Should We Cure Aging?

By João Pedro de Magalhães

"The knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton has never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumor." - Aldous Huxley

Aging fosters sickness and disability, increases human suffering, and makes us more likely to die. Yet there are a number of possible objections to the endeavor of curing aging. Most of these are unfounded myths, easy to disprove. This essay draws on my own lectures on the subject and attempts to answer the most commonly raised questions and concerns about a possible cure for aging.

Myth #1: Aging is natural and so we shouldn't fight it

First of all, aging is not universal. A number of complex species such as lobsters, rockfishes, some tortoises, etc. do not appear to age. Therefore, aging is not a prerequisite to life. Aging is neither inevitable nor universal.

Secondly, humankind is, in a sense, a struggle against nature. We have antibiotics and vaccines because we don't want to be sick, which would be the natural outcome for many of us. If we were to follow Nature's will, many of us wouldn't be here and wouldn't be reading these lines, on a monitor, over the Internet.

Author's Website

Myth #2: What's the point of extending life if we are old

This is a common misconception about research on the biology of aging. The ultimate goal of my work and that of many biogerontologists is to preserve health and life. Yet we aim not just to make elderly people live longer but to diminish, not extend, age-related debilitation (also see de Grey et al., 2002). What we want is to find ways to extend healthy life span by postponing disease and eventually eradicate all forms of age-related involution. In other words, to find a cure for aging, an intervention that permits us to avoid aging and all pathologies associated with it. Instead of improving the quality of life of the elderly, I want to avoid having elderly patients in the first place. People would still die from accidents, infectious diseases, etc. After all, children and teenagers die too even though they are not yet aged.

My calculations for a cure for aging yield an average longevity of 1,200 years. This is assuming one would be forever young in body and mind.

Myth #3: A finite life span is best enjoyed

The ancient Greeks had a longevity of 19 years and I'm pretty sure we are happier than them. In fact, longevity increased 50% over the past century and even so quality of life has clearly increased. Entertainment evolves and social adjustments occur. A cure for aging would not mean an eternal life for one could still die. It would mean an average life span of 1,200 years but life would still be finite. In addition, people would always have a choice to end their lives. At present we don't have a choice of living past 122 years, which is the longest anyone has lived so far. With a cure for aging each of us would have a choice to live 100, 200, 1,000 or even more years.

Myth #4: Why should death be better than life

This is actually an interesting philosophical question. Many societies, including Western societies, valor death in some circumstances--e.g. death in combat, death to save other lives, etc. Other societies are even more extreme and you can always argue that I don't know what is it like to be dead. As an atheist, I clearly favour life to death. I won't feel death, no. Yet a good exercise is to compare death to its opposite. Personally, I always choose life. For those who disagree suicide is always a solution.

Myth #5: Not everyone would benefit from a cure for aging

The issue of justice is commonly raised when discussing life-extension. Of course it is impossible to predict the price a fictitious cure for aging would have. Yet a number of medical breakthroughs are not immediately available to everyone. The early antibiotics were available only to an elite and a number of present technologies, such as CAT scans or heart transplants, are not available to everyone. That is not a reason for us to ban pacemakers or regenerative medicine. We don't deny heart transplants just because they're not accessible to everyone. We can't deny health and life just because some people lack healthcare. Besides, even if curing aging is initially expensive, with mass production and widespread facilities one can expect it to be available to everyone, at least in industrialized nations.

When Vasco da Gama or Christopher Columbus explored the world they left death and injustice on the shores of their homeland. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon without world peace and Tim Berners-Lee didn't wait for an end of poverty to invent the Internet. Yet all the discoveries and endeavors of these men benefited their societies and humankind in general. There are no ideal circumstances. Setting new limits and making new discoveries eventually improves the lives of everyone.

Myth #6: Economic disaster would result with the collapse of healthcare

No, of course not. In fact, curing aging and extending healthy lifespan would be profitable for nations. The economic value of increased longevity is estimated at $2.4 trillion per year for the US alone (The Economist, 3 June 2000). The greatest burden on healthcare comes from the elderly and the trend is for expenses with old age to increase as the percentage of population above 65 rises worldwide (UN Programme on Ageing). If aging is not tackled, societies in the 21st will consist of a large portion of frail, elderly people, which will result in a serious financial burden (Schneider, 1999). Therefore, curing aging would be economically sound. People would live longer but also work longer and thus be more productive. Without the declining years of old age, healthcare and the economy would benefit from a cure for aging.

One good book debating the economic impact of extreme life extension is:

"Coping with Methuselah: The Impact of Molecular Biology on Medicine and Society" edited by the Aaron, HJ and Schwartz, WB (2004). Brookings Institution Press, Washington.

Myth #7: Overpopulation would be a problem

When talking about life-extension it is intuitive we consider overpopulation as a possible problem. In the 1970s there was a current of thought known as the Mathusianism that predicted major problems due to overpopulation by the year 2000. These predictions failed miserably because their proponents did not take into account technological progress made in agriculture, etc. Therefore, we cannot see breakthroughs in aging research as isolated events but rather consider these in the overall evolution of the social organism. The world's population increased almost four-fold in the past century and yet today we have a life quality unparalleled in human history. In fact, population growth with a cure for aging should still be slower than during the baby boon.

Overpopulation in some regions of the world, such as southeast Asia, may be aggravated by a cure for aging. Yet letting people die to control overpopulation is morally repugnant. If we cure aging and overpopulation becomes a problem in some regions, then we must find other solutions besides letting people die.

Myth #8: Human trials would be dangerous

This problem occurs with any other medical breakthrough. Following animal tests, human trials begin in a few people. Only after the security and quality of the product being tested is assured can the company commercialize it. Certain products can escape these regulations using a variety of legal stratagems, but that is a general problem in the biomedical industry, not specific of anti-aging research.

Myth #9: Humankind as we know it would change

Certainly, but that is not necessarily a "bad thing". Humankind changed considerably since the Roman Empire and yet it were those changes that now allow us to live longer, happier lives. A cure for aging would reshape society but nothing suggests such changes would be negative to humankind. People do not exist to serve society. Society exists to serve people, to make people happier and fight solitude (Hobbes, Leviathan). In the same way the world is a better place to live in due to the many changes that occurred in the past centuries, a cure for aging would make it an even better place thanks to the decrease in suffering and the increase in health. Although no-one can foresee the long-term consequences of a cure for aging, and there are potential problems such as intergenerational differences in wealth and status, society could profit. And people would certainly profit.

Myth #10: We should have other priorities on earth

Of course there are many problems and injustices in our world. Many nations face hunger, poverty, and widespread disease. Yet, as mentioned in regard to the justice issue on myth #5, this does not mean industrialized nations must abandon expensive medicines. Besides, the technology to solve poor countries' problems is already here--i.e. sustainable agriculture, vaccination, birth control, etc.--and it is up to these nations to implement them.

Aging is the major problem we face in our society. It is or will be the major cause of suffering and pain for me and the ones I love. This holds true for industrialized nations and Western civilization and that is why aging must be a top priority.

Myth #11: Overall, curing aging is ethically wrong

Not so. According to the principles of bioethics, curing aging would benefit people, not harm them. Anti-aging therapies would serve to the beneficent amelioration of the many diseases for which old age is the major susceptibility factor. On the contrary, having a cure for aging and refuse to make it available to patients would result in pain and injury, clearly in contradiction with the principle of nonmaleficence. Even if we cure aging, individuals will still be able to choose whether they wanted to age or not, in respect for each others autonomy. If someone wants to continue aging despite a cure for aging being available, no-one can force him or her not to age. Likewise, if a cure for aging is proven safe and efficient then it should be available for all of those who wish to benefit from it.

J.P. de Magalhães' is a molecular biologist and geneticist at Harvard who is working to come up with a cure for aging much in the same way we have, over the centuries, knocked out one by one polio and numerous other diseases. In this essay, he discusses the myths surrounding a cure to aging and reveals how most of have not really done our thinking and homework. There might be no cure for love as many poets say, but there definitely will be one for aging so we better get comfortable with this pleasant prospect.

Read Full Story