic machinery used to conceive, develop, and operate a human were designed rather than the result of evolution, humans would be different and life would look different. This is our challenge. We asked experts in gerontology, neuroscience, genetics, cell biology, development, and health and fitness science to devise a human that would stand the test of time. Here's what they've come up with. In the absence of planned form and designed function, what we have is a living machine that appears well thought out, but which fails when operated beyond its biological warranty period. Some anatomic fixes could make a difference in aging populations: Most men older than age 50 can attest that the prostate gland has the functional plan of an apprentice's first effort rather than the end result of intelligent design. Anyone who understands how time takes its toll on the body and mind, however, will recognize that designing a human body built to last requires far more substantive changes than meddling with simple anatomy. So we've asked our experts to fiddle with physiology and tinker with the inner mechanics of life at its most basic biologic level. Although it is inevitable, for now, that all systems in the body experience some level of functional decline with the passage of time, not all components of the body degrade at the same rate. Furthermore, some structures are more vulnerable than others. Particularly troublesome are two kinds of cells in the body that generally stop replicating past the stage of growth and development - neurons and muscle fibers. Two of our expert fixes deal with these problems specifically. John Q. Trojanowski, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and director of the Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Disease Center suggests that the problems of neurodegenerative disease could be avoided if neurogenesis in the brain worked better, replacing spent neurons before they begin to cause problems for themselves and surrounding tissue. Similarly, the nerve loss that may invariably lead to muscle loss in the body (sarcopenia) could be avoided with excess motoneurons, suggests Michael Bemben, professor of health and exercise science at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. Some of the fixes strive to uncouple the links in our body's systems. The associations between endocrine function and bone formation invariably doom bone to deteriorate as hormone levels in the body decline. Other intriguing clues have shown us that senses such as taste and smell may influence the rate at which we age. Might parsing out these systems help us enjoy longer, more healthy lives? Perhaps the best solutions would occur at a cellular or even a molecular level, increasing the quality and durability of life's most basic building blocks. Mopping up excess free radicals is a start. But even that covers only one theory as to the potential causes of aging. Leonard Hayflick, who demonstrated the finitude of repeated cell divisions so elegantly in the 1960s (see Foundations ) offers perhaps the most fantastic if most unattainable fix: Perfect or near perfect synthesis, maintenance, and repair of every biomolecule in the human body, he says, would make the risk for most age-related diseases and disorders simply vanish. Even this is not without tradeoffs, however. Such perfection would also wipe out those subtle changes and mistakes that made us what we are, tipping the scales in favor of Michelangelo. Technologies are emerging that extend survival by delaying death from chronic fatal diseases. Pushing this envelope may briefly quench our insatiable thirst for extended life and temporarily quell our fear of death, but continuing to do so may turn out to be harmful unless it soon becomes possible to scientifically engineer an extension of the vigor of youth in both body and mind. In this article we go beyond usual scientific reasoning and imagine how the human body might have been designed differently if biology were goal-oriented. Meddling with such features is an inherently tricky business, but imaginative and innovative approaches to tackling the problems of an aging body is certainly worth encouraging. Here, we imagine how the inner workings of the human body might have been designed differently, had a healthier and longer life been the motivating force that shaped life. Our goal is not to create new methods of combating disease, but rather, to spark an idea, trigger a thought, and inspire others to think outside the box by first imagining a new future of human health that is better than the present - and then working to make it so. THE REJUVENATING BRAIN: The most troubling part about aging is our ability to contemplate it, and for this reason perhaps, the consequences to our brains are the most frightful. I study neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer, Parkinson, and frontotemporal dementias, which become more common with advancing age but are not always associated with age specifically. Many of these disorders are closely associated with filamentous aggregates, such as those containing amyloid, tau, and -synuclein. These aggregates quickly gum the normal physiology of neurons and often become cytotoxic. The Fix: An improved system to fold proteins and destroy unwanted proteins could drastically reduce the propensity for aggregation. Perfecting the physiology of chaperone proteins and improving the efficiency of lysosomes, proteasomes, and all the enzymes that eliminate the accumulation of disease-causing proteins would significantly reduce the likelihood of these diseases occurring. However, this fix wouldn't address neurological damage resulting from head trauma or stroke. A simple, cell-for-cell replacement model of neurogenesis might provide a more elegant solution. If a cell dies, a population of adult neural stem cells would quickly replace it. The Tradeoffs: One downside of improving regenerative capacity is that increased cell division to make more cells and replace those that degenerate could presumably spiral out of control and flip over to cancer. Moreover, the precise wiring of the brain is not something to be taken lightly. If neuroregeneration overcompensated only slightly, dysregulation of neuronal crosstalk could lead to conditions such as schizophrenia or seizure. -John Q. Trojanowski, University of Pennsylvania LONGER IN TOOTH: The deterioration and loss of teeth that comes with old age affects more than smiles; gum disease has been associated with increased risk for heart disease and might quicken the pace of aging. Poor nutrition after tooth loss could also cause problems. P. Holm-Pedersen of the University of Copenhagen has been presenting data on a 600-member aging cohort in Denmark, which shows a statistically significant association between tooth loss and the onset of disability, although the link is not necessarily causative. The Fix: Stronger, more resilient enamel might stave off decay. A more elegant fix would entail a third set of teeth erupting at the age of 55. The Tradeoffs: The tooth buds from a third set of teeth might necessitate a larger jaw. Having teeth erupt from the rear like those in elephants might solve this. However, many people past the age of 20 can recall intense pain when wisdom teeth erupt; constantly growing teeth, similar to those in horses, might address this. -Bruce Carnes, University of Oklahoma, Health Sciences Center
THE PERFECT EYE: In addition to some well known engineering flubs in the eye, more than a quarter of individuals age 75 years and older report vision impairment even with corrective lenses. Cataracts and other damage caused by aging and a lifetime of exposure to incidental ultraviolet radiation account for more than half of all blindness. The Fix: The tiny pink lumps in the inner corners of human eyes are the vestiges of a nictitating membrane - a third eyelid still functional in sharks, birds, and even some mammals. A similar sideways sweeping membrane, if translucent and able to block harmful rays, could provide additional protection when needed and be retracted in the dark. The Tradeoffs: As skin ages - also due in no small part to the sun - it becomes loose and less flexible. Surgery to correct drooping eyelids (blepharoplasty) is already the third most popular plastic surgery, and adding a third lid would entail more surgery. For this reason, a simpler solution would be engineering a photochromic cornea. A biomolecule with the same properties as silver halide and other materials used in so-called Transitions lenses would darken in the presence of UV light and protect the lens and retina. -Bruce Carnes SENSELESS AGING: The effects of calorie restriction on longevity in several animal species are well documented. Increasingly, evidence suggests that sensory systems such as smell may have a similar effect. Last month, our group showed that the life-extending effects of dietary restriction in flies are partially reversed when the flies are exposed to excess food odorants. Knocking out the odor receptor Or83b resulted in life extension that was largely independent of dietary intake. Other studies in Caenorhabditis elegans have implicated scent and gustatory pathways in modulating aging, partly through insulin-dependant (i.e., daf-16) signaling pathways. Although more studies are needed, the implication is that perceptual systems may play a major role in informing the organism of its environment, and in so doing may trigger physiologic decisions that result in altered longevity.
The Fix: Short of deleting human senses, uncoupling them from the burden of our evolutionary past would be useful. Relevant odorants likely tap into adaptive hormonal pathways that have been honed by evolution to alter life-history patterns and maximize individual fitness - for example, to maximize reproductive effort at all costs when we perceive nutrient abundance. We may rewire these systems to enforce somatic endurance in response to common odors. The Tradeoffs: The apparent interconnectedness between the senses and longevity-modulating pathways is perceived as "bad" only according to today's values. That doesn't mean they don't serve a useful purpose. Perhaps a more elegant solution would be to engineer the ability to switch between states - for example, to maximize reproductive capacity when starting a family, and to increase stress resistance when raising those children. - Scott Pletcher, Baylor College of Medicine TAKING THE BITE OUT OF CHOLESTEROL: The modern human diet is high in animal fat and processed foods. Excess low-density lipoprotein in the blood appears strongly linked to a process in which plaques form along arterial walls, causing narrowing and sometimes blocking of blood vessels. About half of all Americans exceed guideline levels for cholesterol. As an older population has become more commonplace, so too have heart disease, stroke, and all the attendant costs of a lifetime of plaque buildup.
The Fix: While enhancing the systems to reduce serum cholesterol levels seems attractive, the extra enzymatic activity required to process these lipids would likely necessitate a substantial size increase in what is already the body's largest internal organ, the liver. So, the best solution is a functional one: Coat the entire vascular system with a Teflon-like surface. Polytetrafluoroethylene is inert, has no net charge, and has the lowest friction coefficient of any known solid. A biomolecule with these properties, if expressed on the surface of endothelial cells lining the vasculature, would greatly reduce plaque buildup. The Tradeoffs: An effective coating would have to be sufficiently breathable so that it doesn't inhibit the transfer of nutrients and oxygen. Moreover, arteries need to be elastic. The hardening effects of a polymer like Teflon could reduce pumping efficiency. -P. Michael Conn, Oregon National Primate Research Center BONE REGAINED: Osteoporosis, characterized by a decline in bone mass and a weakening of its micro-architecture, appears to be caused by an imbalance in bone remodeling. The three phases in the bone remodeling cycle - activation, resorption, and formation - involve different cells. Osteocytes activate the cycle in response to mechanical signals. Osteoclasts synthesize lysosomal enzymes that can degrade bone matrix components, resulting in the bone resorption phase. Hormones and local growth factors stimulate osteoblasts to produce collagen that forms the new matrix, completing the remodeling cycle. Bone loss occurs when resorption occurs faster than formation, a process that begins in humans in their early 30s. The Fix: Age-related changes in endocrine function greatly affect bone mass and fracture risk. Decreasing the sensitivity of bone cells to systemic hormones might help. If bone cells could rely on their own intracellular signals for remodeling, a normal balance between resorption and formation would persist. The mechanism for the decreased sensitivity could be analogous to the decreased insulin sensitivity observed with aging. One could impose a decreased number of hormone receptors, such as parathyroid hormone (PTH) on the bone cells, or a change in the biological effect of the hormone-receptor interaction within the bone cells. The Tradeoffs: Bone tissue functions as an important reservoir for calcium, but with a decreased number of PTH receptors, PTH would not be as effective in mobilizing calcium from the skeleton in response to lowered blood calcium levels. Moreover, it has been shown in animal models that the estrogen receptor mediates bone response to mechanical loading, suggesting that a decrease in estrogen receptors would decrease the bone response to weight-bearing exercise. -Debra Bemben, University of Oklahoma LIVING STRONGER LONGER: The loss of muscle mass associated with aging accounts for a decrease in basal metabolism and in muscular strength, which can lower physical activity levels, resulting in diminished postural reflex, a loss of balance, and an increased risk for falls. Sarcopenia is a multifaceted problem with two potential primary mechanisms. The problem might be myopathic in nature, but evidence also indicates that a loss of muscle innervation might cause sarcopenia. Strong evidence suggests a progressive loss of high-threshold motoneurons (those that innervate fast-twitch fibers) as demonstrated by the proportional loss of fast-twitch fiber numbers.
The Fix: If loss of neural innervation to the muscle fiber is the primary cause for the loss of muscle mass, then muscle fiber number could be maintained as long as neural integrity is stable. In the brain, it appears that humans have roughly four-fold neuronal redundancy. In most people, as many as 30% of the cerebral neurons are lost due to wear and tear of normal life, but far less than the approximately 80% reduction necessary to produce clinical symptoms. One way to ensure an adequate number of functioning motoneurons would be to build a similar redundancy into the anterior or ventral horns of the grey matter in the spinal cord. The Tradeoffs: The extra space needed to 'house' these extra nerve cells within the spinal cord would necessitate an increase in size of the spinal cord and concomitant increase in the vertebral column, which could influence posture, balance, and gait. A second problem might be a greater incidence of peripheral nerve diseases such as shingles or systemic lupus with increased age. -Michael G. Bemben, University of Oklahoma UNFREE THE RADICALS: Metabolic free radicals are thought to be a significant cause of biomolecular damage. The accumulation over time of unrepaired damage caused by free radicals has been linked to a host of diseases and has been prominently implicated in the aging process itself. The Fix: The solution to this problem must be systemic. While natural antioxidants are produced endogenously and occur in food, more powerful antioxidants also exist, such as amifostine (WR-2731), a radioprotector compound produced in the laboratory and used to ameliorate damage caused by radiation therapies. In addition, they tend to concentrate within the mitochondria where metabolic free radicals are produced, and they adhere to nuclear DNA. The latter attribute is significant: As it increases the structural stability of the DNA, it may also slow the cell cycle. If a gene to produce such compounds were introduced into the mitochondrial genome, the rate of aging should be slowed, and cancers should be reduced or delayed along with all other degenerative diseases that free radicals cause. The Tradeoffs: Free radicals do participate in a number of important functions. Immune cells use free radicals to attack and destroy invaders and infected cells. Free radicals participate in the detoxification of harmful chemicals, and are involved in hormone production, enzyme activation, and mediation of cell signaling. Disrupting these important processes could easily jeopardize the health of the individual. So, a more powerful endogenous antioxidant system would have to be finely tuned. -Bruce Carnes The best solutions might occur at a cellular or even molecular level. STOP AGING AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL: Theories to explain the finitude of life are based either on a purposeful genetic program like that for biological development, or on the occurrence of random events that produce errors in essential biomolecules. It is now believed that genetics governs longevity but that random events produce age changes. Age changes result from the increase in molecular disorder that, after reproductive maturation, slowly begins to exceed the capacity for repair, turnover, and synthesis of biomolecules. The very systems that are engaged in repair, turnover, and syntheses are themselves subject to randomly accumulating errors.
The Fix: Developing a perfect human being, built to live a life that is longer and healthier than what is experienced now, would simply require that all processes designed to maintain, turn over, or repair proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, or nucleic acids be carried out with near-perfect fidelity. With this ability in place, age changes and the consequent vulnerability to age-related pathology would decrease to the vanishing point. The Tradeoffs: Beyond the ethical implications of creating such long-living beings with no reasonable exit strategy, we would be deleting a rich and fundamental source of biological diversity. Mistakes in the synthetic and repair machineries of the cell have created us as we are today. Turning off the power of this engine for evolutionary change would put us at a great disadvantage in adapting to new challenges and environments and leave us at a biological dead end. -Leonard Hayflick, University of California, San Francisco Advertisement
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: Critique by Nathaniel Summers [Comment posted 2007-12-12 19:11:54] I've got a lot to say against this article. Nothing against the idea of germ level modifications of the human genome. But rather specific conclusions about the proposed best ways to fix these problems.
For bad cholesterol. Coating the blood vessels in Teflon is not needed. Regulation of Apolipoprotein B production based on the amount of LDL (bad cholesterol) present in the blood-stream would be a much better choice. Basically this gene will be suppressed, possibly by RNAi in response to climbing cholesterol levels. This protein is actually responsible for the transportation of LDL throughout the body and is essential for it?s absorption from the digestive tract. Defeciencies in this protein produce Hypobetalipoproteinemia, a condition where there exists abnormally low levels of LDL. The idea is to put a regulatory system in place to insure optimum Cholesterol levels, both good (HDL) and bad (LDL). Conversely, this silencing gene will be suppressed in instances where there are deficiencies in fat-soluble vitamins and minerals (vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, and vitamin K) as LDL serves a vital role in their absorption. Distilled, I am suggesting that the body simply keep the optimal level of LDL by not absorbing more than it needs and letting the rest simply pass through the stool. It would also be a good idea to reintroduce the ability to produce Vitamin C into our genome. Since cholesterol and calcification of the blood vessels actually helps (when you're younger) to prevent scurvy, which is caused by the blood vessels being too permeable because of the lack of sufficient Vitamin C. Most of the other ideas are fairly silly. Like using chemotherapy drugs to reduce free radicals when you could simply include Super Oxide Dismutase and Catylase genes from bacteria like Deinococcus Radiodurans. That particular bacteria can survive being exposed to insane amounts of radiation and can process free radicals like nuclear powered wood chipper. No need for all those crazy side effects associated with the suggested drug. The regenerative properties of the liver might also be extended to other tissues (including nerves and muscles) to help with the decline that aging brings in those cells. No need to make all the extra redundancy. If there was extra redundancy in the brain, the skull mostly forms in relation to the brain forming inside it. No need to really expand the capacity of anything. Or you could increase the density of neurons which studies also show might also increase intelligence. I like the idea of growing more teeth though. Just make it work like the adult teeth do now. And get rid of wisdom teeth, they're evil. As far as genetic repair goes. Just by making multiple redundancies for repair genes (so that a mutation that results in the loss of one does not actually decrease any function) we could drastically improve DNA repair. It's just too bad we can't do like Deinococcus Radiodurans and have full copies of our genome packed nice and tight to use as reference when something gets broken. That's just way to complex for us to even consider possible. I would also like to see multiple redundant backups for all mitotic and apoptotic functions. Such that it is hard for cells to replicate and easy for them to die. Combined with a capacity for regeneration it would allow defective cells to simply die and be replaced by those that work perfectly. Such genes must be somewhat inactive in gametes though. So as to not hinder the production of natural mutations which might give rise to a functional gain in our offspring. The problem is that if any cell can turn off some of the repair mechanisms, then so can a random mutation which could lead to cancer. No way around that. Here it's either cancer or slower genetic mutations which could reduce our ability to adapt as a species. However, I think if we're at the point to where we're modifying out own genes... we might as well just realize that we don't really need selection or mutation to adapt. Just the technology necessary to carry out these genetic changes. The fun part is that I am by no means an expert in the field of biology. Just some kid with too much time on his hands and a strong interest in biology... although not enough interest to want to become a biologist. But I can still say with some certainty though, that many of these suggestions leave much to be desired. Return to Top comment: Redesign by Jan Halvorsen [Comment posted 2007-10-22 17:56:31] To me there are one omission that might be quite important. For most men the prostate gland is what makes the most trouble as they get older. The problem is of course that is no easy fix for it - the prostate gland seems to be necessary for a good life and yet for many men it will more or less kill them in the end. Return to Top comment: Dr. by Abdullah .G. Arijo [Comment posted 2007-04-19 11:20:05] The way scientific miracles are appearing, one can believe that human being may be designed, but the resource sample represent limited genome and genepool.
I understand that humen in every part of the world sahres remarkable variation, which is result of billion of crossing over in millions of the years, therefore, the question is will the resource sample dipict entire evolutionary process? And if any humen fault in design happen, what desig will come out, that almighty god may know. I understand that there are enormous problem that human race is facing, so ther solution of such problems may be addressed, not that just to get scientific fantasy, flood of capital be spent on somethig which may end up at disaster Return to Top comment: Bravo .. by Stephen Willemse [Comment posted 2007-04-03 16:35:35] comment:
Evolution isn't just biology - free your minds!! by jpank [Comment posted 2007-03-06 21:30:35] Well done jprank , you are the first to express where this quest for immortality will ultimately lead us. Freeing ourselves from the frailty of a carbon based existence is not only inevitable but is the first step on the road to galactic exploration. Many of the articles in this discussion ask why would we want to live till 300 ...forever , to me the answer is simple. What we know about the universe or even the earth itself is embryonic at best and we need more time to gain a greater understanding of the eternal question we all ponder , what is the meaning of all of this ? Therefore the prolonging of our biological existence is merely a stepping stone to our next evolution to a higher plane of existence in whatever form that may be , energy , light .....who knows. But these tentative steps that we take to tackle our age old nemesis , death , are but the beginning of the new era of human existence , whatever form that may take. Technological advancement now days is exponentially increasing in speed , and the merging of multiple disciplines of science is accelerating the human race to a new reality or our ultimate demise , who can tell , I just hope it is not the latter. What we do know is that it is unstoppable and inevitable and I hope and pray that I get to see it happen. And therefore to answer the question of over crowding ... for a race that is gearing up to their next evolution and then the exploration of the galaxy/universe we need each and every soul we can get ...... The universe is a big place. Return to Top comment: Our overconsumed resources by Juho-Pekka Pᅢᄊyry [Comment posted 2007-04-03 08:51:39] Hey guys, really, let's take a closer look at those resources and carrying capacities...
It is indeed commonly argued that we are over concuming this and that natural resource and the "carrying capacity" of our earth is alredy reached. Those kinds of comments totally disregard even the very basics of resource economics. Natural resources are such artifacts of nature that can be profitably utilized. Hence, inevitably, natural resources are a function of our konowledge. Our knowledge on the other hand seems to be expanding. Take, say, the known oil reserves over the past century. They feared in the first quarter (or so) of 1900s that oil was running out. Yet look at the development of known resources over time. In fact, even look at the recoverable resources in alredy known oilwells. Even that number has increased steadily over time. Same thing applies to other resources. Currently mankind has more natural resources than ever, and they are expanding as a function of our knowledge. So to summon up, if you scientists are worried about our natural resources, work harder. :) Return to Top comment: But is it possible? by Marco [Comment posted 2007-04-02 20:28:34] Most of the comments posted give arguments on whether or not perpetual youth should be pursued. Those objecting to the premise over variations on a couple of themes: 'If God meant us to fly he would have given us wings' or 'Who wants to live forever anyway?' Similar arguments were first posed when widespread vaccination was first seriously discussed. The world hasn't come to an end as consequence of reduced child mortality.
A more relevant discussion is whether or not such technology is or might become feasible in the near to medium term future. If so, there are market forces that no level of moral objection or legal challenge would prevent this from becoming a reality. Thus, if it is feasible, how should we deal with the changes to come? Return to Top comment: Money and work already in place on all of this by Bob Cecil [Comment posted 2007-04-02 14:40:15] Read whats been goin on for several years on this. Its all for real. Get involved...
http://www.mprize.org Bob Cecil bcecil@mybigpix.com Return to Top comment: Increased Quality Lifespan and Economics by Robert Goldschmidt [Comment posted 2007-04-02 14:39:38] According to the GAO, the overhang of unfunded commitments for the USA exceeds 50 Trillion dollars and is increasing at a rate exceeding $2500 a month for every full time worker. This overhang of healthcare and retirement commitments is present in all developed countries and will result in their economic destruction if not addressed.
The only reasonable way out of this looming crisis is to rearrange our health delivery and employment system to extend quality lifespan and quality career span. What we really need is for people to be healthy and productive for a greater portion of their lifespan. This should be kept in mind when deciding to apply any new therapy. It is not only a moral but an economic imperative. Return to Top comment: So what if we fill up the earth? by Reece Arnott [Comment posted 2007-04-02 06:01:38] This is in response to those that say if we live for longer/forever we will fill up the earth.
Why not look outside the earth for places to live then? Admittedly, if we assume a constantly doubling population (as we have had for the last 100 years for example) you are going to run out room eventually but if we confine ourselves to Earth we'll run out even sooner. I mocked up a quick spreadsheet that starts for simplicity with a population of 6 billon people in a sphere 1 light year in radius and expands 1 light year per year and you feed in various doubling speeds and how much volume is needed for each person. At a doubling rate of 35 years and giving each peron 100 cubic meters you run out of space in 2500 years but by that time the population is over 400 million billon people! If you slow that doubling to every 100 years we run out of space in 7500 years with 12048942920 billion. I know thats simplistic but it proves the point. Yes we will have to stabilise the population of the human race at some point otherwise we will run out of room but it can be at a far higher level than most people think. There have been plans since the '70s (O'Neill, Gerard K. - 1977 - The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space) on how to build space colonies. If we as a species had the willpower we could have a good percentage of the population off the earth by now. There's been lots of good sci-fi (eg. The fountains of youth by Brian Stableford) exploring what happens if we 'solve death' or even just slow down the aging process and there are issues to be worked through but over-population is not one of them that is normally given any credence in the near term. Return to Top comment: Mr. by Edward Greisch [Comment posted 2007-03-31 07:15:11] If I thought I was designed by a god, I would sue Him for malpractice. Return to Top comment: Mr. by Edward Greisch [Comment posted 2007-03-31 06:34:55] The article missed the most obvious problems with having been designed by evolution rather than by an intelligent engineer and they missed a more subtle one. The most obvious ones: A backbone made as a suspension bridge and used as a tower. Hinges at the knees and elbows without hinge pins. Ball and socket joints with incomplete sockets. Instincts suitable for the time prior to the stone age. [This is why science and math are so hard for most people, and why we believe insane things.]
A more subtle thing they missed: Reference the book: "Power, sex, suicide: mitochondria and the meaning life" by Nick Lane. Published: Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Seagulls live 150 years because they have better mitochondria. Seagulls don't show their age except by getting clumbsy. They die of a really bad crash landing. Scaled up to human size, that would be 300 years of life before becoming terminally clumbsy. All we need to live 300 years is seagull mitochondria and a change of very few codons in our nuclei to accommodate the new mitochondria. Cloning techniques should enable this change soon. The escape clause: Suicide is the fifth leading cause of death in the USA. Return to Top comment: Not Natural? by SpaceCasey [Comment posted 2007-03-30 22:22:55] To take control over our own evolution is not going against nature. That's like saying our monkey ancestors should have stayed in the trees because it's not natural to be on the ground, or we shouldn't be flying in air because we don't have feathers.
It seems apparent that technology will become the new evolutionary force as we transition into a Type 1 civilization. Immortality will more than likely be an expected side effect of this new technological evolutionary era. Humans were evolved from Nature, therefor what we become, whether immortal or not, is what evolution intended. Return to Top comment: Aging VS AGE not the same!! by Joseph Jackson [Comment posted 2007-03-30 18:07:50] One thing that needs to happen is to STOP conflating aging with Age. Aging is horrible no matter what the lifespan is. If we lived to 200 or to 400 and were broken down and decrepit this is terrible, just as it would be terrible to only live to 20 or 40 and be ᅡモphysiologically old,ᅡヤ just as it is terrible today to live to 75 in the developed world and be physiologically old. There are separate arguments to be made about a minimal lifespan.
To determine how long we need to have a chance at the best, maximally fulfilling life, we have to look at the rate at which we can build our skills/powers/capacitiesᅡラour rate of accomplishment. Given our current educational technologies and rates of learning, we need at LEAST 250 years to have a shot at what I call an ᅡモexemplaryᅡヤ life. To develop world class level expertise in anythingᅡラfrom chess to violin, to tennis, it takes between 12 and 20 years of continual practice. Any person should pursue at LEAST 10-15 different activities/careers in a lifetime (meaning at minimum weᅡメd need the 250 years filled with valuable activity). Here is how life works. There are many intrinsically valuable activities to pursue in this existenceᅡラscience, music, the arts, etc. All of these have something in commonᅡラthey have increasing marginal utilityᅡラthey actually get better as we do more of them. Starting out in math, or science, you toil to memorize brute factsᅡラthe periodic table of elements, the axioms of geometry, the notes of a C scale on the keyboard. As infants we have to learn to walk before we can learn more advanced control over the body (kinesthesia)ᅡラenabling us to perform feats such as gymnastics, acrobatics, breakdancing, etc. Remember learning to ride the bike, using training wheels, and then falling when you tried it without them? Ever seen a really good unicycle rider juggling flaming knivesᅡラthey can do amazing things (it just takes 30 hours of practice a week for 10 years). As we improve, basic skills become effortless and automaticᅡラthe genetically blessed among us can progress almost indefinitely along a rewarding path of achievement in their chosen fields (actually our arbitrarily short life span means that these geniusesᅡラBeethoven, Einstein, probably die well before they run up against their ultimate limits). After mastering the axioms of mathematics, new, more aesthetically pleasing realms are opened to usᅡラscience gets more and more beautiful the more is known (ever more complexity is revealed, unified with prior knowledge, and then our questions are extended). If we had Godlike cognitive processing powerᅡラthen we could indeed make due with a shorter life span. Indeed, you could experience a subjective eternity in a moment (a kind of time dilation). This is the concept behind the clichᅢᄅ of having life flash before your eyes before death. To conclude, stop focusing on the ARBITRARY number of how long a being lives. It is OBJECTIVELY horrible to ageᅡラwe are built to break down and made to whither away. All our capacities decay. This is an undignified, indeed intolerable situation. Furthermore, there are separate philosophical arguments to establish that our current lifespan is too short. Want people to care about climate changeᅡラlet them live long enough that future effects will really matter to them. Do you comprehend the enormous loss that occurs when 80 year old human minds die? Enormous resources have been invested in scientists/artists training over a lifetimeᅡラonly for all that ability and knowledge to be irrevocably lost when these people still have plenty to contribute. All the concerns about overpopulation etc are SEPARATE concerns (ridiculous empirical projections that assume our current social conditions would hold constant in the future while only lifespan was extended). These arguments donᅡメt bear on the central problem that aging in itself, is an EVIL. Return to Top comment: Yay for the 300 year olds!!! by Graduate Student Jane Doe [Comment posted 2007-03-28 23:42:27] I agree with the one comment that life extension is a natural progression. I'm totally for it. It's natural to want to better ourselves. 100 years ago when the average life expectancy was like 30, they probably said the same thing. If extra time in life were given to you...healthy time that is.... I'm sure you could find something to do with it!
And about the comments that we'll fill up the earth if people live longer....of course we would...that's why we need to colonize other planets. It's not as crazy as it sounds. With all those lovely minds having so much more time, we could surely put them to good use and come up with ways to survive in space and/or on other planets. Oh, and as for Mr. Gregory O'Kelly's calling the author's comments on the molecular, cellular, and genetic aspect of energy metabolism...what the heck is pre-20th century about that??? Maybe I didn't understand your point. Energy metabolism IS based on molecular and cellular stuff.....you know the mitochondria and the electron transport chain and all that fun stuff we learned in biochem 101??? Everything in the whole body is based on molecular and cellular events. If you find out that it's based on anything else, please let us know! Return to Top comment: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Sauron Morgoth of Mordor [Comment posted 2007-03-28 22:14:49] Read this for some insght into "what happens to an individual that become superior to other humans by virtue of his immortality?"
The selection of works in of Science Fiction referred to in the comments is very selective and fails to include those that revel the downside of scientific/medical desires to "advance". How about we consider Frankenstein, and as already stated the work listed in the subject title, et al. The lessons they articulate are just as important if not more so than the purely optimistic. Those blessed with longevity are not guaranteed to be altruistic in action as they become more experienced and "wise". Indeed human nature has a very ugly side that is self serving which in some (if not many) will be destructive and rather than make the world a better place, make it a better place for some and much worse for others, or even a more miserable one for all, should their natural life span become unlimited. "Make room, make room!" A longer lifespan gives not only more opportunities for good, but also more opportunities for any individual to become more cynical, evil, and destructive. Remember immunity from natural death does not prevent one feom being dispatched otherwise... We are after all also governed by Murphy's Law. Return to Top comment: A few simple thought experiments by Ted Howard [Comment posted 2007-03-28 19:15:24] Consider, what determines if a population is increasing or decreasing is not the average age of a population, it is the average number of children surving to reproductive age.
Removing age related causes of death will not remove death. Accidents will continue. Individuals would still need to have at least 2 children (one if cloned), they would just space them out a bit further. While some few individuals may attain ripe old ages of millions of years, less than 50% would survive to 5,000 years. Evolution is continuing in the realm of memes (idea complexes), and within the next two decades will completely supercede biological evolution with respect to our species. If we used the most efficient technology we have now effectively, we could have 100 Billion people living in freedom and "suburban luxury" and have a smaller footprint on the planet's ecology than we do now. Our self awareness is born of the action of the concept of right and wrong, in a linguistic trick of the mind. Every human must go through a stage where everything must be classified either as right or wrong (good or bad). Less than 2% of the population have currently transcended this starting paradigm to a paradigm of infinite possibility (where what is can simply be acknowledged, and what is possible chosen or not). If you think about it, any destination has an infinite number of possible paths by which it can be reached. Some appear easier than others, and some appear more obvious than others, and both of those judgements depend upon the percepts and concepts contained in the mind making them. Having contemplated and studied these issues for over three decades, I believe that life extension is not only possible, but is desirable as the best possible mechanism for encouraging long term self interest over short term self interest. In long term self interest it is not advisable to make an enemy of anyone. There are real benefits to providing value to everyone. The environment that supports us all become very important. I believe that all life on this planet will benefit greatly when humans remove age related degeneration from their bodies. I believe we are very close to doing so. What changes we need to make to our social, political and economic structures to extend life with stability are addressed in www.solnx.org. What it will look like eventually is beyond central planning or imagining - it will be the results of billions of imaginings, and billions of choices. Love Peace Power and Prosperity Ted Return to Top comment: THis is a joke! by tidwelkl [Comment posted 2007-03-26 03:43:34] Immortal life will never exist on earth. It is a law of thermodynamics and we are all going to age. There will never be a cure for it just a slowing process which would be great! Return to Top comment: GUToB by Peter Borger [Comment posted 2007-03-14 08:56:24] GUToB says, contrary to conventional belief, humans were designed to last. Many genes have an ability to convey longevity, but have been inactivated during the course of a degenarative process (usually referred to as evolution). Their remnants can still be found in the genome, however.
Examples of genes with a capacity to directly prevent aging and age-related disease but inactive in humans are GULO, for vitamin C synthesis, and caspase 12, to counteract Alzheimer. Longevity genes are not contributing to reproductive success and as such qualify as genetic redundancies. We might expect them to become inactive through accumulation of debilitating mutations. link: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Borger_GeneticRedundancy_091506.pdf Return to Top comment: Lt.(ret.) by Jim Cowan [Comment posted 2007-03-08 20:26:33] The comments are a compilation of most of the good scifi writers I enjoyed as far back as the late '40's. My grand-daughter, 5years old, asked, "Grandpa, are you going to die?" I answered in the affirmative and she continued, "Why do people die?" My answer? "To make room for babies; it would be a terrible world without babies." She smiled. Return to Top comment: Biological Imperative? by Over Gauss [Comment posted 2007-03-08 18:02:07] Doesn't an increase in longevity imply a quicker rate of evolution as an intelligent species and a society?
Imagine the advances needed in technology and social interaction required to sustain such a society. It would appear this could be a giant step towards becoming part of the galactic community as well. The longer one lives, the more one can learn, teach, and evolve. Return to Top comment: Very Interesting...Thank You! by Elena Haskins [Comment posted 2007-03-07 23:44:02] Beautiful illustrations and very interesting information. Thank you for the inspiration.
300 years of excellent health and peak performance is my current need to finish all my projects and satisfy my desires. More than that would be lovely ;-) Health, Wealth and Success, Elena Haskins elenahaskins.com Return to Top comment: Longevity Research is a MUST by Shane Greenup [Comment posted 2007-03-07 22:43:59] Everyone who says they don't understand why anyone would want to live forever, or they say that they don't want to live for anything over 100 years etc. You are all deceiving yourselves because you have been spoon fed that this is an unavoidable fact since birth.
When you are actually brought face to face with death, you too will want to continue living, so stop lying to yourself that you wouldn't want to live for 'x' many years...no one wants to die, and lifespan extension is just the natural progression of this fact. Return to Top comment: Life extension is inevitable by Jack Richardson [Comment posted 2007-03-07 20:18:59] Despite the significant number of comments rejecting the idea of life extension, it will happen anyway because of millions of individual choices to advance the science in small, incremental steps.
All of the vast number of ways that the human body breaks down in the aging process will become the subject of individual research efforts arising from the medical desire to ameliorate the suffering of a particular group of patients. Over time, each component of the aging process will be fully understood and the effective therapy will be developed. Since the rate of technological change is increasing exponentially, the results of this research will come sooner rather than later. The effects of this process are already visible in the steadily increasing average age of death. This happens naturally because each individual chooses every opportunity to improve their quality of life. Not to do so is a variant on the process of choosing suicide by neglect. Significantly, this also leads to the enhancement of human beings to add greater capabilities such as memory, intelligence, endurance, etc. It can also include the integration of non-biological components for various purposes. We see this today with titanium hip replacements, cochlear implants, etc. The end result of all this is that we are at the end stage of the human race as we have known it up until now. A century from now, all will have radically changed in our world and the human race will be very different. Return to Top comment: Response to Arguments against immortality 2 by Craig [Comment posted 2007-03-07 20:12:42] Gotta make this short. I am in a rush.
The people who are against immortality often have a bias against it because it threatens their concept of social stability. The odd approach from the critics point of view is that they tend to attack immortality as a selfish choice for the individual. As if to say if they were given the choice they would opt for death for the sake of the civilization. A way to counter this counterintuitive thinking is simply encourage the critics to kill themselves, since as they state, there are too many people to go around and an immortal person would symbolize an egocentric defiance of civilization. The sooner someone dies, the better off society must be. Also you must ask why do we even bother extending people's lives nowadays with modern sciences such as vaccinations, nutrition, surguries when death is nature's best disinfectant? Why should we bother prolonging the hideous affects of long life when we were meant to die before fifty? The rudimentary sciences that exist today are baby steps to immortality whether critics accept it or not. Maybe it's just that the critics are just used to the advances we have today, and because they are accepted in society in ways that they agree with it's just okay. As long as society isn't fundamentally different than what they remembered in their nostalgic past, with grandmas, grandpas and old folk tales that they feel was crucial to their upbringing, and thus everyone else's. But wait! In fact you can even see society adjusting for longer lifespans with youth being retained longer and longer, for instance According to the critic's viewpoint even if the person has an emotional connection to a family they should be subject to a natural state of living. Now when you illustrate this to most critics they often will recoil their argument and come back stammering. Critics often do not question whether immortality is good for the individual. Immortality is almost always considered better than the alternative. The critical response is almost as if they were jealous of someone's desire to improve themselves and they couldn't compete. So since they cannot question the value of immortality to the individual, since immortality often amounts to greater opportunities for wealth building, self-improvement and sexual opportunities (the greatest threat to many moralists, who are in fact just paranoid that they are unsexy and cannot compete with the beautiful without something such as religion or community scrutiny to dampen sexual activities) Critics tend to question whether immortality is good for the society - as if to say THEY know what's "good" for society. When they presume to know what is good they also in essence reveal that their unchallanging is good for them personally as a critic. That is to say if the critic is an old man who cannot date a pretty young girl he likes, then immortality is bad because young people who are immortal will have more sexual opportunities than old/ugly/smelly immortals such as himself. So this critic has every incentive to kill immortality and everyone that can benefit from it must suffer the same outcome as him. It is almost like a criminal who will condemn his whole family to jail just because he resents the fact that he is personally doomed. Immortality, is seen as an advantage to everyone as a concept. An immortal can retain huge amounts of wealth - whatever it may be in the future, it could be belly button lint for all we know. The critics to immortality often have a social reason for arguing against it, usually because they feel that they will have no access to immortality or that immortality will destroy the concepts that they hang their life on. For instance immortality along with cloning, life extention and AI are predominantly male technologies, that is the more advancement we make in these technologies the less of a need we will need women for reproduction and at the same time the closer we will come to erasing sex as a limited resource in society. The limitation of sex in a society is one of the prevailing factors for male competition and thus the foundation of innovation, art and science, all of it in the name of gaining attention and thus the best sex partners. Part of this equation, is of course women who have their own power leverage in society by withholding sex for only the best candidates. Now if immortality, AI and cloning allow men to create artificail women with no sexual resistance, then the old-fashioned women, the women with power today will be threatened. Men will abandon women cultured from the competitive sphere of nature and create their own ideal woman suiting their own needs. Because the result of technolgies such as cloning, immortality and AI are very obvious to people, the argument against immortality by most women comes as no suprise to me. Women have little conceptual need for immortalilty save for watching their great-great-great grandchildren grow up. Men have everything to gain because, frankly, they'll obtain ultimate power over women by replacing them with low maitnenance counterparts. So in essence you must always ask what someone's incentive for taking a particular side of immortality. If you are for it, then you are fundamentally selfish and narcissistic that is true. But you are also life affirming, future minded and projecting yourself outside the boundaries of slow paced DNA shuffling of evolution (as an aside, the religous people who don't believe in either immortality or evolution are really shooting themselves in the foot. They are justifying one non belief (evolution) for their rationalization for their expelling of another non belief (immortality) To believe in the "natural course" is to believe in natural reproduction = evolution!) Also immortalists see evlution as next step within the mind through science and tech. Anyway you got my point. Screw the anti's, they're living fossils anyway delaying the inevitable. gotta go. Return to Top comment: Thinking outside the box? Give me a break. by Gregory C. O'Kelly [Comment posted 2007-03-07 19:55:36] Dr. Olshansky's article contains the usual posturing that one hears from those whose careers in biogerontology are secure. We are told that "Technologies are emerging that extend survival by delaying death from chronic fatal diseases." This is a claim that has no basis in fact, and borders on an outright lie, yet perpetuates the false notion that people like Olshansky and Carnes are actually coming up with something to improve life. He writes, "Our goal is not to create new methods of combating disease, but rather to spark an idea, trigger a thought, and inspire others to think outside the box by first imagining a new future of human health that is better than the present - and then working to make it so." In reality Dr. Olshansky et al. are safe in the box and discourage or pooh-pooh any new approaches to the subject of aging, like that which has its origins in the mathematical, metabolic theory of everything, also appearing in this addition.
Consider these statements by the careerist biogerontoloigsts: Olshansky comments: "The approach we take in this paper is unconventional, by design. The traditional approach to an aging body and the diseases that accompany it is to attack them one at a time, as if they are independent of one another." In the article the diseases of aging are indeed attacked one at at time. And then there are the amazing statements: "Instead of thinking exclusively with the reactive disease-specific approach, I encouraged my colleagues to instead think outside the box and illustrate how the body might have been designed differently if, in fact, it was designed, and an extension of healthy life was the goal," and "In this article we put our imaginations to work with the hoe that human ingenuity can be coaxed to forge a new and more innovative path to addressing the health consequences of an aging population." And what do we get? The reactive disease-specific approach, and no discussion of how the body was designed and evolved, no discussion of evolution or the role of metabolism - things which are part of the metabolic theory of life [Kleiber's Law] which, apparently, Dr. Olshansky know and care nothing about since it is outside the box. Consider the statement "One downside of improving regenerative capacity is that increased cell division to make more cells and replace those that degenerate could presumably spiral out of control and flip over to cancer," by Dr. Trojanowski. In addition to being an indication of the complete naivete of the man with regard to the metabolic underpinnings of cell proliferation and apoptosis, and the difference between stem cells and cancer cells [something Kleiber's Law makes clear], this statement actually suggests that attempts to do something about the degeneration of aging, given the insular, specialized knowledge of the biogerontologists, might be counterproductive. Voila! A rationalization for why the ineffectiveness of Olshansky and his colleagues might be a good thing. Talk about job security! So here is the box that Olshanky is comfortable in: "...molecular, cellular, and genetic machinery...a living machine that appears well thought out, but which fails when operated beyond its biological warranty period." The guy talks like a used car salesman, comfortable with pre-twentieth century attempts to understand chemistry and metabolism in MECHANICAL terms. And that is why Max Planck, the originator of the idea of energy quanta, said at the end of the 19th century that science advanced with each funeral. There is absolutely no place in the box for attempts to understand evolution and aging in terms of metabolism and energy transactions, even though it was metabolism that NECESSARILY preceded the evolution of genetic MACHINERY, and trumps it as the key factor in attempts to understand the degeneration of aging. Instead the voices in the box speak of free radicals, 'metabolic free radicals', Carnes calls them. This is the rate of living theory of aging which sees metabolism as inversely related to potential life span. The main culprit, it is asserted, is the hydrogen peroxide that is found in the matrix of the mitochondrion. Hydrogen Peroxide? Hydrogen peroxide is found at the anode of a battery discharging into an electrolyte. The creation of hydrogen peroxide is then a REDUCTION reaction, not an oxidative one, which would be found at the cathode of that same battery. All the battery does is introduce a voltage difference in the electrolyte from one electrode to the other. When the hydrogen peroxide degenerates it either becomes heat or, in the matrix, ATP. That means the presence of hydrogen peroxide is a key part of the metabolic process, and is not a bad thing but, instead, an indication of healthy metabolic functioning. When it degenerates, more needs to be made, and the energy for this comes from food digestion [in the phyla animalia]. Apparently those in the box are so invested in their machine metaphor that they have failed to pay attention to the advances in the physical sciences dealing with electrochemistry and the quantization of energy. But what can you expect from careerists? Planck was right. Return to Top comment: Response to Arguments against immortality. by Craig [Comment posted 2007-03-07 19:12:45] First of all your criticisms of immortality leading to a depletion of resources due to overpopulation are nearsighted. The idea that if we switch from breeding to immortal individuals then somehow we will put MORE strain on the planet is silly and reactionary. As a species we are taxing the global resources with natural reproduction alone. Many critics seem to take the economic viewpoint of reproduction, in that in industrialized civilizations reproduction stabilizes and in some cases tapers off such as in the case of Japan and Germany. They cling to the promise that a dwindling population pampered with wealth will stop having enough children to replace the aging population and use the spare resources to enjoy life. The problem is that just because fewer people are being born does not equal to fewer resources being absorbed. In a realistic scenario the increased ratio of wealth will only be transferred to the smaller population of little princes and princesses. Also the critics neglect to incorporate the fact that energy sources are bound to become more efficent through technological innovation. In fact the horizon of a civilization that runs on fusion, hydrogen and natural resources is already on blueprints. We have the technology to implement these changes. The main problem is the oil cabal that seems to have its tentacles throughout our political system which uses lobbists to knock out any threats to our energy policy. (If you don't believe me see the E-1 electric car in the documentary "Who killed the electric car") Our energy needs are solvable, it's just that a dynasty of oil tycoons want to siphon as much value from the working population before the switch becomes inevitable. These rich skeletons have every interest to resist technological progress and keep us dawdling in the greasy tech from the 19th century. I wish that there was some campaign to overturn their grip on the American energy crisis. Someone needs to gather up respected scientists and demonstators to expose the travesty that these barrons have committed on the progress of civilization itself.
Also other critics mention other things such as the breakdown of the American nuclear family, the diminished status of religion due to the lessened need to "discipline" the young, the trivialization of the role of women due to losing their reproductive status (i.e. women no longer having the power to entice men into marriage, or having the upper hand in divorce since children are no longer in the equation, also men no longer will be forced to give money, power, and status to women in social settings since they will have no use for them reproductive wise - in essence women would be reduced to sex slaves) increased egotism and narcissitic tendancies "I am immortal!", the loss of childlike perspectives, the loss of parental nurturing experience... etc. etc. The answer is a whole hearted WHO CARES. All of the social needs that the critics state will be in dire straits when immortality becomes available are merely opinions. Just that opinions. They are the opinions of close minded critics that feel that they can predict that a future society will not be advanced enough to adjust to the social changes. Everytime there are new social conditions, for instance contraception pills in the 60's, there are people who will benefit from it, people who will not benefit from it and traditionalists that will not be able accept it. In the case of contraception, the people who benefited from it were single men who were given increased opportunities of sexual encounters and women who wished to explore financial availability of men. The losers were the families of the women who still regarded "respect" as a valuable commodity in order to survive the scrutiny of the community and attain a husband. People who couldn't accept it were mostly religious/bookworm/ugly types that cannot comprehend any structural changes that affect the sexual status quo. The point is that cavemen attitudes will die off, maybe kicking and screaming like the cavemen they are, but they will die in the light of the sciences. Return to Top comment: Response from the first author by S. Jay Olshansky [Comment posted 2007-03-07 17:16:20] I am delighted that our manuscript has prompted a discussion of issues associated with human aging and longevity. Several points raised so far have prompted my response. I am speaking for myself, although I will encourage the other authors to examine the letters.
Our manuscript does not promote or refer to life expectancies of 100 or 150, radical life extension, or even immortality. I suspect some of these comments are addressed more to the editorial by Jack Woodall than to our paper. My view on this issue has remained unchanged since I started working in this field ᅡヨ the goal is to extend the duration of healthy life ᅡヨ period. Any intervention that extends the duration of life without simultaneously extending the functioning of both body and mind should not be pursued. In fact, I would see such an intervention as harmful. However, an intervention that extends the period of healthy life should be aggressively pursued for the same reason we have already chosen to save and extend the lives of children and young adults ᅡヨ because it is a worthwhile goal to make us healthier for a longer period of time, no matter what our current age. The approach we take in this paper is unconventional, by design. The traditional approach to an aging body and the diseases that accompany it is to attack them one at a time, as if they are independent of one another. This approach has produced remarkable advances to be sure, and most of us have already benefited from these technological wonders or will do so at some time in our lives. However, left untouched by this approach is the biological process of aging. Instead of thinking exclusively within the reactive disease-specific approach, I encouraged my colleagues to instead think outside of the box and illustrate how the body might have been designed differently if, in fact, it was designed, and an extension of healthy life was the goal. I am going to include in this response a copy of two paragraphs that existed in the original version of this manuscript. These words convey our reasoning perhaps better than anything I can write here. ᅡモWhy Redesign? In the science fiction novel From the Earth to the Moon, Jules Verne used nothing more than his imagination to describe in prescient detail, space travel and a landing on the moon. In War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells, this story about a Martian invasion of Earth served as inspiration for the father of modern rocket propulsion, Robert Goddard. In the science fiction television series Star Trek, producer Gene Roddenberry imagined an impressive array of futuristic mechanical contraptions including laser beams, motion sensors, and medical imaging devices. In a now famous comic strip published in 1946, cartoonist Chester Gould imagined the existence of a 2-Way radio, and now we have cell phones. Nearly all of these amazing events and devices have come into existence not just because they were the end product of engineering plans, but more importantly because someone dared to imagine, well in advance of the available science used to create them, that they could exist. In this article we put our imaginations to work with the hope that human ingenuity can be coaxed to forge a new and more innovative path to addressing the health consequences of an aging population. Here we envisage how the inner workings of the human body might have been designed differently had a healthier and longer life been the motivating force that shaped the biology of life. We have no illusions about the fanciful nature of some of our fixes, but perhaps, just maybe, we will spark an idea, trigger a thought, or inspire someone else to think outside of the box and first imagine and then create tomorrowᅡメs equivalent of todayᅡメs motion sensors, cell phones, rockets, and medical imaging devices. In Human by Design we go beyond the traditionally reactive approach to medicine and science, and encourage readers and fellow scientists to join us in a journey to first imagine a future of human health that is better than the present ᅡヨ and then work to make it so.ᅡヤ Return to Top comment: Full Speed Ahead by Jim Craig [Comment posted 2007-03-07 10:31:15] To age is to suffer and in my opinion it is unecessary suffering. It's only a matter of time before science unlocks all of the secrets of biological aging and devises solutions to prevent it. Even if it takes 1000 years or more it will still happen unless scientific and technological progress are simply halted altogether. Why not pursue it for our generation? We have the technology today to significantly extend life but it's going to take a massive effort on the part of scientists to untangle the metabolic processes and devise molecules and therapies to treat it. We should do so. Return to Top comment: Are you discussing Science or religion? by Tioedong [Comment posted 2007-03-07 01:15:52] Slowing down aging and illness is science.
What happens to a society where people live very long lives is not science but philosophy. Leon Kass has a very good book discussing the philosophical implications of science's ability to change the quality and quantity of life. You may not agree with him, but he will bring up questions for you to think about. For those of us who have trouble with Kass' deep philosophy, one can find these ideas discussed in the fantasy/sci fi writings of Cordwainer Smith and many others classic science fiction writers. Finally, the implications of living forever should ask questions that are usually listed in the realm of religion. The question is why were we born/evolved? What is the purpose of the universe? The word "God" is a dirty little word that is forbidden in scientific discussions, but without recognizing that the majority of people still believe in something out there, at least someone should bring the possibility of a deity in this discussion. And could I suggest that the discussion be on the level of Plato and John Paul II and not merely misquote dimwits like Jerry Falwell? Return to Top comment: Evolution isn't just biology - free your minds!! by jpank [Comment posted 2007-03-06 21:30:35] While random biological mutation may have resulted in minor changes to the human body over eons, we are in new age where our grasp of technology has entirely superceded random mutation as the cause of evolutionary change. Within centuries, even decades, we will realise practical applications of, on the one hand, greatly enhanced biological function and on the other the possibility of copying intelligent patterns into artificial constructs. If the next great leap in our evolution is the change from earthbound creature to space faring beings then we must embrace some kind of higher form that actually makes it possible to traverse the universe without the frailties of our current form, perhaps as energy transmissions rather than lumps of fragile molecular structures, perhaps as something else entirely.
I see zero advantage is losing a single human to 'natural' death, who may have increasingly more to give back to the greater good - if we didn't degenerate with age why shouldn't ever increasingly experience, wisdom and insight continually compound to generate new ideas and innovations infinately?? What if age 90 years or 900 were simply numbers because you felt just as capable as when you were 29? Return to Top comment: Evolution? who needs it? by Bart Janssen [Comment posted 2007-03-06 20:47:26] I understand the concern about making humans that last longer in terms of the strain on the natural resources the planet has to offer.
But a desire to continue to use natural selection and evolution to improve our species? That misses the point of the article (I think). The idea is that evolution has got us this far including some things that are not ideal. Given strong enough selective pressures natural selection (aka death) would eliminate some of the issues described above - maybe. What is being described is changing the species using our skills and knowledge to improve quality and quantity of life. Such changes would in effect replace the evolutionary process that occurs naturally. Yes people would live longer but they would also change - deliberately. It sounds like science fiction but it seems highly likely to occurr and what is described above is simply the begining of what will inevitably create a new version of human, using a process that does not involve natural selection or the randomness of that process. Not that I'm saying we should make such changes. That's a complex discussion of morality both for individuals and societies. But it will be possible and once it is possible... cheers Bart Return to Top comment: Evolution vs. Medicine by Tom A [Comment posted 2007-03-06 19:26:45] I'm simply astonished that people would have a problem with extending life because of supposed obstacles it would pose to evolution.
Look, evolution is not King. If we want evolution to work as it did in the past, why invent medicine at all? Why not let the sick and weak die, so that evolution might produce better specimens down the line? The entire point of medicine is to extend human health and life. Extending life beyond what's otherwise possible is entirely congruent with its goals. Anything else would be inhumane, and even inhuman. Return to Top comment: How about prolonging life? by Jan-Olof Flink [Comment posted 2007-03-06 19:07:00] If we play with the idea of prolonging life for an already adult person, I for one do not really feel like dying anytime soon.
Nature did not intend for us to live very much longer after we have gotten and raised the next generation of humans, and from an evolutionary point of view, once we have managed to procreate we are totally irrelevant. But what if we would consider doing something about it? Telumerase would seem to be the ideal tool, allowing our cells to continue dividing and repairing the body, except for the slight drawback of seemingly causing cancer in subjects. But what about extracting steem-cells, and treat them with Telumerase outside the body? Then cultivate them and remove any cells that seem to have been damaged, and then reimplant them into the body? Of corse this would be far less efficient than allowing all the cells in the body to live longer, but it should be easier to control and would perhaps increase the lifespan of the subject substantially. Does anyone know if anyone have been doing anything along these lines? Best regards /Jan-Olof Return to Top comment: Misunderstandings about evolution by Mike Brennan [Comment posted 2007-03-06 16:32:05] While I found the article interesting, I found the comments disconcerting in the misunderstandings about evolution they display.
ᅡモEvolutionᅡヤ is not something that needs to be ᅡモallowedᅡヤ to work any more than gravity needs to be allowed to work. If there are heritable traits that cause differential success in dealing with environmental pressures, evolution occurs. If the environmental pressures change, the heritable traits that help deal with them change, so there is no direction that evolution it headed towards. It is a Drunkardᅡメs Walk in a multidimensional space, with constantly changing rules. On top of that, nothing that happens after to an individual after they finish helping their offspring reach reproductive maturity (something that is different for each species) affects the evolution of the species. One can argue that if people live longer, whether they keep working or not, it will impact the economy, and the economy is an environmental pressure, Iᅡメd say ᅡモSo?ᅡヤ The economy changes so quickly and in so many ways that teasing out the impact of something long term like increased longevity would be very difficult. As for resource usage, that is population and technology dependant. It doesnᅡメt matter if the population goes up by more people being born or people taking longer to die. I believe that it is far more ethical to encourage people to have fewer children than it is to discourage life saving research. Return to Top comment: Telomerase? by Jay Prendergast [Comment posted 2007-03-06 14:00:36] Why were there no scientists picked doing research in the area of telomere function. It seems that this may be one of an organism's ultimate mechanisms for establishing a limited lifespan. Return to Top comment: some hopes by Hugh Fletcher [Comment posted 2007-03-06 13:06:22] The article is fair if tongue in cheek, but there is some naive thinking in the comments.
Why study aging? Because anyone finding the secret of youth will be very rich while they control it. That is why so many researchersᅡメ livelihoods are bound up in it. The antioxidant theory was spawned by the promise (hope?) of a magic pill to allow people to survive radiation falling from nuclear war. It metamorphosed into anti-aging and produced spinoffs including mitochondrial mutations. Look at the comments in the accompanying news item and see how research which appears to torpedo this theory for mammals is being worked around by other researchers who may have just lost a reason to exist. Secondly, the "let evolution continue" brigade haven't thought it through. Humans are evolved to acquire resources to reproduce as fast as possible, killing the neighbours when competition got too fierce. In the developed countries we are so badly fitted to our excess that we stop reproducing to obtain wealth and pleasure, while the starving poor elsewhere get on with the important job of keeping the population on the verge of starvation where it has been since before we were mammals. The fittest behaviour in the developed West is to maximise reproduction by producing offspring as early and fast as possible, convergent evolution towards rabbits, while the rest of society ensures these children do not starve. This would include a rejection and parasitism of the culture itself, so would suffer from frequency dependent limitations, but it would not produce improved humans as most people understand the term. Return to Top comment: Dr. I agree by MTC [Comment posted 2007-03-06 07:38:05] Except in those areas of the world where food shortages, war and disease are major threats most people can now expect to live longer than their grandparents did. Those of us fortunate enough to be living in the wealthier parts of the world are doing well in the longevity stakes. We are healthier, fitter, bigger and stronger on average than preceeding generations. Perhaps we should be concentrating on making this possible for the majority of human beings instead of on making immensely extended life possible for a few. Return to Top comment: Expand your minds by Dan Meyers [Comment posted 2007-03-06 03:16:13] The limited visions of those expressing comments here state that they
A) dont understand "the point" of living long B) want to support general human "evolutionary change" These simplistic views of their own existance and the hope for some "non-existant but in another time "better being" demonstrates most clearly the need for longer lives. Longer healthy lives brings the wisdom that can take our irresponsible and youngandfoolish-controlled society which lives like a hi-turnover mcdonalds into an efficient, science-based decision making machine SERVING ALL living humans and other beings...NOT KILLING THEM!! on behalf of concern for a ridiculous dream of as yet non-existant human animals who have absolutely no value whatsoever ... ZERO... they dont exist so you may as well have concern for the planet of pluto or martians...or maybe we should kill off ourselves so the africans can survive on our riches instead of us. Destroy yourself now and give all to United Way if you so feel to benefit someone or something. personally, i feel more for my cat who is close to me than for a non-existant being! Wake up! with your young stupid thinking you should commit suicide...you are wasting resources....do you see your faulty logic? My advice to all is LIVE MAN!! live as long and as happy and painfree as you can...and promote the LIFE and wellbeing of those around you! this is the most important thing. Nothing else matters. after all, whomever died yesterday is now obsolete, irrelevent, useless , and non-existant....their whole universe just exploded and destroyed everything in it....from their point of view, their universe is 100% gone. Return to Top comment: Dr Badger by Barry Goldman [Comment posted 2007-03-06 00:49:37] Seems like we've lost the plot.
Evolution cannot operate unless there is death and replacement. I think I'd also rather let natural selection do the improving rather than leave it to some human planners. After all, nature seems to be able to handle a much bigger multi-variate set of parameters then humans have so far demonstrated. Return to Top comment: It's the food, Dude by Aileen Burford-Mason [Comment posted 2007-03-06 00:11:40] I know this article was not intended to be taken too, too seriously, but it's crying shame that not one of your contributors considered the link between food, health and life span in their response. Unless we can bioengineer a human being who is not dependent on optimal daily intake of nutrients, I'm afraid none of the strategies suggested in this article will work.
Leonard Hayflick is quite wrong: As human beings we ARE built to live a life that is longer and healthier life than the life most of us are experiencing today. But we are undermining our innate capacity to maintain, repair, and regenerate tissues and to generate functional molecules (enzymes, hormones, neurotransmitters, etc.) and thereby resist disease, by failing to make sure our diet delivers. And what does it need to deliver? All the necessary nutrients (precursor molecules) for body building and rebuilding - vitamins, mineral, essential fatty acids and essential amino acids. And the phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables which interact with genes to slow down the development of chronic conditions such as heart disease, eye disease, type II diabetes, and cancer in ways we never until recently could have imagined. We are after all, simply recycled food, and as the nutritional quality of that food has deteriorated, so have we. We even call the modern diseases that are afflicting us in ever-greater numbers and at younger and younger ages "degenerative diseases." In the words of the late Emanuel Cheraskin MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, "Man is a food-dependent creature. Do not feed him and he will die. Feed him improperly and parts of him die." Return to Top comment: Omitted discussion of heart valve calcification and deterioration by Ron Manly [Comment posted 2007-03-06 00:04:55] This appears to occur even at very low cholesterol levels Return to Top comment: Living Forever? Forget it! by Gil Lawton [Comment posted 2007-03-05 22:16:07] If a pill were invented to enable humans to remain forever young, there would be no room for more of us. In fact, at the rate Earth currently is being polluted and depleted of resources, its biological and mineral carrying capacity may already have been overreached; and those living in the luxury of Western wealth and ease may not be able to sustain our current lifestyle regardless. Scientists might continue to come up with work-arounds for issues resulting from this burgeoning dilemma; but what about quality of life? Surely, even with food grown in vats, and transportation relying upon recycling of garbage, the current rate of pollution and resource exhaustion will be difficult.
In a perpetual youth society, crime would not necessarily diminish. In fact, there would be practical incentives for the impoverished to take extreme measures to take by force some possessions of the unaging, undying "haves', whose money and property would not be redistributed, and perhaps compromised by lazy or incompetent offspring; and openings in labor and the professions -- which now arise out of age-related and natural death-related attrition -- would not keep coming up for grabs by those with the talent and determination and willingness to work towards earning access to them. If, by virtue of having no children in need of being nurtured, educated and given a start in life... people all over the globe would have more leisure -- comparable to what many wealthy U. S. citizens have today -- and would be inclined to engage more actively in bio-deleterious pastimes than they have time for today. That might be remedied by our finding a way to shrink already full-grown people to the size of mice, perhaps. Or, we might find an economically and resource-supportable way of transporting or teleporting people thousands of light years away from Earth, to settle biologically suitable planets. Such planets not only would have to have a breathable atmosphere at the time settled, but would have to have seasons like Earth's seasons, to sustain life. And they would have to be in just the right stage of their own evolution to permit our growing our kind of food vegetation and live stock there. Else, the soil bacteria might not be of the right consistency, nor have the right pH. Or plants established there (if longer evolved) might simply out-compete the ones we eat, and might, themselves, be so different from those we eat as to be absolutely toxic to us. There might be millions of planets out there, but the process of checking out enough of them to find human compatible ones might take several millions of years -- not a quick fix solution to perpetual youth, by any stretch. And what of good ol' sexual reproduction. We would have to dispense with that until other solutions could be found (keeping in reserve the means and the know-how, of course, in event of any unexpected population-decimating event of the nature of a great volcanic or seismic calamity or a large asteroid collision). Then too the obsolescence of kids would present some drastic challenges. Along with there disappearance would go any need for motherhood, or marriage or family -- for parent-role-assumption motives, at least. The aftermath surely would require a huge psychological adjustment. After all, where there would be no kids there would be no "fulfillment" for females who have identified their very reason for being through the role of motherhood. Promiscuity for its own sake might be a vent for a while... but surely after several hundred partners (or fewer) the edge would wear off that. And with no new-crop of youngsters to shake up established paradigms of value judgments and opinions among both women and men, who would get us out of entrenched modes of thinking that NEED to undergo a bit of change now and then. Life without teenagers might be enormously refreshing for a while; but then who would ask us questions that we need to be asked. And what would be entertaining? Games are enjoyed by adults, but not to the extent, and not in the seemingly infinite varieties youngsters enjoy today. Surely they would get boring after a while. And television shows and novels, and soap operas, and plays... which have drawn upon the roles of children and families... would seem to grow remote from anyone's current experience after a few decades of having none. Gracious ! Soap operas seem to have little enough material to work with already. And what of economics. If one were to be unhappy with one's finanical lot. or financial class in life, he would have little opportunity to do anything constructive about it. Maybe marriage would become as meaningless as the idea of family. When we think about that, let us try to imagine what it would be like to get a divorce, and have to play the "dating game" in a field composed of other singles, all of whom have been putting of choosing a mate for a century or two. And as for the others, one might have to ponder why anyone who may have had forty or fifty failed marriages might be a poor risk. How many of the failures, after so many, could be blamed on "the other mates." These are just a few quick brainstormed thoughts on the issues an introduction of perpetual youth would be likely to pose for humans in this old world. I'm only touching the tip of the horror-berg the notion of non-aging manifests in my imagination. What an horrendously boring, unchanging, unchallengeable world it seems it would foment. Suffice it to say that, for this contented, battle weary old man at least, the news of some perpetual life-yielding drug or diet or activity strikes fear in his heart. For me the prospect of eternal life, on THIS planet at least, stirs up images of what might be the threshold of a relentless living hell. (:>) Living forever? In THIS world? Forget it ... Bit wait ! Maybe if we could be turned into infants again, get the old hard-wired brain reformatted, get to go to grammar school, have to get bullied again, get to drive people who feel responsible and nurturing toward you crazy again, get to go through a few years as a teenager thinking you know more than adults do, getting to find out the hard way that you don't, getting to compete over some available opportunities... now THAT wouldn't be so bad. (:>) Return to Top comment: Living forever? by Ingrid Shafer [Comment posted 2007-03-05 21:30:42] Why would we want to live forever, or even for centuries? If we believe that evolution has the power to improve a species, do we not also have to believe in the necessity of dying to make the process work? In a static cosmos, if there were no need to adapt to changing conditions, a set of ᅡモperfectᅡヤ human beings could be envisioned to endure unchanged forever. Procreation would, of course, not be necessary. In the world as it is, new generations offer the opportunity for alternate possibilities and improvement, if only in terms of adaptation to novel circumstances. As for ideas, surely a single set of even the most intellectually brilliant and artistically gifted humans could never escape the limitations of their hermeneutical lenses and would always be trapped in a particular way of inerpreting their worlds. New brains, new eyes, alternate ways of knowing and seeing are necessary to a truly healthy species, a LIVING, evolving, unfolding, creative species rather than a petrified monument to frozen past perfection. Death may seem the individualᅡメs enemy, but Death is the speciesᅡメ friend, the price mortal organisms -- including humans -- pay for chance to become the best they can be. Return to Top comment: Dr. by Engin Ulukaya [Comment posted 2007-03-05 21:19:08] In fact, I, as a scientist, would not like to survive until the age of 150 or so... What is the point in doing so?. The world resources should not be spent on such science, but on the measures that may help to increase the current life standards of humans all around the world. That is my opinion!... |