Aubrey de Grey Argues We May Live Forever
February 26 2008 / by Venessa Posavec
Category: Health & Medicine Year: Beyond Rating: 22
From mice to men, research in the next few decades may lead to
therapies that will dramatically extend our lifespans. 
Biologist Aubrey de Grey is developing therapies designed to postpone aging. His test subjects may still be mice, but he argues “there are no absolutely fundamental breakthroughs that we still need” in order to make the jump to humans.
So how long can you and I expect to live?
“At this point I think it’s fair to say there’s a good chance that people who are alive today, and are still young, children today, there’s a good chance that they have no upper limit on their lifespan,” asserts de Grey in a recent MemeBox interview
His roadmap to longevity starts in the mind:
“I think in the next 5 years we have a very good chance of seeing a complete phase change in people’s attitude to what aging is. In other words, to the distinction, or lack of it, between aging and age-related diseases.”
“I think that within about 10 years from now, we have a very good chance of having developed all of the seven major components of aging, developed therapies that repair them, in mice, in such a manner that they actually work well.”
“But if you ask me for a 50/50 estimate, an estimate of how long
I think it would take us to have a 50/50 chance of getting from the
mouse results, from that proof of concept, to get it to work in
humans, then I would say 15 – 20 years starting from the mice, so
in other words, 25 – 30 years starting from now.” 
It may sound like a bold timeframe, especially considering the opposition such research might provoke. There are plenty of groups out there that might not appreciate us tinkering with nature. But de Grey is confident that the promise of a long and healthy life will be enough to keep his work moving forward.
“There won’t be an ethical outcry. We’re seeing an ethical debate about these things at the moment, but when these therapies become available, the reservations that people might have and concerns that people might have will be forgotten – not in the sense of being ignored, but in the sense of being seen not to outweigh the benefits.”
Are you as convinced as de Grey that we’ll discover the mythical Fountain of Youth in the coming decades? And if so, will we choose to drink from it?
For the full transcript of MemeBox’s fascinating interview w/ Aubrey de Grey click here
Comment Thread (10 Responses)
-
I’d be interested to learn what Aubrey thinks re: the concept of decay in systems. From an individual species standpoint I seem to agree with Aubrey’s argument that the failure to do all we can to stop aging is immoral. But from a system-wide standpoint does keeping billions of humans alive perpetually increase the likelihood that Earth-based life will survive and expand at an optimum rate?
Posted by: Alvis Brigis February 26, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
As you look into the future of medicine,the revolution is happening at the Geriatrics level. Babys are healthier then ever because of this. Another aspect is the use of hormones and steriods being injected into foods. The only population that is less obese is the upper class. Those familys that can afford the organic, free range, or whatever are not poisoning there systems as fast.
Posted by: Prof. Visners February 26, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
@Prof. Visners
Aubrey touched on that during the interview – according to him, the therapies, foods, & supplementation available today don’t make much of a difference in terms of radical life extension and perfect health into old age. It’s great to eat healthy foods, and organic when financially possible, but the therapies he’s working on will blow those things out of the water in comparison. What he’s talking about is postponing the disease that is aging at the cellular & molecular level.
Posted by: Venessa Posavec February 26, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Wouldn’t the possibility of no ceiling aging bring into question such basic aspects of human life as procreation. If we were able to live indefinitely, what impetus would there be to have children, or for that matter, to stop having children? Wouldn’t there have to be measures put in place to limit reproduction? How about marriage, are life partners necessary if there is no fear of death? Isn’t death the most persistent of all memories? What would happen to art if we are all like gods?
Posted by: bibelnieks February 26, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
@ bibelnieks Art imitates life and would have to evolve. What sort of art do you imagine the gods enjoy? Perhaps they’re entertained watching virtual life systems like ours, just like in the 13th Floor.
Posted by: Accel Rose February 26, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Well, the immortals may enjoy the finite blunderings of sims I suppose, but I would argue that there may just be an emotional exhaustion with life that does not require its physical counterpart. I would imagine that the art would end up being much more brooding and contemplative. I would argue that the sentiment expressed in “No Country for Old Men,” the Oscar winner, will be much more prevalent and many more great artists will feel that the world has indeed left them behind, and gone on without them, even at the youthful age of 112.
Posted by: bibelnieks February 26, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
I’d like to hear your answers to a question I’ve recently been pondering—if you consider the first person who will reach the age of 200, in approximately what year was he or she born?
I’m interested in hearing the estimates people offer, because these may reflect the general level of optimism about the pace of longevity technology development.
Posted by: Daryl February 28, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
between 1998 – 2008
Posted by: Zora Styrian February 28, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Daryl’s question was so good that it deserved a poll of its own – Check it out here!
Posted by: Marisa Vitols February 29, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
bibelnieks, the 50% divorce rate in the late 20th century is mainly the result of the doubling of our life span during that time. (adequate credit given to the emancipation of women of course) It was easy to commit to death do us part when that meant maybe next week. Extended life will totally change this social dynamic. In fact, at a 50% divorce rate and an 80% cheating rate, we need changes in our “marriage system” now! I propose term marriages with intelligent time limits that gets away from a lifelong commitment which is doomed to fail. Instead we would then concentrate on the success of a marriage for the time that it does exist.
Posted by: jackharney March 04, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend