We might or might not defeat the diseases of aging anytime soon, but if you want to help the people who are trying to make it happen, consider donating to the SENS Foundation (money goes directly to research):
Sadly, because aging isn't considered a disease by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, there is actually very little research being done on it if you take into consideration the fact that it kills more people than anything else in the rich countries (100-150k/day, usually after a long period of suffering).
If you want to learn more about what they are doing and why they think their engineering approach has a chance of success, check out Aubrey's book (the paperback version contains a new chapter, afaik):
It contains a lot of biology, but should be understandable to the lay person.
And if all you want is a really quick intro, check out his TED talk (it's a bit old now (2005), but the general concepts have stayed mostly the same despite recent progress):
When I donate to research, I like to see what the "partial failure result" is.
One of the neat thing about sens research is that if you happen to even get one or two of the parts of damage fixable or even moderated, then you have a much less inactive old age period, even if no actual longevity is gained.
I find decrepit old age to be one of the biggest issues of our time (who cares if grandma is 80 if she can move like she's 50; the issue society faces today with the elderly is one of them not being able to take care of themselves).
Additionally, with the aging of Europe and Japan, prolonging the useful life of the workforce is a big worry.
prolonging the useful life of the workforce is a big worry
Not in my world. The world where we are at the tail end of the largest recession in two or three generations, with danger of double-dip; we have lots and lots of surplus productive capacity, productivity just keeps going up, and unemployment is between 10% and 25% in the US depending on how you count it.
When my intro to genetics teacher in college explained to us how aging in cells worked, he told us that one of his professors had explained to him that a "cure" for aging was about 10 years away. But that had been more than ten years earlier. My professor said that he had recently talked to that same professor again. The new ETA: about 10 years.
This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but the details are nasty. Frankly, I think there's a reason complicated life evolved so that it would age. The standard reason given is that eventually errors in replication accumulate and cancer results. I.e. we age to avoid cancer. But that is a ridiculous reason. There is a chance we might die of cancer if we grow too old, so we trade that possibility of death by cancer for a certainty of death by aging? It just doesn't make evolutionary sense.
I have a feeling that whatever the real reason for aging is, it will take us a long, long time before we find a way around it.
I think part of it might be that evolution only cares about how successful you are in passing on your genes. Why do salmon die after mating (its due to exhaustion)? There isn't really any reason they have too, but they successfully passed on there genes so there is little evolutionary pressure on what happens afterward.
I think it is the same for aging. There isn't really a reason for aging, it just happens because there is less evolutionary pressure once humans pass the age when they normally procreate.
Of course I don't have any qualifications and this is just my hypothesis so take it as you will.
And there's the beauty of Aubrey de Gray's plan: it's not about finding a Cure for Aging. It's about finding a number of techniques that will allow us to extend people's life-spans long enough to find out how to extend their life-spans more, which will give more time for research, and so on.
It's a much more realistic approach than "finding a way around aging," which is how the problem is usually miscast.
The "reason" for aging seems almost self-evident to me. The goal is to pass on [mutated] genetic information. Post-reproduction, you're simply a drag on local resources.
Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food.
So we're perpetually closer to curing aging than we are to energy-positive fusion? If only they were reversed, we'd be able to support the population explosion in millenarians before they got here...
Curing the diseases of aging might cause problems, but what we must ask ourselves is: Are those problems bigger or smaller than the problems caused by the diseases of aging in the first place?
If your problems aren't worse than 100-150k people dying per day after a prolonged period of frailty and suffering, causing suffering to their families and friends too and costing tons in healthcare, then I'd say it's worth it.
However long you live, you live one day at a time. If you are happy today and in good health, you'll want to live until tomorrow, and so on. But if for some reason you want to stop taking the rejuvenating therapies or throw yourself off a cliff, that's your choice. Let's just not make the choice for everybody else and all future generations by not developing these therapies...
A specific concern I've always had about this idea of indefinite lifespan is that of monoculture. How often have you heard a phrase along the lines of "this is a temporary problem; once the 'old guard' is no longer in charge, society can move forward on issue XYZ"? Make "XYZ" any major social issue we've had in the past thousand years; from fiefdoms to gay rights to democracy.
It's effectively the end of generational cultural change, which might be a good or bad thing, depending on which generation you most identify with.
That's an explanation that rests on group selection, which tends not to be taken very seriously by most biologists. Similarly, group selection explanations of why we age are held only by a handful of researchers in the field of aging.
Most biologists in the field of aging hold that aging is the result of the decreased force of natural selection with age. This is somewhat difficult to explain even with diagrams, but I'll try anyway.
Let's imagine three forms of a gene. One causes you to die at the age of eight, another causes you to die at eighty, and the third never causes you to die. We would expect that the form of the gene that causes you to die at eight would be removed from the population very quickly, since anyone who has it will die before they can reproduce and pass it on. In contrast, the gene that causes you to die at eighty will be rather prevalent, since by that age you'll have already passed on your genes to your progeny. In fact, it will probably exist at about the same frequency as the gene that didn't cause you to die at all.
This is the mutation accumulation theory of aging. Because natural selection acts more strongly early in life, we tend to accumulate genes with mutations that are detrimental later in life. There's also a variant called antagonistic pleiotropy, where you have genes that have a beneficial effect early in life having a negative effect in old age.
Falls under: It has not been conclusively proven impossible.
We don't know what kind of roadblocks there will be for this kind of development, we can't even guess - claims of 10-20 years are beyond silly, they are crazy and ignoring the concept of "what we don't know".
ps. Can you imagine how overpopulated the world would be?
Can I bet on the opposite side of this? I bet that nobody who is 60 now will live to 1000.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to live to 1000... but I would be pretty surprised if my kids live past 150. I will be surprised if I live to 100. It's sad to think about, but our bodies wear out over time (cosmic rays and whatnot), and we don't have the technology to repair them efficiently yet. People still die from the flu!
A fun exercise for a high school class: Get some basic mortality tables off the Internet. Now, tell me -- to first order, of course -- all the causes of death we'd have to eliminate in order for, say, 25% of the population to live to be 1000.
What I really want to know is what common everyday activities we'd all have to give up. I bet motorcycling and scooter-riding are right out, but what about, say, swimming? Horseback riding? In a world where life expectancy is ten times longer, is everything an order of magnitude more dangerous?
I don't see how humanity could handle something like mass distribution of a magic treatment that allowed people to live to 1,000. The world would quickly get over crowded, resources would dry up, world wars would follow, and who knows what else.
Everyone was worried in the 1970's that the 1990's would have massive overcrowding and famines, but it didn't happen. Instead, the world population growth rate has begun to level off.
Why? In affluent countries, people no longer have children out of necessity, but of desire. In fact, many first-world nations are actually now undergoing population contraction (Japan, much of Europe).
If you eliminate aging across the world, the necessity of children will go away. People will only have children if they want them.
But people die! Wouldn’t you want to stop that if you could? I don’t know how you could consider death some sort of necessary evil. That seems like a pretty cynical and cruel view to me. Think of all the intelligent, experienced and capable people who die every day (or are slowly losing their intelligence due to aging). Wouldn’t it be great if Shakespeare were still alive? Newton? Darwin? Einstein? Crick?
Death is wasteful and it’s monstrous. Those problems you mentioned seem like small obstacles compared to the much bigger problem of death.
Eh... humanity will always find a way. We've done pretty good so far. If nothing else, spending a few years flying to mars seems a lot more reasonable when you've got 1,000 to spare. Space colonization is one solution to overpopulation.
He's not talking about a magic treatment, he's talking about raising the life expectancy gain per decade by more than 10.
All that said: Then if that happens, war will happen. I predict population will stabilize still (remember, accidents and unsolved diseases and violence and suicide will still kill). If it doesn't happen then we condemn the whole world to die.
I for one am for giving the chance for us or our children the chance to make it work, and find it overwhelmingly arrogant to think we know well enough to judge they won't handle it.
While I was interning at Google in 2006 I heard the guy speak in one of the Google Talks there. Going to the talk I thought this would just be some outrageous crackpot theory, but he seemed very thoughtful and the approaches he talked about sounded very sensible (although I knew and still know too little about the subject to invalidate his claims).
I wonder if this would change the popular morality of suicide? What if you're 800 years old, and you truly feel that you've had enough? Should you be forced to keep on going, potentially indefinitely?
Or even just knowing when to step aside and let the next (evolved) generation take over? (or will that still naturally just happen, via accidental death or death by lack of resources to live)
I can't believe no one has called out the bogus math in the article:
"If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000."
If you assume 1/1000 chance of death in a year, and 1000 years (1000 trials), your probability of living to 1000 is only 37%, not 50%. I don't know if I would trust the scientific analysis of someone who doesn't understand basic binomial probability.
You are assuming this based on a mainstream media article. First of all, you have no idea if he knows the right answer and is just dumbing it down for those who don't understand basic binomial probability. Second, the quote says "well under one in 1000", not "one in 1000". The correct value of one in 1415.8 as calculated by Retric in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368664 is, in fact, under one in 1000.
"If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000."
I know there is a shortcut to this but for this to be true you need a constant rate of 1 death in 1415.78389 per year.
Just going based on the title here. But if we let people live to 1000, that will deny many people the right to have children. The long term consequences of such a change could be a drastic slow down in technological innovation as the super-elderly are able to accumulate vast sums of wealth. Just think of the advantage you'd have as a 500 y/o over a 25 y/o.
It's amazing to think that just 500 years ago things were so bad that people awaited death patiently and willingly because they believed life was a punishment rewarded with an afterlife.
Now we're trying to extend the amount of time that we live 10 fold because things are so great right now. I'm not saying either is right, just an observation.
I just have to shake my head at this. The only adequate word for this is arrogance. The arrogance to believe that we know enough about the processes of life to extend them indefinitely.
We don't even know what we don't know. How many times have we been at this place in the history of biology, where we honestly believe that we are just "that" close to figuring out the processes of life. We were wrong then, and we are wrong now.
We do not know or understand the over-arching cause of cancer, nor the cause of its radical increase. Similarly with heart disease: after a generation of assurances that the cause is a high-fat diet, the premise itself is being rejected. I could go down the list of major congenital diseases, and tell the same story. Even the most basic assumptions which we have about disease are being overturned. And whatever replaces them will likely be overturned yet again.
> We don't even know what we don't know. How many times have we been at this place in the history of biology, where we honestly believe that we are just "that" close to figuring out the processes of life. We were wrong then, and we are wrong now.
Aubrey's point is that we don't need to understand metabolism to repair the damage of aging, just like you can maintain and repair a house or a car without understanding in detail all of the mechanisms that cause damage and failure. You just clean up some of the damage and change some parts periodically so that it never reaches a threshold at which failure is possible.
Our bodies already do this quite well for the first 20-30 years of our lives, but after that, we're in an evolutionary blind spot and long-lived molecules accumulate and eventually make maintenance and repair mechanisms stop working for long enough to lead to pathologies. If we clean up these long-lived molecules, that'll be a very good start.
I disagree with your perspective. Scientists don't need to understand everything about life to make meaningful contributions to our lifespan. This stuff isn't magic - there are sound, repeatable principles at the bottom of everything you mention, and the principles are possibly within our grasp. The technology needed for making these discoveries only gets better with time, never worse.
Look at it this way: crude principles applied at the macro level have extended our lifespan by decades. As scientists get better and better at piecing together the building blocks from the bottom, they'll likely find principles at the micro level that improves our lifespan as well
From TFA: "And each method to do this is either already working in a preliminary form (in clinical trials) or is based on technologies that already exist and just need to be combined."
Totally agreed-- it's insane to think that because you can do some stuff in isolated cases, the combination is a trivial extension.
Hubris is the hallmark of entrepreneurial endeavors. I don't know how many sympathetic ears you'll have here if you're concerned about the "arrogance" of scientists.
The article claims that to suggest we should NOT defeat aging is ageism and denying people the right to live.
I disagree. Until we find a way to support a population that grows at a rate like that, we would be forced into one of several possible situations, none of which are pleasant:
1: starvation
2: endless war
3: iron-fisted birth regulation, only allowing one new child per legally documented death
3.5: The implications of couples who really want children + a rule saying they can have one, if someone has died
Until the question of resources is answered, granting people the right to live (longer) equates to denying other people either quality of life (starvation/war) or the chance to live at all (birth regulation). Which brings up another interesting question; if everyone alive has a right to life, do those who have not yet been born have a right to live as well?
I'm not saying we shouldn't extend our lifespans- I would love to live to see a lot of things come to pass, like leaving our own galaxy- but to blindly proclaim anyone who opposes the goal is ageist is to ignore that the benefits have costs, especially considering we already have population issues looming on the horizon.
Call me utilitarian and get pissed that I might stand in your way of living forever, but we have to consider the bigger picture.
This article, and a few others covering exactly the same thing keep getting posted here ever few months. I hope Mr. de Grey is right, and I hope I live long enough to find out. That said, until there's some progress to announce, please stop re-posting this here.
Someone smarter than me noted that all predictions of living forever always have one thing in common: it places the time when people start living forever within the lifetime of the predictor.
Aubrey de Grey is 43, and he's predicting that this might be in place in 20 years.
Hell, give us another 50 years and I'm sure we'll all have our minds cloned into an army of robot bodies and computer brains for, uh, let's say longevity.
I heard some interesting insight recently. I am not sure how correct it is but it suggested that while we have made a lot of progress in living longer (allowing us to be old for longer) we have not made much progress at slowing down the process of aging (making it take longer to get old).
If we want to live long and fruitful lives, how do we slow down aging? I prefer that question over, how do we live until 1,000?
[+] [-] MikeCapone|16 years ago|reply
http://www.sens.org/
Sadly, because aging isn't considered a disease by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, there is actually very little research being done on it if you take into consideration the fact that it kills more people than anything else in the rich countries (100-150k/day, usually after a long period of suffering).
If you want to learn more about what they are doing and why they think their engineering approach has a chance of success, check out Aubrey's book (the paperback version contains a new chapter, afaik):
http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Breakthrough...
It contains a lot of biology, but should be understandable to the lay person.
And if all you want is a really quick intro, check out his TED talk (it's a bit old now (2005), but the general concepts have stayed mostly the same despite recent progress):
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_ag...
or the talk that he gave at Google (2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEyguiO4UW0
[+] [-] jules|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pohl|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gte910h|16 years ago|reply
One of the neat thing about sens research is that if you happen to even get one or two of the parts of damage fixable or even moderated, then you have a much less inactive old age period, even if no actual longevity is gained.
I find decrepit old age to be one of the biggest issues of our time (who cares if grandma is 80 if she can move like she's 50; the issue society faces today with the elderly is one of them not being able to take care of themselves).
Additionally, with the aging of Europe and Japan, prolonging the useful life of the workforce is a big worry.
[+] [-] mechanical_fish|16 years ago|reply
Not in my world. The world where we are at the tail end of the largest recession in two or three generations, with danger of double-dip; we have lots and lots of surplus productive capacity, productivity just keeps going up, and unemployment is between 10% and 25% in the US depending on how you count it.
[+] [-] rauljara|16 years ago|reply
This is one of those problems that seems easy to solve in principle, but the details are nasty. Frankly, I think there's a reason complicated life evolved so that it would age. The standard reason given is that eventually errors in replication accumulate and cancer results. I.e. we age to avoid cancer. But that is a ridiculous reason. There is a chance we might die of cancer if we grow too old, so we trade that possibility of death by cancer for a certainty of death by aging? It just doesn't make evolutionary sense.
I have a feeling that whatever the real reason for aging is, it will take us a long, long time before we find a way around it.
[+] [-] jwegan|16 years ago|reply
I think it is the same for aging. There isn't really a reason for aging, it just happens because there is less evolutionary pressure once humans pass the age when they normally procreate.
Of course I don't have any qualifications and this is just my hypothesis so take it as you will.
[+] [-] sketerpot|16 years ago|reply
It's a much more realistic approach than "finding a way around aging," which is how the problem is usually miscast.
[+] [-] s3graham|16 years ago|reply
Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food.
[+] [-] rosser|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpablo|16 years ago|reply
I remember the very last question is about "what point does getting old has?".
He argues that without aging and dying, populations will stop getting better and will stagnate.
It seemed very appropriate to link here, but I couldn't get a link. Other than a Spanish translation :-(.
[+] [-] MikeCapone|16 years ago|reply
If your problems aren't worse than 100-150k people dying per day after a prolonged period of frailty and suffering, causing suffering to their families and friends too and costing tons in healthcare, then I'd say it's worth it.
However long you live, you live one day at a time. If you are happy today and in good health, you'll want to live until tomorrow, and so on. But if for some reason you want to stop taking the rejuvenating therapies or throw yourself off a cliff, that's your choice. Let's just not make the choice for everybody else and all future generations by not developing these therapies...
[+] [-] logic|16 years ago|reply
It's effectively the end of generational cultural change, which might be a good or bad thing, depending on which generation you most identify with.
[+] [-] danielford|16 years ago|reply
Most biologists in the field of aging hold that aging is the result of the decreased force of natural selection with age. This is somewhat difficult to explain even with diagrams, but I'll try anyway.
Let's imagine three forms of a gene. One causes you to die at the age of eight, another causes you to die at eighty, and the third never causes you to die. We would expect that the form of the gene that causes you to die at eight would be removed from the population very quickly, since anyone who has it will die before they can reproduce and pass it on. In contrast, the gene that causes you to die at eighty will be rather prevalent, since by that age you'll have already passed on your genes to your progeny. In fact, it will probably exist at about the same frequency as the gene that didn't cause you to die at all.
This is the mutation accumulation theory of aging. Because natural selection acts more strongly early in life, we tend to accumulate genes with mutations that are detrimental later in life. There's also a variant called antagonistic pleiotropy, where you have genes that have a beneficial effect early in life having a negative effect in old age.
[+] [-] helwr|16 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal
[+] [-] ck2|16 years ago|reply
Last Updated: Friday, 3 December, 2004, 00:01 GMT
This kind of sensationalism is silly.
http://xkcd.com/678/
Falls under: It has not been conclusively proven impossible.
We don't know what kind of roadblocks there will be for this kind of development, we can't even guess - claims of 10-20 years are beyond silly, they are crazy and ignoring the concept of "what we don't know".
ps. Can you imagine how overpopulated the world would be?
How we would strip every resource bare?
[+] [-] jrockway|16 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong, I would like to live to 1000... but I would be pretty surprised if my kids live past 150. I will be surprised if I live to 100. It's sad to think about, but our bodies wear out over time (cosmic rays and whatnot), and we don't have the technology to repair them efficiently yet. People still die from the flu!
[+] [-] mechanical_fish|16 years ago|reply
What I really want to know is what common everyday activities we'd all have to give up. I bet motorcycling and scooter-riding are right out, but what about, say, swimming? Horseback riding? In a world where life expectancy is ten times longer, is everything an order of magnitude more dangerous?
[+] [-] dkarl|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmorrison|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sshumaker|16 years ago|reply
Everyone was worried in the 1970's that the 1990's would have massive overcrowding and famines, but it didn't happen. Instead, the world population growth rate has begun to level off.
Why? In affluent countries, people no longer have children out of necessity, but of desire. In fact, many first-world nations are actually now undergoing population contraction (Japan, much of Europe).
If you eliminate aging across the world, the necessity of children will go away. People will only have children if they want them.
[+] [-] ugh|16 years ago|reply
Death is wasteful and it’s monstrous. Those problems you mentioned seem like small obstacles compared to the much bigger problem of death.
[+] [-] sgk284|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gte910h|16 years ago|reply
All that said: Then if that happens, war will happen. I predict population will stabilize still (remember, accidents and unsolved diseases and violence and suicide will still kill). If it doesn't happen then we condemn the whole world to die.
I for one am for giving the chance for us or our children the chance to make it work, and find it overwhelmingly arrogant to think we know well enough to judge they won't handle it.
[+] [-] joubert|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibagrak|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rleisti|16 years ago|reply
Or even just knowing when to step aside and let the next (evolved) generation take over? (or will that still naturally just happen, via accidental death or death by lack of resources to live)
[+] [-] yan|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sardonic|16 years ago|reply
"If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000."
If you assume 1/1000 chance of death in a year, and 1000 years (1000 trials), your probability of living to 1000 is only 37%, not 50%. I don't know if I would trust the scientific analysis of someone who doesn't understand basic binomial probability.
[+] [-] jarek|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|16 years ago|reply
I know there is a shortcut to this but for this to be true you need a constant rate of 1 death in 1415.78389 per year.
1 / (1 - 10 ^ ((log .5) / 981)) = 1415.78389 so (1-1/1415.78389) ^ (1000-19) = .5
[+] [-] awt|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crystalis|16 years ago|reply
There's also several financial methods that could be used to prevent undesirable wealth accumulation.
[+] [-] gte910h|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biggitybones|16 years ago|reply
Now we're trying to extend the amount of time that we live 10 fold because things are so great right now. I'm not saying either is right, just an observation.
[+] [-] kscaldef|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teilo|16 years ago|reply
We don't even know what we don't know. How many times have we been at this place in the history of biology, where we honestly believe that we are just "that" close to figuring out the processes of life. We were wrong then, and we are wrong now.
We do not know or understand the over-arching cause of cancer, nor the cause of its radical increase. Similarly with heart disease: after a generation of assurances that the cause is a high-fat diet, the premise itself is being rejected. I could go down the list of major congenital diseases, and tell the same story. Even the most basic assumptions which we have about disease are being overturned. And whatever replaces them will likely be overturned yet again.
[+] [-] MikeCapone|16 years ago|reply
Aubrey's point is that we don't need to understand metabolism to repair the damage of aging, just like you can maintain and repair a house or a car without understanding in detail all of the mechanisms that cause damage and failure. You just clean up some of the damage and change some parts periodically so that it never reaches a threshold at which failure is possible.
Our bodies already do this quite well for the first 20-30 years of our lives, but after that, we're in an evolutionary blind spot and long-lived molecules accumulate and eventually make maintenance and repair mechanisms stop working for long enough to lead to pathologies. If we clean up these long-lived molecules, that'll be a very good start.
[+] [-] rabidgnat|16 years ago|reply
Look at it this way: crude principles applied at the macro level have extended our lifespan by decades. As scientists get better and better at piecing together the building blocks from the bottom, they'll likely find principles at the micro level that improves our lifespan as well
[+] [-] pingswept|16 years ago|reply
Totally agreed-- it's insane to think that because you can do some stuff in isolated cases, the combination is a trivial extension.
[+] [-] logic|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|16 years ago|reply
I disagree. Until we find a way to support a population that grows at a rate like that, we would be forced into one of several possible situations, none of which are pleasant:
1: starvation
2: endless war
3: iron-fisted birth regulation, only allowing one new child per legally documented death
3.5: The implications of couples who really want children + a rule saying they can have one, if someone has died
Until the question of resources is answered, granting people the right to live (longer) equates to denying other people either quality of life (starvation/war) or the chance to live at all (birth regulation). Which brings up another interesting question; if everyone alive has a right to life, do those who have not yet been born have a right to live as well?
[+] [-] sliverstorm|16 years ago|reply
Call me utilitarian and get pissed that I might stand in your way of living forever, but we have to consider the bigger picture.
[+] [-] Zak|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustinSeriously|16 years ago|reply
Aubrey de Grey is 43, and he's predicting that this might be in place in 20 years.
[+] [-] crystalis|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quizbiz|16 years ago|reply
If we want to live long and fruitful lives, how do we slow down aging? I prefer that question over, how do we live until 1,000?