The science of longevity can divide us into those who are undergoing treatment and those who do not: the former will live longer than a person has ever lived, and the latter will die even younger than they are now.
It was once just a myth. It's a dream now. And soon the dream will turn into anticipation. Suddenly, the science of life extension began to receive amazing results. In new scientific publications, there is a hint of the possibility of undergoing treatment that can dramatically increase a person's life expectancy.
There are many discoveries and advances in the science of life extension today, but two main events can be distinguished: the first is associated with a class of enzymes called sirtuins. In July, the online edition Cell Press published an article in the genetics section, according to which the question of whether these enzymes can increase the lifespan of mammals "was resolved with a positive result."
In June, thanks to a scientific publication in the journal Aging Cell, it became known that synthetic small molecules (in other words, potential drugs) can stimulate the production of sirtuins in mice, prolonging their life and improving health. According to the article, the results of the study demonstrate the possibility "to create a small molecule that can slow down aging and delay the development of age-related diseases in mammals, maintaining the therapeutic potential … in humans."
The second event in modern science is related to an external hormone (pheromone) called domone, which is secreted by roundworms. When an old mouse ate domon, the risk of dying was reduced by 48 percent after five months, according to a new scientific article. "You can make an anti-aging remedy from domona."
Of course, much has yet to be done, in particular clinical experimentation and drug development, but there is a strong premonition that we are living in an extraordinary period of time. Who wouldn't want to deceive the gods and laugh at death? The benefits are so obvious that a recent article argued that political leaders who cannot provide sufficient funding for life extension science should be charged with murder. All of this is exciting, amazing and impressive. And at the same time it worries.
In the fantastic action movie "Wolverine: the Immortal", the elderly head of a Japanese corporation was ready for a lot for the gift of immortality
Promotional video:
The most prominent figure in the science of longevity, Aubrey de Gray, claims that "many of the people living today will live a thousand years or longer." He lists four major issues, which he dismisses as "incredible excuses … for aging," "funny," and "downright crazy, if you don't forget about the sense of proportion." First, "won't it be insanely boring?" - he is right. With economic choices, life is as interesting as we choose to make it that way. If it gets too boring, well, you can just stop taking your medicine.
The rest of the problems are not easily discarded. The second question that de Gray makes fun of is, "How are we going to pay pensions?" In other words, how will very old people support themselves without harming the young? Big problems with the distribution of finances exist even today, for example in Britain.
Wealthy seniors, who enjoy decades of composite investment returns, dominate the ruinous rentiers' economy for the young and poor, when prices for buying and renting housing become unaffordable. The inequality and potential for exploitation that would arise if people had the opportunity to live twice, let alone ten lives, only cause fear.
This brings us to another issue that Di Gray ignored: "Dictators will rule forever." Is this assumption so funny (if not taken literally)? Thanks to the best medical care that stolen billions can buy, the dictators have been in office long enough. Compare the political power offered by longevity with the economic one, and you can see how a thousand-year life turns into a thousand-year Reich.
But the most offensive mockery of de Gray is in his fourth rhetorical question: "What about the starving Africans?" Yes, how about them? What if, after a certain stage, longevity becomes a zero sum game? What if each year of life extension for those who can afford the treatment shortens the lives of those who cannot do it by a year or more?
On a planet with limited resources, the rich and the poor are already in unrecognized conflict as hyperconsumption reduces the planet's ability to sustain life. Grain is used for meat production, not for direct human consumption; a safe workspace for humankind is limited by greenhouse gases, industrial pollutants, depletion of fresh water and soil erosion. It is difficult to imagine what all this might turn out to be, except for direct competition for the means of survival, which someone will receive and someone will lose. Perhaps the rich must die for the poor to live.
At first, the cost of a possible extension of life will be astronomical, but over time it will begin to decline. However, we live in a world where many cannot even afford antiseptics; in a world where, even in rich countries, universal access to health care is slowly being closed off by a selfish elite; in a world in which a new era of individualized medicine unfortunately coincides with a new era of crushing inequality. The idea that everyone will soon have access to this therapy seems like a pipe dream. Perhaps the two classes of people - those who are being treated and those who are not - will inevitably split. The former will live longer than humans have ever lived, and the latter will die even younger than they are today.
There are no answers to the questions posed, there is uncertainty ahead. But ignoring them is foolish.
Life extension science can open a sunny, wonderful world of freedom from fear and worries about the future. Or the world of gerontocratic tyranny.