Scientists who have always studied the phenomenon of aging are making discovery after discovery. The most important, however, leads to an awareness: the aging process is not inevitable and, by understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms that determine it, we will be able to develop treatments that slow down or even reverse the process.
We can learn enough to allow humans to live for hundreds of years, like some animals? Or find a way to rewind the tape, like a certain jellyfish? Fascinating questions, often followed by another, always the same one: would we really want to do this?
The idea that we can treat aging like any other medical condition raises some big ethical questions. Shall we think about it?
Overpopulation
We are many, and we are tearing the world to shreds between climate, resource exploitation and pollution. If we lived much longer, we would reach huge numbers: what impact would overpopulation have on the planet?
Let us try to focus on the issue. Talking about "overpopulation" assumes that the problem arises directly from how many we are, and not from how we behave. And I don't think that's true. Just as it is not true that the "fault" would be of the societies with more births, which are currently suffering, and certainly not imposing the environmental damage of a minority (the very industrialized one).
Let's analyze the facts. Observing the demographic projections of the United Nations, even in the absurd and ridiculous hypothesis in which by 2025 a "pill" would reduce death "from old age" by reducing the risks of cancer, heart attacks, dementia and more, there would be just 16% more of the world's population by 2050.
Would you or would you not be happy to put in a little more effort to reduce our carbon footprint in exchange for a drastic reduction in death and human suffering?
Iniquity
With her Altos Labs the founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos he is only the latest billionaire to invest in anti-aging research. The interest of the ultra-rich (especially those in the field of technologies) it's obvious. But, if their efforts are successful, will the rest of us be able to afford these treatments?
Despite the "vulgate", there are three important reasons to hope so.
Primo
Some of these treatments may actually be very inexpensive. Some of the more serious candidates for anti-aging drugs, such as metformin , rapamycin, are existing drugs whose patents have already expired and cost a few cents per pill. Even the most advanced therapies, thanks to automation and economy of scale, could contain costs relatively quickly.
Secondo
These treatments could practically compensate themselves. It is estimated that Alzheimer's syndrome alone (one of the many diseases linked to aging) costs over 1.000 billion dollars worldwide, which will rise to 2.000 billion dollars by 2030. Drugs capable of alleviating the enormous burden of many diseases would save governments and healthcare systems a huge amount of money.
Third
The most cynical reason: if even billionaires only thought about themselves, imagine being one of them. Would you like to be the first person to take an experimental anti-aging drug or the one hundred thousandth, after extensive safety and efficacy testing? This time what's good for billionaires would be good for us too: a thriving "longevity industry", with cheap cures, widespread use and practically infinite profits.
Life would no longer make sense
This is the objection that makes me think the most. And it is asked only to those who research aging: no one would tell an oncologist, for example, if he is worried about the effect that possible cancer treatments would have on the human condition.
Does it need to be reiterated that even if we were to completely cure aging, people would still die? There would still be (unfortunately) wars, car accidents, infectious diseases, natural disasters. Certainly, a world in which our biological youth was prolonged as much as possible would be a world with fewer deaths. And I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing.
Much of the meaning of our life comes not from the “big ideas” we have, but from the people who fill it. Our children, our friends, our families.
And much of life's pain comes from poor health, theirs or ours. Why wouldn't we want to live any longer if we could do it longer and in good health?
It's really unlikely that we would get bored, just as it's unlikely that we would flatten out without evolving. Indeed, the experience would enrich our possibilities, whatever Elon Musk says (I would like to see it, then, to the point).
Finally, even if we get tired of life at 100, 150, 200, wouldn't you rather walk away quickly and painlessly, when you want, rather than having your life take your life away slowly and painfully for decades by the aging process?
Anti aging, they are just drugs
There is no hard evidence that the extra years gained from preventing heart attacks have taken away meaning from modern life. Why would add a few more years without heart attacks, cancer and old age?
All drugs have side effects. They can also be sociological, economic, ethical effects. The contraceptive pill has transformed society, especially for women. Antibiotics and vaccines have not only saved millions of lives, they have completely redefined our millennial relationship with infectious diseases.
The first anti obesity drugs truly effective they are already giving rise to another social and medical revolution. Those against baldness idem.
Of course, it is always necessary to discuss the ethical implications of new medical treatments. but to me the world would be a much better place if real drugs that reverse aging were added to this list of new treatments.
Even if some today, betting that science will fail, are being "gorgeous" by saying that all in all, dying is beautiful.
