Now, evidence is mounting that “aging” is not inevitable and may at some point even be reversible! Since “sickness, old age and death” have been the final chapter in human life, to imagine a different “program” will of course be difficult. “What! The earth ISN’T the center of the universe?!?” Something that has been apparently true – a given – for a long time will initially be met with skepticism, ridicule or just avoidance, when the position turns out to be wrong.

Instead of old age and death being just a matter of time, there is another perspective we should now consider, and I think, embrace.

The Plasticity of Aging

“There is nothing in biology yet found that indicates the inevitability of death. This suggests to me that it is not at all inevitable, and it is only a matter of time before the biologists discover what it is that is causing us the trouble, and that terrible universal disease or temporariness of the human’s body will be cured” – Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, in his 1964 lecture ” The role of scientific culture in modern society“

In the 55 years since that statement, the complex mechanisms of aging have been broadly classified, albeit not fully understood by a long shot. Many breakthroughs from stem-cells to DNA editing to growing new organs are advancing the field. Defeating or reversing aging has truly has become a very active engineering project being pursued on many fronts by thousands of researchers with billions pouring in to support the research and possible investment implications. Importantly however, government bodies have not earmarked much of any money towards solving aging. This is perhaps because the general public is not visibly supportive of the idea of extending life spans.

The multiple advances coming from biology, genetics and information technology are accelerating – just as the tools applied to the research themselves exponentially advance. So, just like repairing an old car so that it runs well past its normal scrap-heap date, it seems likely that we will see effective “repair and maintenance” regimes to treat our common disease – that of aging within the next two to three decades.

How we rationalize aging and death

So if this change is coming, why is it that so few people accept or espouse it? One answer is that an alternative to aging has not been available to anyone! The clock has continued to march on – perhaps advancing at different speeds for different people – but march on nevertheless. The idea that aging is “Natural” with a capital “N” is ingrained in much of our education, media and cultural beliefs. Meanwhile, scientists have extended life spans of lower organisms by 3-10 times and there are many examples of organisms that live much longer and some that can even reverse their biological age. There is definitely some “plasticity’ to aging.

The alternative of healthy life extension requires us to accept a different perspective on life that has major implications to life altogether. Resistance to such ideas is often knee-jerk reaction and emotional – mostly I think unconscious – which we then defend and rationalize further – or just ignore, forget and move on with life as we know it.

How to change perspective on aging

Changing our own perspective and/or helping others see the new possibilities here is not easy or simple. With such an ingrained perspective most of us hold of a natural limit to human life span, the alternative needs to be researched and contemplated. There is definitely a learning curve for most of us, (though I think anyone under 25 probably would accept the new paradigm quickly). Again, with nearly every source of information and opinion reinforcing the “Natural” limit and the selfish perversity of wanting to life longer, there are strong headwinds to even considering the alternative.

I think that continued, balanced and non-evangelical communications are the best approach. Understanding the main objections and how to address them calmly with good references is important. When the public continues to hear and read multiple “data points” of healthy life extension, this can have an effect over time. Also quoting respected authorities (and perhaps celebrities?!) can also help bring about a transformation. Many people form their views based on what other people they trust say.

“It’s about the ‘HEALTH EXTENSION’ stupid!”

Perhaps the best approach is to understand that what the research is doing is to extend our “Health Span” – that is, the number of years we enjoy good health. By eliminating the causes and sources of disease and illness, we emerge into a world where how long we live is optional. No one is pushing us all to “live forever”, but rather, the question becomes, “If you could continue to live in excellent, vibrant health to 100+ would you want to do it?” And further, wouldn’t you like to have that choice, instead of it being removed by preventable illness and decline?

An excellent, well researched and balanced book on this topic is by futurist David W. Wood entitled “The Abolition of Aging“. It is over 400 pages and cites dozens of credible sources. The book also explores the attitudes we have about aging and the many concerns about extending life spans. Concerns like; over population, resource depletion, how to pay for it and so on are all discussed. Highly recommended read! However, this kind of book will be mostly of interest to people already sharing the perspective of health extension. Shifting the perspective of those not currently holding that view will take time, energy and consistent, well researched communications of advocates who continue to reach out.

Life Extension Reservations

Probably the most common reservation I hear is the over-population and resource deletion combo. Humans are destroying the earth, right? Keep in mind, even if 70% of people dying did not die (some accidental death will continue to happen), the global population would not change much for decades – giving lots of time for society and technology to work on possible solutions. Some of those older, but vigorously healthy people (who would have died) may be the ones, with their wisdom and knowledge, to solve the global challenges we face! Imagine if Einstein lived to 120. Meanwhile, what about the approximately 100,000 people who die every day from age-related disease – people who didn’t have to die?

And what about another main concern – the added costs of living longer? Keep in mind we are talking about staying healthy longer – so we could continue to earn income longer AND we would experience much lower medical or healthcare related costs if we stayed healthy longer! This alone could divert the approaching financial crisis of spiraling healthcare costs and pension funding shortfalls. So these objections, if looked at with some thought, do not seem so convincing.

Personally, my perspective has been changed. For the benefit of society and flourishing of planet earth, and compassion for the unnecessary illness and suffering, I am an advocate of extending health. I support living long, living well and prospering. How about you?

Michael

www.retirementsingularity.com