Do you think aging should be treated as a disease?

sxt

I.e Something that is amenable to medical intervention

If you spent 10000000000000000000000 billion euros trying to "cure" Alzheimer's disease, it wouldn't work because aging is the problem

Aging may be 'natural' but it is bad for you

Medicine is 'unnatural'.but every one believes medicine is good

If aging was treated as a disease, then all the money could be directed to the root cause of the problem

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Not in the slightest. It's a natural progression that begins the day we are born. At what point do you consider us to be aging? Alzheimer's and dementia are no respecters of age. Youth onset dementia is becoming more prevalent. Many reach old age without contracting Alzheimer's. Treat and cure the diseases and let us enjoy the benefits of old age.

endacl

The medicalising of the human condition?

No thanks.

Mutant z

No its just getting older a natural progression of life which affects everyone.

weldoninhio

sxt wrote: »

I.e Something that is amenable to medical intervention

If you spent 10000000000000000000000 billion euros trying to "cure" Alzheimer's disease, it wouldn't work because aging is the problem

Aging may be 'natural' but it is bad for you

If aging was treated as a disease, then all the money could be directed to the root cause of the problem

I could actually feel my IQ dropping as I read this OP. Jesus wept.

Bitches Be Trypsin

Yes definitely, I find aging research pretty interesting especially some recent theories that aging and progressive neurodegeneration could be due to free radical build up in the mitochondria.

It would be possible to achieve much more as a race if we lived longer and had more viable members of society.

Mutant z

sxt wrote: »

I.e Something that is amenable to medical intervention

If you spent 10000000000000000000000 billion euros trying to "cure" Alzheimer's disease, it wouldn't work because aging is the problem

Aging may be 'natural' but it is bad for you

If aging was treated as a disease, then all the money could be directed to the root cause of the problem

Its all subjective no 2 people age the same you could have someone in their 50s who is bedridden while someone else in their 80s who live a highly active life indeed you even have people who are still active over 100 physical or mental decline are not necessarily outcomes of old age.

Franz Von Peppercorn

weldoninhio wrote: »

I could actually feel my IQ dropping as I read this OP. Jesus wept.

Why? Aging is natural to an extent but so is cancer. Or any degenerative disease.

wexie

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

It would be possible to achieve much more as a race if we lived longer and had more viable members of society.

Would we be able to sustain a population that lived significantly longer and was therefor a lot larger though?

Think we'd need to get a good few things sorted out in a hurry if it did come to it

Bitches Be Trypsin

wexie wrote: »

Would we be able to sustain a population that lived significantly longer and was therefor a lot larger though?

Think we'd need to get a good few things sorted out in a hurry if it did come to it

I agree. The financial and organisational implications would be tough. However, with a population that wasn't aging like it is now, we could introduce a child ban, eg. A woman can only have one child in her lifetime. We wouldn't need to repopulate as quickly as we do now.

Dog walker 1234

Aging is as natural as breathing. However taking care of yourself by a reasonable diet, exercise etc will definitely help improve your quality of life.

Capt'n Midnight

Aging is when for-profit medicine raids your life savings to give you a few more years. Even if those years are lived out in suffering but hey marketing bills and shareholders to be paid.

hatrickpatrick

Of course. I find the whole saying "he died of old age" bizarre and frustrating - of course if we have that attitude to not pinpointing the specific reasons and figuring out ways to remedy them, we'll never achieve further advances in human lifespan. Nobody dies of "old age", people die of specific, quantifiable breakdowns in vital bodily function. We'll never have another era of amazing increases in the average life unless we stop treating these things as normal and undeniable.

There was a time when bacterial infections, spinal injuries, heart attacks and cancers were seen as untreatable facts of life. It's only thanks to the demise of that attitude that we can now at least attempt to treat these things. The same won't happen for the problems which now ail elderly people unless we take the attitude that there's always room for improvement in how humans react to and fight against undesirable changes.

Graces7

sxt wrote: »

I.e Something that is amenable to medical intervention

If you spent 10000000000000000000000 billion euros trying to "cure" Alzheimer's disease, it wouldn't work because aging is the problem

Aging may be 'natural' but it is bad for you

If aging was treated as a disease, then all the money could be directed to the root cause of the problem

Time and tide wait for no man.

_Dara_

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Why? Aging is natural to an extent but so is cancer. Or any degenerative disease.

Cancer is cells acting like they shouldn’t, undifferentiated. Aging is cells doing exactly what they should be doing.

Wibbs

weldoninhio wrote: »

I could actually feel my IQ dropping as I read this OP. Jesus wept.

Why? They're essentially correct. The majority of non transmitted illnesses and debilitating conditions are related to ageing. While of course some twenty year olds can get heart disease, or cancer, or even forms of dementia the chances of getting them at 70 are far higher and the chances of surviving them far lower. If we could slow down, even stop or reverse ageing a helluva lot of killer diseases and horrible conditions would be prevented or cured with it.

Mutant z wrote: »

Its all subjective no 2 people age the same you could have someone in their 50s who is bedridden while someone else in their 80s who live a highly active life indeed you even have people who are still active over 100 physical or mental decline are not necessarily outcomes of old age.

Yes and no. Yes there are people that are active at 100, but they were a lot more active at 50, or 30. Yes people can age differently(outside of environmental factors), but if we understood ageing and could affect its speed then you'd have fewer people bedridden at 50.

Mutant z wrote:

No its just getting older a natural progression of life which affects everyone.

Not so long ago, like not much more than 50 or 60 years ago high childhood mortality was also "a natural progression of life". If this community was around in say 1818 about a third of you would already have died before puberty, another chunk would have been gone before middle age and those above sixty would be rare enough. Have you had antibiotics, vaccinations, life saving operations, therapies or medicines? Then it's easily argued that you've interfered with the "natural progression of life". So where do you/we draw the line?

Bitches Be Trypsin

_Dara_ wrote: »

Cancer is cells acting like they shouldn’t, undifferentiated. Aging is cells doing exactly what they should be doing.

Not exactly. A recent study has shown that aging cells show certain features of cancer. As cells age, they may become damaged, which can lead to mutation over time, and thus, malignant transformation.

sxt

Jeffery Unsightly Troop wrote: »

Not in the slightest. It's a natural progression that begins the day we are born. At what point do you consider us to be aging? Alzheimer's and dementia are no respecters of age. Youth onset dementia is becoming more prevalent. Many reach old age without contracting Alzheimer's. Treat and cure the diseases and let us enjoy the benefits of old age.

How can you treat and cure a disease when the thing that is creating and driving it is aging?



All technology is “unnatural” – including, of course, the whole of medicine!


Are people today opposed to vaccines and antibiotics? Of course not!

Franz Von Peppercorn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course. I find the whole saying "he died of old age" bizarre and frustrating - of course if we have that attitude to not pinpointing the specific reasons and figuring out ways to remedy them, we'll never achieve further advances in human lifespan. Nobody dies of "old age", people die of specific, quantifiable breakdowns in vital bodily function. We'll never have another era of amazing increases in the average life unless we stop treating these things as normal and undeniable.

There was a time when bacterial infections, spinal injuries, heart attacks and cancers were seen as untreatable facts of life. It's only thanks to the demise of that attitude that we can now at least attempt to treat these things. The same won't happen for the problems which now ail elderly people unless we take the attitude that there's always room for improvement in how humans react to and fight against undesirable changes.

That’s right. We’ve gone from 40 years and less life expectancy to 80 years or more but we’ve just really allowed more people to live to the maximum normal lifespan.


The op could be worded better. What I think is that science shouldn’t concentrate on extending life by extending old age and its sicknesses but instead extend it by extending youth.

wexie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The op could be worded better. What I think is that science shouldn’t concentrate on extending life by extending old age and it’s sicknesses but instead extend it by extending youth.

there's a really important detail and a distinction I think is very important to make.

Seems a lot of people would assume that extending life would mean more years in an 'old folks' home with the associated quality of life. Rather than more years until you end up in shady pines

Wibbs

Graces7 wrote: »

Time and tide wait for no man.

I'd be willing to bet that if we keep progressing as we are and don't have AI's wiping us out then we will likely achieve massively extended lifespans. We will be able to stop the "tide" and "time". It's an engineering problem in the end. A moral problem too, but one we'll have to discuss. Of course of the AI's do take over they'll be essentially immortal. Humans may never be, but their replacements will be.

_Dara_ wrote: »

Cancer is cells acting like they shouldn’t, undifferentiated. Aging is cells doing exactly what they should be doing.

Oh sure D and such mutations can happen at any age and mostly down to pure horrible luck in the young, but ageing cells are much more likely to give rise to mutations because of copying errors that lead to undifferentiated cells. Malignant cells could still appear if we stopped ageing, but the risk of that would be lower.

Wibbs

wexie wrote: »

there's a really important detail and a distinction I think is very important to make.

Seems a lot of people would assume that extending life would mean more years in an 'old folks' home with the associated quality of life. Rather than more years until you end up in shady pines

Yep, though I strongly suspect that if we find out how to slow ageing to extend youth it will follow that people will live much longer lifespans. If you were "locked in" at say 30 years of age biologically at the cellular/DNA level then barring accidents or bad luck(which would increase with the years passing of course) then living to 150, 200, 500 would be likely. There'd be no reason you'd die. A healthy 30 year old has a near 100% chance of seeing tomorrow, a healthy 110 year old's chances are a lot lower.

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet that if we keep progressing as we are and don't have AI's wiping us out then we will likely achieve massively extended lifespans.

to be honest I think that's probably a more pressing one we need to start having a think about....and not in any kind of crazy scifi 'it'll-never-happen-anyways' way either.

4068ac1elhodqr

Had a relative live until (well past) 100yrs, who spend his days outdoors walking, maintaing a small vegtable / small hold farm, eating a wide range of (presumably organic) vegtables, some more walking, digging and planting. Then even more walking to the local cathedral every day for mid-day mass and a chit-chat until the day he dropped. He passed about 50yrs ago before the advent of modern technology. (Some say it was all that walking that killed him).

Now if he had to spend all his days indoors in a 'cube farm' looking at a square screen, commuting 2hrs to work in a cube car, return late in the evening to stay in a cube room, watching the 'box'. Eating from a cube box whilst gazing at a oblong artificially lit screen - what chances would he have to be active, fit and healthy until 110yrs+?

wakka12

Aging is dying, technically. Sounds dramatic, but its true. I think it should be 'cured' yes, its incredibly complex, but I dont see why we shouldnt try to stop death if we did ever find a way to prevent it?

wexie

wakka12 wrote: »

Aging is dying, technically. Sounds dramatic, but its true.

living is dying...technically like

Wibbs

wexie wrote: »

to be honest I think that's probably a more pressing one we need to start having a think about....and not in any kind of crazy scifi 'it'll-never-happen-anyways' way either.

+1. Previous species of human were replaced over time by newer ones until we came along. A process that was slow enough. Now that we alone among creatures on this planet understand evolution among a great many other things, the chance are high we'll end up engineering our own replacements. Either by genetic manipulation or engineering artificial lifeforms. The problem is with the latter is that it's happening already to some degree and it's happening in an uncontrolled way and we don't know what the consequences are. We're not even discussing them in a meaningful way, certainly not in the industries that are researching furiously to build such AI's.

If humans reckon they can build something "cool" they will get caught up with building it and starting it up, even potentially disastrous things. Look at the atomic bomb. Some scientists working on the project worried that setting one off in atmosphere carried a risk, however small that the atmosphere could fuel the reaction and it would be a much larger bang, even a planet killing one. That was even more in play with the H bomb. And yet they pressed the big red button. Somebody somewhere might have an oul fiddle about with a particle accelerator trying to create a small singularity and however unlikely it could go rogue.

Humans. Kinda summed up.

One eyed Jack

sxt wrote: »

I.e Something that is amenable to medical intervention

If you spent 10000000000000000000000 billion euros trying to "cure" Alzheimer's disease, it wouldn't work because aging is the problem

Aging may be 'natural' but it is bad for you

If aging was treated as a disease, then all the money could be directed to the root cause of the problem

Aging itself isn't really the problem though. If you consider that we could indeed prevent cells from decaying in a way which didn't lead to all sorts of cancerous effects, then you're still not actually preventing aging, you're just preventing decaying cells.

I can see how it would be an attractive idea in theory (Dorian Gray comes to mind ), but then you would still have to address the issue of those people who could afford such treatments vs those people who would be dependent upon the State funding their anti-aging treatments, and you fall into the economic trap of having people working in perpetuity to fund the lifestyles of people who have no intention of ever contributing to society.

mackeire

Looks as if we're all terminally ill from the day we're born so..

Bitches Be Trypsin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Aging itself isn't really the problem though. If you consider that we could indeed prevent cells from decaying in a way which didn't lead to all sorts of cancerous effects, then you're still not actually preventing aging, you're just preventing decaying cells.

I can see how it would be an attractive idea in theory (Dorian Gray comes to mind ), but then you would still have to address the issue of those people who could afford such treatments vs those people who would be dependent upon the State funding their anti-aging treatments, and you fall into the economic trap of having people working in perpetuity to fund the lifestyles of people who have no intention of ever contributing to society.

Well it could be argued that the treatment only be made available to those who contribute to society :pac:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

wakka12 wrote: »

Aging is dying, technically. Sounds dramatic, but its true. I think it should be 'cured' yes, its incredibly complex, but I dont see why we shouldnt try to stop death if we did ever find a way to prevent it?

You'd swear only the old die. I knew more young people who died of cancer, than elderly people. How about concentrating on the diseases themselves, rather than the concept of aging?

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

If humans reckon they can build something "cool" they will get caught up with building it and starting it up, even potentially disastrous things.

And all of these dangers have increased massively with the advent of blue LED's

Mutant z

Its how you look after your own body throughout life thats most important as ive said there's people of quite an advanced age who are still very active individuals.

weldoninhio

mackeire wrote: »

Looks as if we're all terminally ill from the day we're born so..

I’ll ring in tomorrow and tell work I can’t make it in as I’ve just found out I’ve got a terminal disease so.

Doctors room ghost

Ageing should be treated as a victory on surviving all the sh1te that life throws at you and getting a lucky run in making it that far.
If I get that far I’m gonna be a grumpy old fukr and salute the world with a middle finger wave each morning.im also going to start smoking again if cigarettes make it that far as a treat to myself.them are the plans however it goes

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Aging itself isn't really the problem though. If you consider that we could indeed prevent cells from decaying in a way which didn't lead to all sorts of cancerous effects, then you're still not actually preventing aging, you're just preventing decaying cells.

Well you kinda are preventing ageing. EG your skin looks young and firm and wrinkle free at 20 because the cells are young, they're not "decaying". Very basically they reproduce with very few copying errors. As you and your skin cells age, they get more and more faulty in copying so become less firm and elastic and you get wrinkles and aged skin. Things like UV damage, bad diets, lifestyle choices and genetics impact on the speed of these changes in copying errors, but if we switched off ageing and kept them copying at 80 the way they did at 20, you'd look more like 20 than 80.

Though I agree with you regarding the societal problems that could come up. Not just the rich poor thing either. On a very fundamental level we expect to age, we expect certain milestones to come and go in life in a particular order and at a particular time. So for example unless you're a member of the Rolling Stones few think they'll be looking after their own newborns at 70. Most expect to leave school at a certain age, go to third level and leave that at a certain age, go partying, travel lots, hook up, have kids before a certain age, retire etc Everything would change if a large chunk of humanity could live to 200 while looking and feeling 30. Even more so if brain plasticity remained "young". Even the job market would be affected. If an employer had the choice of someone who was essentially 30 with 100 years experience or an actual 30 year old with 10 years of experience, which would they likely go for. Economically too. A 200 year old would be able to stockpile more assets over time, even mortgages would change. 30 year mortgage? Meh that's nothing. Over population could very well be a thing(I personally think it already is). A 300 year old could have a lot of kids. Would we end up sterilising the new immortals? It's a knotty problem.

On the personal level it could get weird. Marriage would be a temporary thing for the majority. If only a few were physically suitable for longevity the mental effects could be terrible. Imagine watching those you love age and decay and die, while you go on. I would reckon that while we could engineer very long lived humans someday, only a few would have a very particular mental setup to be able to live so long. The ability to "forget" and move on would be a biggie I'd imagine. Nostalgics would not last too long. I see that in miniature as it were in my own family. The men have well above average longevity and healthy with it(they just keel over in the end, no warning kinda thing). What I've noticed is they are not nostalgic. You never get the "remember when we were young" conversations. Their conversations are rooted in the now. If pushed they may relate tales of childhood, but they get bored of it damned quickly. Of my middle aged peers of 50, I have noticed more and more when hanging out a fair few of them going on about tales of when we were 20 or 30 and how things are crappier now and it's getting worse, the interwebs is something to be avoided beyond Facebook where they can catch up with school friends they didn't see for twenty years and "kids these days" are not like we were(thank christ in many ways). It's almost a different language. I can take it for a time out of a studied politeness, but it bores the holy fuck out of me TBH. How they might cope with being 200...

Wibbs

Jeffery Unsightly Troop wrote: »

How about concentrating on the diseases themselves, rather than the concept of aging?

If we conquered the process of ageing it would almost certainly lead to conquering processes like cancer and cardiovascular disease etc as a side effect. It would require things like a full understanding of the genetic process within cells over time, the ability to regulate and switch off and on different genes, to regrow tissue and all targeted to particular individuals. If you could do all that, something like cancer would like curing an ear infection.

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

Though I agree with you regarding the societal problems that could come up. Not just the rich poor thing either. On a very fundamental level we expect to age, we expect certain milestones to come and go in life in a particular order and at a particular time.

But these milestones and expectations would probably change at a similar pace to life span wouldn't they? ie. if we were to end up with a life expectancy of 200+ I'd imagine it'd be pretty unlikely we'll still finish our education in our early to mid 20's, get married in 30's etc. etc.

So if all of the milestones etc. move at a same or similar pace as life expectancy would that not negate a lot of the problems you're describing here?

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

If we conquered the process of ageing it would almost certainly lead to conquering processes like cancer and cardiovascular disease etc as a side effect.

But conversely if we concentrated on the individual diseases you'd be nearly guaranteed in increased life expectancy to go with it as well.

I think I'd have to go with Srameen on this, concentrate on the diseases first and then tackle aging.

That is, of course, if that is a choice to be made. And the cynic in me would argue that there's much more of a financial incentive in researching ageing so that's likely where it'd be headed.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

If we conquered the process of ageing it would almost certainly lead to conquering processes like cancer and cardiovascular disease etc as a side effect. It would require things like a full understanding of the genetic process within cells over time, the ability to regulate and switch off and on different genes, to regrow tissue and all targeted to particular individuals. If you could do all that, something like cancer would like curing an ear infection.

I can see all sorts of fantastic applications of the technology, certainly, but like the Fr. Dougal meme you posted above, I don't quite envision the altruistic vista the OP may have had in mind :pac:

We're already on fairly sketchy grounds ethically speaking when certain sections of society of a particular ideological persuasion promote the use of human growth inhibiting hormones in children to delay the onset of puberty for example.

As much as I love research into stuff like stem cell technology and genetics and I'm interested in transhumanism I think like any idea it's more likely to become a political minefield than any real attempt to benefit all of humanity.

Wibbs

wexie wrote: »

But conversely if we concentrated on the individual diseases you'd be nearly guaranteed in increased life expectancy to go with it as well.

Yes, but not by much W. Whereas if we concentrated on ageing itself healthy longevity would go up by a larger margin and the individual diseases would be conquered as a byproduct.

That is, of course, if that is a choice to be made. And the cynic in me would argue that there's much more of a financial incentive in researching ageing so that's likely where it'd be headed.

Oh I agree, but at least in my humble longterm it'll turn out to be the better strategy anyway. Now the ageing "cure" will likely be very expensive. At first. However a near rule over the last few centuries and especially in the last, is that what is once luxurious and expensive that only the very rich can access, sooner or later trickles down to the less rich.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We're already on fairly sketchy grounds ethically speaking when certain sections of society of a particular ideological persuasion promote the use of human growth inhibiting hormones in children to delay the onset of puberty for example.

whut?


What's this all about?
I thought I stayed on top of the news fairly well....but this is entirely new to me?

Wibbs

wexie wrote: »

whut?


What's this all about?
I thought I stayed on top of the news fairly well....but this is entirely new to me?

I think Jack is talking about some in the Transgender community and some doctors advocating and prescribing sex hormone blockers/hormones of the identifying gender in Trans kids?

wexie

Wibbs wrote: »

I think Jack is talking about some in the Transgender community and some doctors advocating and prescribing sex hormone blockers/hormones of the identifying gender in Trans kids?

Ah...that makes perfect sense. I thought he was referring to some kind of religious cult* or something that I somehow missed hearing about.


*yeah yeah I know but that's an entirely different debate

Graces7

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet that if we keep progressing as we are and don't have AI's wiping us out then we will likely achieve massively extended lifespans. We will be able to stop the "tide" and "time".

Ah no. Slow it down maybe and at what cost to the individual?

And you are seeing old age as illness related when it is chronological. Affecting all aspects of our humanity, not just the body.. seeing us as diseases not people

Graces7

We need as much as anything a change in stereotyping of old folk. eg well now you are the age you are you really "should" be in sheltered accommodation.. all tucked up with other old wans, bored to death literally!
Old age is individuals.

daheff

So you want to treat aging. The root cause of aging is life. To eradicate aging you would need to eradicate life.

Go for it skynet

Graces7

daheff wrote: »

So you want to treat aging. The root cause of aging is life. To eradicate aging you would need to eradicate life.

Go for it skynet

:rolleyes:

Franz Von Peppercorn

daheff wrote: »

So you want to treat aging. The root cause of aging is life. To eradicate aging you would need to eradicate life.

Go for it skynet

The first sentence is meaningless gibberish. You might as well say that the root cause of wars is life, or the cause of the Black Death is life.

The last sentence is a non sequitur

mackeire

A doctor talking to Mrs O'Reilly after the birth of her child.

Doctor: Mrs O'Reilly, your child was born with an extremely concerning and rare disease called aging.

Mrs O'Reilly: What are his chances doctor??

Doctor: We cannot put an exact time frame on your son's survival chances but we suspect that he might live to somewhere in the region of 70 to 95 years, barring an accident or an actual illness.

Yeah right.

Graces7

mackeire wrote: »

A doctor talking to Mrs O'Reilly after the birth of her child.

Doctor: Mrs O'Reilly, your child was born with an extremely concerning and rare disease called aging.

Mrs O'Reilly: What are his chances doctor??

Doctor: We cannot put an exact time frame on your son's survival chances but we suspect that he might live to somewhere in the region of 70 to 95 years, barring an accident or an actual illness.

Yeah right.

Reminds me of a lovely old neighbour I had once, still very active in his late 80s. he went to the drs about his painful knees.. told me with a deadpan face that the dr had told him it was "wear and tear"