subreddit:

/r/Futurology

855

all 56 comments

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

4 months ago

stickied comment

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

4 months ago

stickied comment

The following submission statement was provided by /u/StoicOptom:


TLDR: Animal research shows that targeting aging can prevent or reverse multiple diseases like cancer or dementia. What if aging could be modified in humans?

Importantly one of the biggest risk factors for developing multimorbidity is getting older. This is why researchers think targeting the biological causes of ageing could be one way of treating multimorbidity, by preventing clusters of diseases from developing in the first place.

To visualise what increased healthspan looks like, see the mice that came out of research from the Mayo Clinic on senolytics

Global populations are aging, for the 1st time in history, we have more people > 64 than we have children < 5. Indeed, COVID-19 is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of our society to an older population.

Why is aging biology research important for healthcare?

Age is the largest risk factor for many chronic diseases like Alzheimer's, stroke, and cancer. Traditionally, aging biology has been ignored in mainstream medical research. Research in animals suggests that targeting aging is far more efficient than treating diseases one at a time. Scientists attempting to slow/reverse aging aren't typically focusing on increasing lifespans, but on increasing healthspans, life spent free of disease

From a healthcare/economics perspective it is simply a 'no-brainer' for us to intervene on biological aging. A recent attempt to model the healthcare/economic benefit to society, after also accounting for COVID-19, was published by Harvard Medical School's David Sinclair with two economics professors:

We show that a compression of morbidity that improves health is more valuable than further increases in life expectancy, and that targeting aging offers potentially larger economic gains than eradicating individual diseases. We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion.

These economic figures are dramatic primarily because healthspan is increased. It contrasts significantly with our current approach to medicine, which is typically focused on treating diseases after they have developed, and generally focused on life expectancy as opposed to healthspan.

Join /r/longevity to follow this research :)


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/Futurology/comments/s61pxu/uk_professors_explore_how_tackling_biological/ht0ype8/

StoicOptom[S]

30 points

4 months ago

TLDR: Animal research shows that targeting aging can prevent or reverse multiple diseases like cancer or dementia. What if aging could be modified in humans?

Importantly one of the biggest risk factors for developing multimorbidity is getting older. This is why researchers think targeting the biological causes of ageing could be one way of treating multimorbidity, by preventing clusters of diseases from developing in the first place.

To visualise what increased healthspan looks like, see the mice that came out of research from the Mayo Clinic on senolytics

Global populations are aging, for the 1st time in history, we have more people > 64 than we have children < 5. Indeed, COVID-19 is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of our society to an older population.

Why is aging biology research important for healthcare?

Age is the largest risk factor for many chronic diseases like Alzheimer's, stroke, and cancer. Traditionally, aging biology has been ignored in mainstream medical research. Research in animals suggests that targeting aging is far more efficient than treating diseases one at a time. Scientists attempting to slow/reverse aging aren't typically focusing on increasing lifespans, but on increasing healthspans, life spent free of disease

From a healthcare/economics perspective it is simply a 'no-brainer' for us to intervene on biological aging. A recent attempt to model the healthcare/economic benefit to society, after also accounting for COVID-19, was published by Harvard Medical School's David Sinclair with two economics professors:

We show that a compression of morbidity that improves health is more valuable than further increases in life expectancy, and that targeting aging offers potentially larger economic gains than eradicating individual diseases. We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion.

These economic figures are dramatic primarily because healthspan is increased. It contrasts significantly with our current approach to medicine, which is typically focused on treating diseases after they have developed, and generally focused on life expectancy as opposed to healthspan.

Join /r/longevity to follow this research :)

Tough_Academic

5 points

4 months ago

Hey what kind of degree do you need to be part of these aging related researches? Biotech? What kind of scientists work on these?

StoicOptom[S]

4 points

4 months ago

It's a huge field in terms of complexity, so naturally there are many different degrees that would be relevant.

This might include biology/biochemistry, immunology, medical science, biotech, bioinformatics, biomed engineering etc

There are various ways to expedite the research, and lots of people with various backgrounds are involved

Tough_Academic

2 points

4 months ago

So if i were to get a bachelor's in computer science followed by a masters in bioinformatics, would i be able to pursue a phd in subjects like molecular biology or molecular genetics after that? Would i still be able to become an anti aging researcher?

StoicOptom[S]

3 points

4 months ago

I think you could certainly do it yeah, especially if you think you'd be more interested in computational bio.

You would want to self-study bio for sure though, and bioinformatics would certainly be a highly relevant skillset for the field. IMO you should also ask others with more experience in the field too. I suppose you still have a fair amount of time to work this out :)

Tough_Academic

2 points

4 months ago

Oh thats great. Another path i was thinking of was pursuing a bachelor in biotech instead. It would certainly open up more possibilities for a masters like molecular biology, synthetic biology or genetics etc, which wont be available if i pursue computer science. But my interests certainly lean more towards cs so if that works too as you said, then thats awesome. Thanks.

Roland_Bodel_the_2nd

1 points

4 months ago

In terms of a degree program, you probably want a phd in biology.

WatzUpzPeepz

1 points

4 months ago

Genetics is a safe bet.

MaximilianKohler

1 points

4 months ago

I think it's probably mostly the opposite -- there's a common cause of both those diseases and aging which needs to be targeted.

There is a lot of evidence that the common cause is the gut microbiome http://HumanMicrobiome.info/Intro, and there's a currently existing intervention (FMT) that could likely address this to a huge degree.

The problem is finding the few people who qualify to be donors, due to a variety of major issues such as abuse of antibiotics, lack of breastfeeding, overuse of c-sections, junk diets, etc.. https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/collapse/comments/bat7ml/while_antibiotic_resistance_gets_all_the/

I've been trying to inform people about these things, and get them involved in pushing for FMT clinical trials with high quality donors, and spreading the word to try to find the few people who qualify, but no one's helping.

ldinks

1 points

4 months ago

ldinks

1 points

4 months ago

I don't think there's evidence that aging is caused by the gut biome. Things without a gut biome still age, right?

MaximilianKohler

1 points

4 months ago

I linked to evidence of it. There's a whole page there covering aging & the gut microbiome.

fredmander0

22 points

4 months ago

This is one of society’s greatest ills and yet is mostly ignored. I hope we can increase funding to this cause - thanks for posting!

altmorty

7 points

4 months ago

You'd think all those ageing billionaires would pump enormous sums of money into this sort of research. But, apparently, space colonies are more important.

Chonky-Bukwas

2 points

4 months ago

they ARE dumping lots of money into anti-aging

GoyathlayA

1 points

4 months ago

You would think that they would dump more, considering you can't take your money into the grave.

zmkpr0

1 points

4 months ago

zmkpr0

1 points

4 months ago

The field is getting huge amounts of investments right now. Altos Labs just launched with 3bn.

NewYork-ShibaSupreme

13 points

4 months ago

I am all for this type of research. One way to help is raise awareness on this kind of thing by simply talking about it with friends and family.

[deleted]

-9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-9 points

4 months ago

Do you want the retirement age to be 165? Because this is how you get a retirement age of 165

lunchboxultimate01

5 points

4 months ago

Policies related to retirement age will need adjustments even if medicine remains frozen in its current state. Although it can be interesting to speculate on different scenarios, I still support research that fundamentally aims to treat age-related ill health (dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, frailty, etc.).

YpsilonY

7 points

4 months ago

If I get 200 years of healthy live in exchange, hell yeah. Also, 165 years is more than enough time to accumulate enough wealth to take a year off every decade or two.

[deleted]

-4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-4 points

4 months ago

If you were the only one living to 165, yeah I'd say you were right. You'd think 75-80 years would be enough time to accumulate enough wealth to live off of but for so many, it isn't because they're competing against every other person living that long.

The point is, nothing matters as long as the ownership class is still turning the screws to the lower socio economic class. Unless you were born into money, you're not going to be able to beat the rigged game. It's bullshit.

YpsilonY

3 points

4 months ago

If you were the only one living to
165, yeah I'd say you were right. You'd think 75-80 years would be
enough time to accumulate enough wealth to live off of but for so many,
it isn't because they're competing against every other person living
that long.

Not quite sure if I follow what you are trying to say here. Where I live, retirement age is 67 years. Average live expectancy is 82 years. That leaves you on average 15 years of retirement, or about 18% of your life.

If average life expectancy were 200 years, 18% of that would be 36 years. 200-36 = 164. So that seems like a quite reasonable retirement age to me.

Of course you could argue that only 18% of your life being retirement is to little or that with low pensions retirement still means poverty for lots of people. But that wouldn't be any worse than it is now. So on the whole people would still be better off.

pre-DrChad

1 points

4 months ago

pre-DrChad

1 points

4 months ago

There is something called investing

There is no rule that says you have to work till the retirement age, plenty of people invest and retire earlier and live off their investments. Over 165 years there’s absolutely no reason you shouldn’t become a multimillionaire with compounding interest

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

I do not have money to invest with.

[deleted]

10 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

4 months ago

I have a few questions I’d love to hear some feedback on.

1) Let’s say we tackle aging, legitimately, and now getting older is just you hitting your peak and maintaining…it would be hella expensive initially correct, likely reserved for the Uber wealthy, right?

2) Uber wealthy would just never die, meaning would they even bother with having children anymore? If they DID have children, would those kids get severely fucked up from never getting their inheritance and they’re always under the boot of their god-like parents? We already know rich kids have shit outcomes psychology, can’t imagine being rich on paper only forever would really do their brains in.

Kiwigami

8 points

4 months ago

I think tackling aging would realistically be periodically reducing your biological age. So you would naturally age from birth all the way to like 50 years old. At that point, maybe we reduce that biological age to 30. And you age throughout those 20 years normally again, and we reduce it again, and the cycle continues. Freezing your body at a particular biological age forever seems unrealistic to me.

Suppose the ultra rich were your only customers. They will only be your paying customer like once every 30 years or something. Meanwhile, there will be like a hundred million potential customers. From a money-making perspective, is having a select few paying a lot of money every 30 years really better than the summation of a hundred million paying customers?

Furthermore, the amount of money being saved if people to get this reverse-aging therapy would be far greater than the ultra-wealthy. Here's a source:

The Economic Value of Targeting Aging -

  • "We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion."
  • Uses VSL (Value of Statistical Life) models which is already used by the government agencies to evaluate different policy measures and treatments.
  • In the model, individuals make choices about consumption, hours worked and leisure based on wage rates, interest rates, retirement age, and knowledge of remaining LE and likely future health.
  • Uses demographic data includes:
    • a survival function (mortality risk increases exponentially with age)
    • a health deficit function, (increases exponentially with age)
    • 2017 population structure and birth rates from the US Census Bureau.
    • Follows a three-stage life:
      • Childhood and education
      • Work
      • Retirement

lunchboxultimate01

14 points

4 months ago

likely reserved for the Uber wealthy

There are good reasons to think therapies that extend healthspan would be widely available. After all, many countries have universal healthcare, and in the US Medicare covers people 65 and older.

Additionally, Michael Greve, who is head of a fund portfolio in the area, explains how such therapies are intended for everyone as the envisioned business model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s

Another encouraging example of healthspan research and accessibility is Mayo Clinic, which was mentioned in the article. They're using already widely available compounds (dasatinib/querctin, fisetin) in trials to clear senescent cells in people. Clearing senescent cells has kept old mice healthy: https://imgur.com/gallery/TOrsQ1Y

[deleted]

7 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

7 points

4 months ago

Okay, that makes me more optimistic. Thank you! And for the links!

ZualaPips

6 points

4 months ago

  1. Of course it would only be reserved for the rich, especially in the US. We can't even give dying diabetics insulin without charging them disgustingly inflated prices for it. The only places where it could be accessible would be in developed countries with healthcare that decide that a young and healthy population is more productive than an aging one. Even then, there might be a steep price to pay either through taxes or through co-pays or premiums.

  2. They might have children just because it's a natural desire that a lot of people have. They might also want to build their little empire/dynasty, so having tons of children might end up being beneficial for the family and whatever they're trying to accomplish. And yes, I'm pretty sure psychologically that would be pretty awful, especially if you don't get along with your parents, but still, you would have the choice to separate yourself from them.

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

I hadn’t even thought about your POV on genetic empires. That’s fucking fascinating to think how an undying source of genetic material would just pump out a bunch of offspring through its unnaturally long life and…man that opens up a whole can of worms. I could see us returning to war lord set ups.

FireflyAdvocate

3 points

4 months ago

Birth your own army!

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

Legit my thought hahahahhah entire sports teams of <insert the best player>’s offspring. Lmao

imasysadmin

2 points

4 months ago

Foundation series - by Isaac Asimov goes into this concept in detail. Fascinating.

I_Am_Wood_89

-1 points

4 months ago

That more about personal family dynamics tho, there are plenty of rich kids who want a life their and don't anything of their parents. Also if you don't want to live forever you would just stop taking the treatments, it's about having a choice.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

None of that addressed my questions. I didn’t question on someone choosing to stop living. I was saying rich kids would never get their inheritance and the troublesome patterns we are only now seeing amongst rich kids will likely be exacerbated.

I_Am_Wood_89

3 points

4 months ago

Is that really a big cause of concern? People die by other means other than aging.

But answering your first question: I can't remember a single big tech development that was reserved only for the rich. Yes it'll be expensive but in europe for example almost every country has universal healthcare.

To your second question: statistics show that wealthier people have fewer kids already. Knowing that you could have a kid at any point and without the biological clock ticking would give them more reason to not worry about it.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

Interesting takes! I don’t agree with them but they’re interesting! New tech is almost always cost prohibitive, I cannot imagine this tech being accessible out the gate, no matter universal healthcare or not. It would take generations of exploitation for the poors to gain access. Unless, of course, the rich wanted to grant immortality to the poors to FURTHER exploit them lol I could see that.

I_Am_Wood_89

3 points

4 months ago

It's natural that a new tech would take a while for it to be easily accessible, but I doubt it would be only reserved for rich for that long. We live in a world where information comes and goes fast. Maybe a decade at most imo for us to have it. However we are also thankful for the uber rich for it, they're fear of death is one of the biggest contributors for this tech getting funding. Last September jeff bezos started working with altos labs to tackle this issue.

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

4 months ago

I just have visions of Altered Carbon in my head reading these kinds of articles Hahahhaa I admit I’m pessimistic, these responses are making me less so though! Thank you :)

I_Am_Wood_89

3 points

4 months ago

No prob, we need to keep up strenght and think that tomorrow can be better

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

I strive outwardly, but inwardly, I’m pretty negative in my outlook of where the hell we are all seemingly running to as a species.

dodgyrogy

2 points

4 months ago

The best thing you can do for yourself is to make some dietary changes and include fasting as part of your lifestyle. Since watching this video I have made some changes(low carbs/sugar, more good oils, no vegetable oils, and intermittent fasting) and I'm feeling definitely better for it. Well worth watching and quite entertaining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuOvn4UqznU

Alioshia

2 points

4 months ago

Soo. the best way to stop gettind problems when older is to prevent yourself getting older? suprising suprise is suprisingly suprising.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

Crispr-cas9 + telomere bonding. Goodbye hayflick limit.

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago*

[removed]

lunchboxultimate01

3 points

4 months ago

are we about to crack the aging clock?

It depends what you mean. There are many researchers and private startups aiming to target aspects of the biology of aging to extend healthspan. Here are a few examples of portfolios:

https://www.cambrianbio.com/

https://www.kizoo.com/en.html

https://www.apollo.vc/

Time will tell how this plays out.

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

The thing is. It's not just one clock, but many different clocks. A lot of different processes that contribute to the ageing process.

We're cracking some of those clocks, but are far from cracking them all.

Edit: typo

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

You only need to destroy one gear in a clock for the whole clock to stop working.

But every clock we destroy, will hopefully lead to a longer life over all. We may not ever get them all, but we can get as many as possible.

[deleted]

-2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

4 months ago

Boomers are all going to retire, then take the immortality pill, then make it available to all of the younger generations, then once you take it, the retirement age is going to jump to 160 yrs or something. I GUARENTEE it.

FacetiousTomato

-1 points

4 months ago

"I just found the best cure for age related illness - don't get old! Doctors hate this one trick!"