Chapter 1: The Quest for Longevity

The science behind human longevity is intricately linked to efforts aimed at curing chronic diseases and reducing human suffering. The notion of reversing biological aging through scientific means sparks a wide range of emotions. Some embrace this possibility with excitement, while others express anger or skepticism, viewing it as a fanciful dream of those unwilling to confront their mortality. This sentiment is evident in the feedback from my previous writings on the subject.

The resistance to the concept of conquering aging is quite understandable. It challenges a fundamental aspect of nature: that all living beings have a finite lifespan. This can be perceived as overstepping boundaries, akin to playing God or succumbing to human arrogance. The cautionary tale of the genie granting wishes with unforeseen consequences springs to mind. Should we leave evolution untouched? Just because we have the capability doesn’t necessarily mean we should act upon it.

However, I must acknowledge that humanity has already deviated from the natural order in various ways, both positively and negatively. This tendency to alter nature seems woven into our evolutionary fabric. We are inherently problem solvers, and this drive to overcome challenges may ultimately lead to our downfall or, conversely, our salvation.

As I continue my exploration of this captivating topic, I have drawn several critical insights:

• Aging fundamentally occurs at the cellular level, and cellular biology is adaptable. Thus, aging itself can be influenced for better or worse.
• We are only beginning to uncover methods to reverse or stabilize biological aging, but I believe it is inevitable that we will achieve this. The pressing question remains: how will we manage the consequences?

Evidence for the manipulability of aging is found in studies showing extended lifespans in mice due to biological interventions. Not only have these mice lived longer, but their health has also been rejuvenated. For instance, older lab mice have had their eyesight restored through DNA repair and their physical capabilities returned to that of younger counterparts.

While human interventions may necessitate more advanced or varied approaches, longevity researchers have already established that reversing biological age in complex DNA-based organisms is feasible.

In the last 150 years, we have more than doubled the average human lifespan, a development widely viewed as beneficial. So why do we hesitate to pursue this again?

The doubling of average life expectancy over just a few generations resulted primarily from biological advancements in combating infectious diseases—both through cures and preventive measures—and improvements in hygiene and sanitation.

There exists a common misconception regarding this topic. The natural biological lifespan of humans and the average human life expectancy are distinct. The biological lifespan has likely remained relatively constant, while the average life expectancy has increased significantly because a greater proportion of people can avoid the numerous causes of death that plagued earlier generations.

This means that more individuals are reaching their full biological potential and dying from age-related issues rather than traumatic causes.

At present, the biological limit for human life appears to hover around 115 to 120 years, a figure that likely held true even 1,000 or 10,000 years ago. Although birth records were not meticulously kept prior to the 20th century, we have historical accounts of pre-industrial individuals who lived beyond 90 or even 100.

For example, Margaret Anne Neva, who passed away in 1903, was reportedly born in France in 1792, making her just shy of 111 years at her death. John Adams, the second president of the United States, born in 1735, lived to be 90, dying on Independence Day in 1826, the same day as Thomas Jefferson, who lived to be 84.

We can trace back even further for additional examples: the eighth-century Chinese empress Wu Zetian lived over 80 years, the ninth-century Arabic author Al-Jahiz reached 93, and the twelfth-century Khmer king Jayavarman lived to approximately 96.

However, these long lives were exceptional cases, often attributed to a combination of luck and social privilege. They managed to evade the myriad threats that claimed the lives of many of their contemporaries at a much younger age.

Today, a significantly higher percentage of people reach what we define as "old age," and this is generally celebrated as a positive development. Modern advancements have enabled us to survive many threats that historically would have led to premature death, whether from traumatic injuries, infectious diseases, or internal ailments like appendicitis. This progress results from human interventions in nature, notably through the curing of diseases and the enhancement of healthcare.

This brings me to my next point.

Current research into human longevity pathways, interventions, and therapies is consistently tied to the aim of alleviating various forms of suffering. Our primary targets now include chronic diseases, often referred to as "diseases of aging," such as heart disease, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders like dementia.

While younger individuals can certainly develop these conditions, age remains the predominant risk factor. As we age, our ability to combat these degenerative diseases diminishes due to cellular deterioration.

If we could conquer chronic diseases of aging, a substantial increase in average human lifespan would likely follow, much like the benefits seen from addressing infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, and smallpox in the past century. So, if eradicating infectious diseases was viewed positively, why should we feel differently about targeting chronic diseases today, especially since the outcome may again extend human lifespan?

The key distinction now is that many interventions aim for cellular rejuvenation or the prevention of cellular degeneration. They focus on the essence of aging itself to prevent or cure these "diseases of aging."

This raises profound moral and existential questions. Similar to the impending technological singularity, the longevity singularity presents us with an event horizon that obscures our view of the future. Yet, as humans, we are compelled to confront and solve the problems that inflict suffering.

In this engaging podcast episode, Crissman Loomis discusses the challenges and triumphs in the quest to conquer aging, offering insights into modern longevity science.

This BBC News report features a tech millionaire's ambitious attempts to reverse his age, shedding light on the latest innovations in longevity science.