Aging Research Should be Far More of a Priority than is Presently the Case
For our species, aging is by far the greatest single cause of suffering and death. It is presently inevitable, affects everyone, and produces a drawn out decline of pain and disability, leading to a horrible death through progressive organ failure of one sort or another. The integrity of the mind is consumed along with the vitality of the body. Aging is the cause of death of 90% or more of the people who live in wealthier regions of the world, and the majority of those even in the poorest regions. More than 100,000 lives every day are lost to aging, and hundreds of millions more are suffering on their way to that fate.
Yet very little funding goes towards medical research in general, and of that only a tiny fraction is devoted towards means to slow and reverse aging. If arriving from the outside, uninformed, one might think that this is rational on the part of funding entities, and assume that it indicates the lack of a clear path towards treatments to aging. But it is not rational. Finding ways to treat aging as a medical condition, and bring it under control to slow or reverse its consequences, is not a fishing expedition. It is not a blind hunt with slim hopes of success. On the contrary, the underlying mechanisms of aging are well cataloged and comparatively well understood. There is a clear road forward towards treatments that will greatly reduce the suffering and death that presently accompanies old age, and thus greatly extend the healthy human life span.
Every life lost is a tragedy. That we expect to be diminished, damaged, and killed by aging doesn't make it any less of a tragedy. Everyone who dies due to aging has friends and family who are hurt by their absence, achievements left undone, a shadow of a greater and longer life that he or she might have lived if given the chance. Every tragic story about lost potential, lost friends, and untimely ending is repeated millions of times each month around the world. And for the most part we all stand by and pretend that this does not happen, and pretend that there is nothing that can be done. The present poor state of funding and development for therapies to treat aging is irrational.
Where is the 'Operation Warp Speed' for Aging?
Perhaps you hope that the U.S. government will be able to accelerate COVID-19 vaccine development with its $10 billion program 'Operation Warp Speed'. Maybe it will. However, if these are your primary concerns, then getting funding for aging research should be a top priority, especially if you are an older adult, or if you have friends or family that are elderly. As you are probably aware, the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affects older adults. In fact, 80% of hospitalizations from Covid-19 are adults older than 65 years of age. Although the novel coronavirus may be your top concern at this time, I suggest you turn your attention to an underlying disease process ubiquitous in humans that receives far less attention: aging. If we could treat aging itself, the effects of this pandemic would certainly be muted.
To an outside observer, aging has a fairly obvious phenotype: hair graying and thinning, and skin wrinkling beginning in our third and fourth decades of life, some loss of height, tooth decay and the need for glasses in our fourth, fifth, and sixth decades of life, and age spots, loss of muscle tone and strength, diminished height, and aches and pains in the decades after that. We all know that these unwanted changes occur as we age, and yet we do not talk about aging as though it is a disease. If you walk into a doctor's office at the age of 65 and complain that you are old with a laundry list of age-related problems, the doctor may be able to help with some of your symptoms, but will have nothing to offer you to treat their underlying cause.
Appropriate funding and attention should be given to research in gerontology, the study of aging, but instead the issue is being sidelined while it continues to wreak havoc on humanity. Aging should be treated like any other disease, since the biological underpinnings of aging are becoming better understood every day and potential therapies are being investigated, albeit slowly.
What Causes Aging? How Much Have We Learned in Recent Years?
Scientists and aging researchers have garnered a great deal of knowledge regarding the biological mechanisms of aging in recent years. However, there is still much to learn about the drivers of aging, especially in regards to how the nine hallmarks of aging affect one another. The more we know about the biology of aging, the easier it will be to develop therapies that target the specific causes of aging. With the knowledge we have, scientists at universities and in the private sector are already at work developing potential treatments for aging.
Recent Breakthroughs in Research Give Hope in the Quest to Cure Aging
Recent research suggests that aging is treatable and potentially reversible. The identification of the nine inter-related hallmarks of aging in the 2013 review paper "The Hallmarks of Aging" brought the notion that aging could be addressed therapeutically into the mainstream and spawned a flurry of research into the aging process. At the time of this writing "The Hallmarks of Aging" has been cited over six thousand times. Additionally, the advent of new technologies for genetic programming, such as CRISPR-Cas9 in 2013, discoveries in the field of stem cells, most notably the discovery of Yamanaka factors, to generate Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPSCs) from somatic cells in 2006, and technological advancements in the field of proteomics such as more precise and efficient microscopy, histology, and mass spectrometry, have given scientists the tools necessary to attempt to target the hallmarks of aging and repair them. Advances such as these have led to several anti-aging breakthroughs in recent years, with a central theme being that targeting just one hallmark of aging usually confers benefits to multiple other hallmarks.
Aging Research; Where is the Funding?
Federal funding for aging research comes from the National Institute on Aging (NIA). The NIA is a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is the largest biomedical research agency on Earth, and the medical research arm of the U.S. department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The NIA is requesting $3.2 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2021, a decrease of about 10% from FY 2020. The NIA will only allocate 10% of its budget, $322.6 million, to its Division of Aging Biology (DAB), which "supports research to determine the basic biochemical and genetic mechanisms underlying the processes of aging at the cell, tissue, and organ levels and the ways these are communicated among cells and tissues of the body."
The research done by the DAB is arguably closest to what we mean in regards to research on the biology of aging, yet it receives only 10% of the NIA budget. The NIA's requested budget for FY 2021 is only 0.24% of the United States proposed discretionary budget for 2021, and the NIA's DAB budget is only 0.024% of the United States discretionary budget. Aging research is far too valuable to only account for less than a quarter of a percent of discretionary funding. And research on the biology of aging through the DAB, which includes research on treating aging with therapies such as senolytics, is receiving a negligible amount of funding given the enormous potential of such therapies to slow or reverse aging.
What's vexing is seeing how fast the research system can move if it wants to, as it has with the Covid response. If they'd move as fast with aging (100% mortality, years of individual suffering) as they do with Covid (~0.2% mortality, weeks of individual suffering) we could probably reach escape velocity within a couple decades.
Strange how in life people/governments often don't focus their efforts on what will cause them/others the most death and suffering. It's an odd cognitive blind spot.
The worst thing in the world to convey, in attempting to attract funds, talented researchers/ managers, a population interested in the end-product/ service, and lab resources, is desperation and non-specific frustration. There are a million causes in the world that, IF HAVING HAD attracted a Manhattan Project scale of non-specific resources a few decades ago, could be occurring right now - if we bullied enough, depleted other projects around the world, and created a non-free-market system of project funding. We likely would have solved poverty in Africa -or- had a fully functional moon base -or- exploited a mineral-rich asteroid -or- solved malaria -or- removed many CO2 sources and short-circuited climate change.. etc., at the cost of several other sectors/ projects/ lifestyle choices. Death, contrary perhaps to many who frequent this site, is not the worst thing that can happen to you - lack of choice and crushing family poverty are a few things that many would exchange their life to avoid. Going forward, the most important thing is to effectively quantify the supply and demand for anti-ageing - who wants it and who is willing and available to research, fund, and deliver it. The sad truth may be that, given the therapy is eventually (at its most widespread availability) 10% of your time at a clinic and 10% of your gross income, many, if not most, WOULD DECLINE. (many PEW polls show this lack of urgent interest in longevity or even just increased health-span if they have to exercise, strive, etc., for it) What does one make of that? Do we take taxes, premiums, and other surcharges anyway, because it is such a noble enterprise?? As with any business, assessing the demand and the ability to deliver is fundamental to a plan, that, just maybe, in the end, create a 'build it and they will follow' - possibly - but do not hope for such a 'great enlightenment of thinking'. I always worry about those grand ideas that only can come to fruition by having a high degree of 'early buy-in'.
@Jer:
"Death, contrary perhaps to many who frequent this site, is not the worst thing that can happen to you - lack of choice and crushing family poverty are a few things that many would exchange their life to avoid."
Huh? What's the use of money if you are dead?
Hi there! Just a 2 cents.
''Yet very little funding goes towards medical research in general, and of that only a tiny fraction is devoted towards means to slow and reverse aging''.
The many reasons:
1. Money
2. Money
3. Money
4. (Did I say Money?)
5. More, Money
6. People that are Anti-[Anti-Aging], as in they are against trying whatever to anti-age, they want
to age and be done with it. They might take a few years more as bonus, nothing more.
7. People that think it's futile, against nature/god, that we tried a million times already (and failed)
so why bother anymore; just accept you'll die (and to them, stop fighting, give in/give up).
8. Poverty, everyone living paycheque to paycheque; and when your antiaging supplement tally
equalls to roughly 10-20% of your total salary per month; it's why no body cares and can even
afford it. When you make a supplement/therapy/whatever unaffordable (and keep it that way
for a long time) you alienate the people with less financial means; put simply, you Exclude
them because not enough cash. Antiaging/supplements/Biorejuvenation, let's not kid our
selves...is a luxuous/privilege/luxury that only some can afford. Many can't. What if you are
that person with no financial resource means to get it? IT means you will not live as long life;
because can't obtain these 'health resources' because no monetary/financial resources to pay
for them. So poor people are doomed/unless prices drops. Only well-paid people get it. The
rest, the mass class poor people, tough luck; a shorter life because no health protection.
The costs of research/creation of antiaging inventions is just
too high and there is not enough funding (as everyone said); mostly, from the govs. Why
would the govs Not subsidize More the Antiaging/biorejuvenation endeavors when we are
talking about defeating aging/stopping aging; is that not the Ultimate Goal of humanity
(since we die; apparently, it is not to many...)....because
probably, they think : ''Too Risky...lost milions/billions? of dollars to cancer research...what
says that the Next therapy will work and that my money wil have been invested correctly/not
lost to another fad/another failed trial/another poor results 'antiaging' supplement or therapy''.
You Need Tangibility and Results -> Capital/Funds...No Results/Bad Results -> No Capital.
Trust/Confidence is builts on proof/solid results/tangible...not ''we might make a rejuvenation
that will make you live 1000 years...it's possible..maybe''. Gov sees : 'Calorie Restriction and
Metformin reduce glucose/diabetes and improve health in human subjetcs' ->
Tangible/Money.
9. If a mouse could live 35 years like a nake mole rat, after intervention, we would be onto
somethnig and the gov would see that; People would get on it (mostly, people, who care of
lifespan/health/medical progress). Then, things would change as more and more
investors/capital investors would Pour In...and the gov would follow. Everybody would
'Chime In a Dime'...because they All/we All want to live longer and healthy (except the people
mentioned above and they are a large chunk. Free Eternal Life and they would not want it).
10. Ethics
11. Ethics
12. Ethics
13. Again. The many who believe that earth will be overpopulated, polluted, resource drought.
Thus, if we live forever or a very long time, earth could end up with a pop. of 1 trillion...(if
we stay on earth; unless we leave to another planet/exoplanet/exo-moon..or just
mars/moon). Realistically speaking 99% people alive in 30-40 years will Not be on whatver
other planet.
14. FDA/Health bodies/bureaucracy/red tape/slow-mo progress (Co-Vid Fast...AntiAging
slowmo). It goes to show...if we indeed had the money and it was an ALERT 'ALERT ALERT'
'YOU ARE AGING - YOU WILL DIE' WAKE UP...just like Co Vid...welll we have much more
progress already. It's more than understandable that money would first go to a virus epidemy
to stop it because it poses an Immediate Life/health Risk to the population at
large/compromising it (as we saw with 100s thousands of people dying of it; just like the
black plague in medieval times)...but to say Aging is
not (so) important or matters less; is I think plainnnn wrong....it's sad that aging is just ''well..it
happens....and that's that'' type of careless mind set. ''One day you die''....not even a ''maybe,
just maybe, I could do something about it''. No. Just a ''I give up...we die...(anyways)''.
Just a 2 cents.
PS: In my point of view...a (sort of) solution is that people would need to fund antiaging Collectively from their taxes...same thing as Gov Health Insurance to all people; it should never be a privilege to only those that have the money; it should a BASIC NEED/THING...that you get when you are born... So, Health Insurance, Anti-Aging Insurance...a new one. Everyone chimes in their taxes and this pays 'collectively' all the therapies/supplements (tax paid, by the people - Poor and Rich). We know rich people would not like that because they are taxed the most (but they make the most money); many rich people would leave that is an assured thing to happen (''Too Much Tax Kills Tax''...as in, if you OverTax the rich...watch them leave they will no long subject themselves to that and go live in another country; so we can't lose them because the country becomes poorer if loses the rich micro% people; since they are major tax payers).
Basic Universal Health/Medical & Social Insurance
Basic Universal School/Studies Insurance (free school/low cost school/education)
Basic Universal Anti-Aging/Health-Longevity Insurance
(anti-aging supp./rejuvenation therapies It can me merged with the Health Insurance or its own separate thing)
Basic Universal Income (minimum. wage, everywhere no less than 10-15$/hour, full time). Free to ALL people, from the poorest/not working to the richest...it is a Necessity/Need...like on the Maslow Pyramid..it's just not a convenience; it's a Essential/Existential Need For Life. And everyone must have access to it Irrespectevily of their current financial status. Obviously, the richest would apply less; they don'T need it - poor do;
In other words, We lack money (in debts, US/Canada, have trillions of debt...and we live above our means...on credit cards/loan money...)....it's all money the problem.
We're going about this all wrong. All we have to do is pool together every individual 'two cents' that CANanonymity has donated to the site and we can fund the entire project indefinitely.
PPS: Hi Ben! (good one)...
'We wish (I/you/we..)...sadly, my 2 cents.. are just.. that; even if I made a million of them; it's still just a few million 'figurative' pennies. It's trillions, in medical research, we need to defeat aging. Huge funding. (..I know that 'for every 2 cents I gave, tallied up, you would be rich').
Realistically, we can't "defeat aging", or at least we can't remove all risk of illness and death as we age. In the foreseeable future we can, at best, delay the effects of aging, but that doesn't even mean, in the long run, we reduce the medical costs of aging. And currently, we're not even very good at delaying aging effects by more than a few years. So it is understandable that most people are currently not inclined to spend a lot of time and resources supporting anti-aging research or therapies. However, there are plenty of us, and plenty of those with excess wealth, who _are_ interested in anti-aging research, and will continue to support such efforts. Also, any effective treatment that extends healthspan and lifespan at a moderate cost will be widely implemented and supported. So I'm not sure what all the fuss is about wrt current funding levels and interest - modest efforts are being made in the face of little progress and with little hope that making people live longer will truly result in any long-term cost savings (for example, the heart failure prevented today may still occur 10 years later, perhaps in a way that is even more expensive to treat, not to mention the costs of keeping that elderly person alive another 10 years). It's enough that extending health/lifespan is of interest to individuals - we don't have to justify the research based on the unrealistic notion that we are going to end most illness and save society a lot of money. imho
Hi dtkamp, Just a 2 cents. Good points.
I agree, I meant that defeat aging in the sense, end it at best as we can; because as you said, there is not True defeat of aging...we still die of extrinsic factors (accidents, homicide,...), but, at least, on the (major) intrinsic cause of death - aging; we would have slow it down to a (near total) crawl or stopped it; so in that sense; (sort of) defeated it; like a victory if you will...(and Reason's website is called Fightaging...after all...what happens when we fight it... and win; we defeat it). In my mind, it is clear that we Can/Should/will (one day?) defeat/end aging as we know it; will we be alive by then; that, (I hope) am not sure. It may be beyond/not in our life time...but I (so) hope it is, progress happens in a storm/fast/one day to the next...or a continuous slow grind (at it is right now...Despite the major advancements...it seesm to 'stagnate'...covid showed us that...covid saw massive 'changes/movement' happening 'real time'.....anti-aging..is not obtaining that..it's relegated to 'sort of important/least priority/least funds (because we failed)'). In my mind, Aging is just as dire/important in priority as covid. But, not in the mind of authorities and people who care nothing of it, sadly. And, I realize I am in the minority; the majority still not convinced and abandoned/lost hope/don't believe it anymore. Unless there is Tangible..no tangible......well, no tangible -> no money. Results get money. Right now, we still are in the 'speculative'....with 'upcoming' rejuvenation therapies...all this is 'possible/in the maybe'...until it 'happens' 'is marketed' 'sold to the public - available'...it sort of 'doesn't exist'. Because people can't afford it/get it. And as you said, people will just not pay attention/care/can't even afford it...
That'S the reality.
And in your comment, it's clear, the problem. It's money. As a resource. Sometimes I think...we need to (re)think (out of the box) it all...Are we going in the right way (about it)?...Can we Continue with this Capitalistic Model....does this work anymore? With Our Times today....
All Signs point to not....because money as resource has flaws, named in oyour comment, we lack of it..adn then we have problems - all Life Problems...right now. In the ancient times, money as a concept was not; currency did not exist...and funnily/ironically, problems existed Less Too.
When you start to Tax/Price everything...'''we will tax your thoughts...we will tax your pee...we will put a price on the air your breathe...per day....you will be able to breathe 2 liters of Oxygen per day...or else, if can't pay 'daily oxygen tax', you die...of lack of breathing/oxygen...''...
See, it's simple, resource 'tagging'/taxing/'putting a price on your head'... on everything is the problem. We can't do that anymore, it doesn't work; we are In Deth Over Our Heads...and we think we can stop/delay aging when solving aging costs us trillions (and we Already have trillions of debts). It's why the 'no funds/lack funds'....Capitalism is good only 'up to a point'...there is 'good capistalism'...and 'bad capitalism'....good one is the one that makes 'invention happen' (like rejuvenation therapies and 'progress' in the medical research'...because of 'money/cash' as resource to make it happen) and then, bad capitalism : ''savage capitalism'' - ''get rich quick or die'' - ''make money or die'' - ''just... don't be poor; it's easy'' - ''you're poor - too bad/so sad, you can't exist in this Money Makes The World [merry] Go [not] Round - World''. I think I have never questioned more myself about money/finance than at any point in my life....''Is this working?....Not Working (anymore)''.
I think we reached the point of 'explosion/implosion' with 'funding everything'...money, as resource, as now reached its maximum and we are just in its flaws; it's Now a Devaluing Resource...not just devaluing, it's Limiting resource; it limits you; some limits have advantages...right now...too many limits..bad. ''Our Priorities Change (with time''....and, again right now, they have changed/will change again (as we learned/progressed on medical field/aging research/biogerontology); money, can't Keep Up with that research progress...we lack it. That is Serious problem that causes research progress to stall. And that is not 'end benefit'...but a serious Hinderance/Handicap.
So maybe it'S time to reconsider, money ''the problem''...as a resource...sometimes, we have to relegate old stuff we did...as old stuff 'done with'...and move on to a new model/new way of doing; I know this is Very Simplistic thinking that changing entire societies 'built on cash'...is kind of simplist; but it is what it is...we need simplicity and fixing it; I don't think much will change if we continue to use this old capitalism model (in 'capitalistic countries'); it's not working with research.
Maybe we need to go back to those old times, when money did not exist and yes there were problems then too; but right now we have Bigger problem; it's money/resource; that cause us death/no solving of aging; because Dependent on said resource (money). We have to free ourselves of the shackles/of money...kind of like when I freed myself from bankrupcy; I was insolvable...and when bankrupt...I repaid (what I could) and now ''out of debts''....I don't want any more debts ever (is that even possible in a 'credit card/loans world'); again, money the problem.
Capitalism no compatible anymore with priorities changing - solving aging; is too costly; only solution is Less costly; but Not happening; so money capitalism; must change/end some way (even if said naively; that is the 'cause/crux' of it; why is it not fixed; sure, it would entail large 'societal changes'..but sometimes, that is what is needed to advance/move on/priorities changing). What resource could we use instead...or maybe we shouldn't use any resource...we need to rethink it ('out of the (money) box').
Just a 2c.
On a side note, not sure why others think our response to COVID-19 has been so great. Only a few countries have responded in a way to effectively limit transmission, and vaccine development is proceeding at an expected pace, considering the crisis. Also, we have little idea yet what kind of efficacy we'll get from the various vaccines (esp. in the elderly), or what kind of side effects from the vaccines, or long-term effects from the virus, we'll see. Also, we've largely stopped counting the (borrowed) money we're throwing at the problem, so it's way too early to say how effective any of this spending has been. At this point, I might trust China to do something effective if it decided to tackle "aging", but the rest of us have behaved pretty poorly when it came to confronting a pressing medical issue like COVID-19. imho
PPPS: I think we need to move on from capitalism (to a new model or something); I know that it may not be possible in the current state (since capitalism is so ingrained, with democratism and republicanism; even with monarchism, dictatorialism/aurithotarianism, facism/communism, marxism, feminism/masculinism, socialism, patriotism/matriotism, Automatism/Robotism (the Future) and all other '-isms...society models); but I think there needs changes to it if we stick with this model in the future. Like a 'fluid capitalism', which is one that is permissive and permeable; not impermeable and ''the golden rule for all'' 'fixed/unbugding/the only law'....a permissive capitalism (that would allow to disengage of it, Independence of it; while still dependent on it). In other simpler words, allow us to free ourselves - from money/currency- exchange 'work for hire/money exchange' resource model. This fluidity would allow us to make things happen in these extra 'special cases/existential needs'; like poverty or needing to defeat aging (cause your life depends on it/since we age/die). When you think about it; we live in a 'unbalanced world'...or, seen another way, a 'balanced world' (to some and to other, unbalanced, and 'unfair'); like poor people and rich people...that's a balance of the 2; but who wants to be the former and die of hunger...only one choice of the two is viable; thus, unbalance; despite a balance of 'good' (rich) and 'bad' (poor). I think we can make a more fair/equal balance (kind of like what communism tried to do with a 'same wages to everybody...no endless salaries....everyone has the same salary''...it does remove the possibility of becoming a billionaire...but at least, you know Everybody has a salaray - the same as yours; and no one is in poverty. It's communism clashed with capitalism; in thought. Some people - as individuals, alone - want to be billionaires; as choice...and who cares if others die/are poor in the process; such is the problem with capitalism.
PPPPS:
''Aging is the cause of death of 90% or more of the people who live in wealthier regions of the world, and the majority of those even in the poorest regions. More than 100,000 lives every day are lost to aging, and hundreds of millions more are suffering on their way to that fate.''
Resumed in 1 word. Money. (wealth/poverty = capitalism model societies; 100,000 lives every day lost = failed model).
@dtkamp
The damage of aging can be reversed and there is no need in talking about "slowing aging" because it is useless and not necessarily easier than reversing aging. We can eliminate a lot of age related diseases without even reversing all or most of the types of damage caused by aging.
If something will kill a person who underwent a series of successful rejuvenation therapies it won't be age related. And that person won't be an elderly man at all and he/she will be like other younger people.
There is nothing "unrealistic" in defeating aging, it isn't even the hardest problem science is trying to tackle. Most of not all of the technologies for reversing the damage of aging made much more progress with much less funding than curing diseases like alzheimer or cancer so I don't get why you are so pessimistic.
I think the anti-aging movement can attract much more money for anti-aging research and for the movement itself if we explain people that the research isn't about being old forever but about being young until the day we die way after the age of 100.
There is also a need for raising the public awareness for anti-aging research because most people aren't aware that it is something that is actually being reversed little by little with current research.
Health isn't the only problem with aging, The social problems of aging are just as bad if not worse and those social problems are caused mostly because people becomes unattractive when they age and they are marked as old and irrelevant by their looks.
Most people want to look young for the rest of their lives and that why the fake "anti aging" industry of today worth more than 25 billion dollars without any real effect on the skin(a 60 years old will look like a 60 years old with all of today's cosmetic products) while a research that can reverse one of the main reason for skin aging/wrinkles(like the research made by Revel Pharmaceuticals) can barely get any funding.
One industry focus on what people really want and makes money while the other don't have good public relations and let people think that their anti-aging research is about being old forever.
@golden axe I don't see myself as being pessimistic. :) In previous posts I talked about 100 year olds with the health and appearance of today's 50 year olds as a realistic goal in not-too-distant future (later this century?), although I think that will take reprogramming aging (to create a longer-lived species, or at least periodic resetting of the aging clock), not just modifying lifestyle or cleaning up damage (i.e., our current emphasis). Also, I agree with others that we can barely imagine what the future will hold, and that we can be much more clever about this than evolution has been (i.e., we shouldn't assume life boundaries we now see are somehow reflective of fundamental biological limitations). So I consider my view to be pretty optimistic, although I don't agree that any of this will be cheap, or somehow result in reducing overall medical costs (as a rationale for funding). Also, we first have to survive as a scientific and well-intentioned society before any of this can occur, which perhaps is something to be a bit more pessimistic about. :)
@golden axe
If course I want to look better, younger, be more attractive and such. However, as long as my brain is sharp, my vision is good, and I can function without physical disabilities(back pain, knees, carpal tunnel, etc). I still can have good social and probably professional life. One cares about the looks until getting the first wakeup call too see that the internal stuff is not given, and can quickly disappear. The moment you realize how fragile your body is your priorities shift. Looks are important, especially for the teenagers who generally have only minor health complaints. I would take being fugly and functionally healthy over pretty face and nice skin with some debilitating disability.
@dtkamp
Aubrey when talking about damage means not only pathology but pre pathology tissues and cells. So, if you can reset the body to a state that needs a few years to develop a pathology and can do it indefinitely you can fix aging without really stopping it.
As for the medical costs, if we can postpone the morbidity by 10 years we will be shifting a lot of medical expenses later 10 years too. And the people could be in the workforce for a decade more . Even at minimal salary in the OECED countries a small percentage of the income could be set to cover the anti-aging treatments. Don't forget that now they are so expensive because everything is in research and customized manual mode. There's a general statistical observation for mass produced goods that the price per unit drops about 15 % with each doubling of the produced volume.( So
With the treatments the costs will be mainly R&D . So reclaiming the costs and improving the ROI would naturally require increasing the volume and getting more clients. Yes the rich will be enjoying the cream of the cream but once the R&D had been done the treatments can go mainstream. It seems that some of them might be pretty cheap. dasatinib now is about 200 USD per dose but ther patents are expiring at this very moment. There are a few that expertise in 2025, some already did. After that the cost per side could be as low as 5 dollars at the current production volumes. If the volunteers go up, probably the whole Senolytic treatment cold cost a few bucks (euros). Of course, there will be some overhead even at the cheapest places , like operations, follow-ups and general medical services.
Let's also don't forget that the world GDP per capital grows at amazing rates. Just 20 years ago it was half of what we have today. So if you can postpone the average aging and morbidity by 20 years the economy as a whole will be able to pay twice as much all else being equal.
Also, after a few versions of treatments the anti-aging techs will be eventually mastered . There will be simply less and less things that cannot be fixed reversed neck to perfectly youthful state. Once you reach that point the medical expenses will be dominated by anti-aging, emergency , and body augmentation. It is very ironic that we live just a few (I pray a couple) decades before reaching the LEV. It all depends when the first extreme treatment gets an FDA approval (door some narrow condition). If we are extremely lucky it cold be with the next 5 years. However, there should be news of successful pre-clinical trials by now, so , probably , no such luck. On the other hand, I don't expect much more than 10 years for the first arrival. The activism might push the timeline 2 to 5 years sooner. And an active opposition could postpone it at most for 10 years. In the big scheme of things nothing will change but for all of us here personally the difference could be enormous.
@Cuberat "after a few versions of treatments the anti-aging techs will be eventually mastered . There will be simply less and less things that cannot be fixed reversed neck to perfectly youthful state. Once you reach that point the medical expenses will be dominated by anti-aging, emergency , and body augmentation."
I hope you're right, but I'm not so optimistic, and think that anti-aging techs are as likely as not to simply reveal new ways of dying/aging that are even more expensive to deal with, and which we cannot yet anticipate. To the degree that we can reprogram aging in some permanent way (i.e., a longer-lived species), that might become relatively cheap, but chasing hundreds(?) of age-based flaws with advanced technologies will be quite expensive for the foreseeable future, and with many unanticipated consequences adding to that expense - although that's not a reason to ditch anti-aging research, which remains of interest to each individual. imho
@Cuberat
Your internal parts are only matters when it comes to let you live to life you want to live.
Many old people suffer from loneliness and depression regardless of any serious lack of mobility or health issue. I see many people in their 70s(including my dad) being active and doing physical work in the garden and other hard work that will be too much for me as a 27 years old man. Most people start to feel old and depressed at 40 despite being healthy. Many young people suffer from some minor disability like lack of good eyesight or some other disease or injury but it doesn't stop them from living like normal young people.
It is mainly because of people's looks, the problem with aging is much more than just being less physically active. It is a social problem. when you are marked as "old' by your looks it affects your life much more than most of the health problems of old age.
@dtkamp
I don't get your point. You mean that if we fix the aging damage we will find new types of aging damage or other ways to die?. That doesn't matter much even if it was true, we are still eliminating aging as we know it and dramatically extending human lives. We also get more decades to wait for research for reversing the new discovered type of damage from aging.
For now science know about 7 to 10 types of damage from aging and some treatments can reverse multiple types of damage from aging.
@golden axe "You mean that if we fix the aging damage we will find new types of aging damage or other ways to die?. That doesn't matter much even if it was true, we are still eliminating aging as we know it and dramatically extending human lives." That works if we're extending youth, but not if extending elderly/compromised life span. The optimists assume we'll be extending youthspan, but I think it's more likely that we'll be first extending oldspan and increasing overall medical costs in the process. In other words, it's likely we'll be doing more (at least initially) to increase the length of retirement (oldspan) than to increase the retirement age (youthspan). In the long run, I think we'll be able to create a longer-lived human (i.e., one that lives much longer in a youthful state w/o costly interventions), but in short run extending life will remain a messy business. [btw, I'd be happy to increase my current oldspan, even if it's not very cost-effective. :) ] Anyway, we'll soon know more about some of the more promising treatments, and it will be interesting to see how things play out.
The problem is the public does not care if we can extend the lifespan of mice by 25%. The dog aging project may change all that, people realy love their dogs and they will jump at the chance to extend their dogs life and health span. Once they see what Rapmycin can do for their dogs (still unknowm but promissing) they will begin to see the possiblities for humans and we can move on to even better anti-aging treatments that available today like senolytics.
@dtkamp
I think it is the other way around and we are going to extend youthspan before any serious extension in life span will be noticeable. You can extend oldspan only by curing some disease of old age and many of them like cancer and alzheimer have slower progress than most if not all of the rejuvenation therapies. In many cases it can be easier to prevent a disease than curing it.
Keeping an old person alive without reversing the damage of aging can be harder than making that person young again.
@dtkamp
I said eventually and for sure not immediately. And if assume that if each generation of the AE treatments arrives at within 5-10 years after the previous one, we are talking between 30 to 70 years to master the issue completely. 30 , is if we are extremely lucky, of course. And within 70 years the science will be ready, if we don't destroy ourselves or face some other existential threat (Evil Artificial Intelligence, global bio weapons, asteroid hitting the earth, etc) .
But what we care is the next 5 to 15 years, which will might make a difference for our relatives and, for sure, for the crowd here.
@Larry
There's a good reason not to be to overworked about murine results. What works for mice doesn't work for humans. Dogs , on the other hand, are much longer living and closer to humans. The pets suffer from modern issues like obesity, get medical treatments and live to very old age. The canine results will translate much better to humans. The dogs still are bad models, though..
@golden axe Yes, I agree with that (i.e., that it's probably easier in the long run to slow aging or rejuvinate than to fix existing cancer, etc. - an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure). But that's why I think it's misleading for some to suggest that anti-aging strategies will cure most current age-related illness, thereby reducing societal costs. The real savings (and reward) will be from getting ahead of the game, as you suggest, extending youthspan, whereas the end of the game will remain messy, even if some of the anti-aging strategies do help to prolong that ending (oldspan) by many years.
For example, Unity Biotechnology's recent attempt to address existing osteoarthritis was potentially great for old people like me, but, I think most would agree, not really what we are ultimately after, which is to prevent osteoarthritis in the first place. However, actual funding reflected the narrower goal, which doesn't fill me with confidence that we won't first be mainly extending oldspan. We'll see!
@dtkamp: "That works if we're extending youth, but not if extending elderly/compromised life span."
And here comes again, the Tithonus Error:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Afightaging.org+tithonus+error&ia=web
@Golden axe: "It is mainly because of people's looks, the problem with aging is much more than just being less physically active. It is a social problem. when you are marked as "old' by your looks it affects your life much more than most of the health problems of old age."
You are missing the point. The problem with looking old is that you ARE old, which means that people know that you don't have a long time left on earth, which means that you won't get a job, a mortgage, a lover. Basically you become a bad investment, and that's why you are cut out from all the fun. But it would be the same if 70 year olds suddenly started looking 25 again, unless their youthful looks were matched by a comparable life extension.
@Antonio "And here comes again, the Tithonus Error"
I'm talking about the cost of aging, of extending oldspan, not whether the participants would appreciate the extension (as I certainly would). Also, anti-aging enthusiasts simply _assume_ that such technology will mainly extend youthspan because that's what they would prefer, but the jury is out as to whether that is what will occur (vs. extension of oldspan). Being concerned that anti-aging techniques will be both costly and expand the proportion of us who have compromised health is not a profound philosophical error, but rather a reasonable concern based on the first hand experience we have of how medicine works, with it's emphasis on after-the-fact treatment vs. prevention. (Again, see Unity Biotech.s attempt to treat osteoarthritis with a senolytic.)
@dtkamp: "anti-aging enthusiasts simply _assume_ that such technology will mainly extend youthspan because that's what they would prefer, but the jury is out as to whether that is what will occur (vs. extension of oldspan)."
Extending oldspan comes with a self-destruction button, since what defines oldspan is high risk of death. Even if you can get a 90 year old to carry on for, say, 10 years instead of 5 by patching up issues as they appear, if you don't rejuvenate their bodies you won't reduce mortality rates to any meaningful extent. There is a limit to how much you can extend oldspan, and the way nonagenarians look indicates that we are pretty close to it already.
@Barbara T
You aren't marked as "old" just because of the time you have to live but mainly because of your looks. that why people in their 40s or even 30s feel old despite the fact that they have plenty of time left to live.
@golden axe: Apart form the fact that I don't know many people in their 30s who feel old (I am 40 and I don't) and that "feeling" is subjective, other people's perception of your age is a distal cause of oldness, as well as a relative one. I am very old to be a professional dancer, but very young to be the president of a country.
Because you see, psychologically what defines the transition between youth and old age is the progressive awareness of vanishing opportunities in the context of your (or the observer's) expectations. You can feel old even at 20 if your dream is becoming a successful football player and you are constantly outrun by fifteen year olds. Grey hair and wrinkles are a sign that informs you and others of your thinning options in life, not their cause.
Also, following your logic plastic surgery fixes the problem. Jennifer Lopez looks young and yet she is 50, a middle-aged woman no matter how people who don't know her date of birth perceive her. So if she weren't a millionaire, she wouldn't be able to get a mortgage as good as mine, like I don't get a mortgage as good as someone 10 years younger than me. If Jennifer wanted to, say, become a doctor, no medical school would accept her. In fact, I never heard of people that invest a decade of their life to embark on a career that would last less than the time they took to train for it - they just pine over the missed opportunity.
In other words, it's what you can do at your age that matters, and what you can do at your age is determined by the sand in the hourglass.
Youth and oldness are relative and shifting concepts. What's immutable is death and, with negligible variations, our time left on earth until we die.
(thanks all for this interesting discussion/thread)
@Barbara T. "Extending oldspan comes with a self-destruction button"
Hmm... Isn't that just another convenient assumption by anti-aging enthusiasts? :)
It sure seems like "damage repair" lends itself to extending oldspan. I mean, isn't that exactly how the argument is made - that we'll simply repair damage as it accumulates? But if we don't repair it all, or in a timely manner (likely the case for foreseeable future), then isn't it more likely that we'll be extending oldspan than youthspan?
Seems to me that all those techniques we develop to prevent/slow aging will also be used to simply keep the aged alive. So I don't see a good reason for thinking that the population of (biologically) older vs. younger individuals is about to dramatically decline (nor result in huge societal cost savings) due to anti-aging advances - at least not in the short term. Although I'm hopeful longer term, as noted in previous posts, based on the notion that we'll ultimately get ahead of the game and modify the aging program to create a much longer-lived species with much longer youthspan. (Also, as an old person, I appreciate anti-aging advances that keep me going, even if our ultimate goal is to have relatively fewer of me around.)
@dtkamp: "Extending oldspan comes with a self-destruction button
Hmm... Isn't that just another convenient assumption by anti-aging enthusiasts?"
Well, that depends of how you define oldspan. Chronologically, and perhaps psychologically as well as socially (at least until it becomes clear that elderly people aren't going to die anytime soon), you may be right.
But from a physiological perspective, repairing damage means making old tissue young again, so that your liver (and heart, and kidney, and lungs, etc.) is no longer inflamed, fibrotic, and about to pack up.
I think you are misinterpreting what "anti-aging enthusiasts" aim for: no one wants to extend the time spent being old, which is what current geriatrics does by "curing" one cancer today and "treating" a stroke tomorrow, since the very definition of being old is having a high risk of dying in any given year. Conversely, if you rejuvenate a biological system, which is the goal here, your mortality will drop and your time left on earth will increase.
A biologically old (!!!) person is a contradiction in terms. You can talk about old-young people only if you define oldness by some characteristic other than phenotype and expected longevity, e.g. their date of birth.
Of course, no one expects one magical treatment in the near future to fix all of the damage in one fell swoop, so what we'll see first will be 70, 80 year olds functioning like people 10, 20 years younger and dying at their rate. But this will generate huge savings, especially if society catches up and stops discriminating people based on the number on their birth certificate, which of course will only happen when there is proof that your company's rejuvenated 70 year old recruit isn't going to go senile or drop dead before the Christmas party. This is one of the reasons why developing reliable epigenetic clocks is so important.
But a biologically old person who lives a long time is a mathematical impossibility.
@Barbara T
I am talking about your actual life, mortgage and medical school only affect a small part of your life.
Many people start to feel old from their 40s or 30s and that is because of their looks and it affect how people see you more than anything else. Not everyone you meet know your birth date and its hard to compare remaining life span between different peoples because you don't know when somebody is gonna die, some people die at 70 and others dies at 90.
Plastic surgeries aren't really going to make you look younger and in many cases it have negative effects on your looks. Jennifer Lopez doesn't look that young, may be young for an average 50 years old but even that is usually with a lot of makeup.
@golden axe: How old are you? I am 40 and trust me, I don't feel old and neither do 90% of my friends, who are between 35 and 45. It's all relative - to a 15 year old you look decrepit even if you are only 25.
Also, it's way easier to doctor your looks than your risk of death, which over a certain age is high enough to deter society from giving you the best that life has to offer.
Jennifer Lopez was obviously only an example (and look at her pictures... hard to tell the difference between now and 15 years ago, when she wore just as much make up), like medical school and mortgages.
So here's a question for you: what do you want to *look* young for, if not to achieve the best career-money-relationships-housing-fun? I mean, what else is important in life?
I assure you that if you look 25 but have the mortality profile of a 70 year old you will get neither a good job nor a young wife, in fact none of the above mentioned items, because no one is willing to invest in a dying horse.
The correct order is: 1. lower mortality; 2. look better as an inescapable by product of it.
It doesn't work the other way round, neither biologically nor from the point of view of your place in society.
@Barbara T
"repairing damage means making old tissue young again"
That's a goal, not reality. Actual repair of damage (today) is not equal to restoring youth.
"no one wants to extend the time spent being old"
Another goal/intention, not reality. The net effect of early anti-aging efforts may in fact be to increase oldspan.
"if you rejuvenate a biological system, which is the goal here, your mortality will drop"
Yes, that's a goal/ideal, not reality.
"a biologically old person who lives a long time is a mathematical impossibility"
If we agree today's typical 65 year old is biologically "old", then I see no reason why we aren't at risk of creating a population dominated by such "old" people using the latest anti-aging interventions, especially given our inclination to treat rather than prevent. And such old people might live a very long time relative to total lifetime (i.e., they might spend almost half their life in that state). I realize the _goal/intent_ is to rejuvenate such folks, but the reality is more likely that such rejuvenation will be far from perfect, and simply slow aging, especially in the near future.
Anyway, my original objection was to the notion that anti-aging advances would cure most disease and thereby greatly reduce societal costs as a rationale for its funding. The response to my objection from the enthusiasts seems be that, by definition, any less-than-perfect outcome from anti-aging-related treatments means that those treatments are not true anti-aging treatments (i.e., if oldspan increases, then you did it wrong!). Okay, I'm not against idealism per se, but those writing the checks probably want a more realistic estimate of cost/benefit, meaning we have to consider what the overall effect of all these early anti-aging treatments might be, and I'm just skeptical about them turning out to be rejuvenating in such a simple way as proposed, or that such treatments won't be used primarily to extend oldspan.
By the way, I can tell your from the height of my old age that if I don't go back to school for a change of career, it is not because of how I look, but because it isn't sensible to waste years of life to be in a position where I don't get hired due to my age. So yeah, in a way I do feel old, but it is not because of my incipient crow's feet or those 7 grey hair.
It wouldn't be wrinkles to stop me from spending more than half a decade in education to become a bridge engineer, rather a potential employer's (totally understandable) hesitation to hire someone with a limited future due to diminishing energy, faltering health, and slowing mental acuity.
Looks are a proxy that society and, on an individual level, people use to determine a person's value (=usefulness to their purposes). This value doesn't consist of *looking* young, unless your aim is to score a modelling gig with Forever 21, but in *being* young, i.e. having a long future.
You must be really young (chronologically) to think that a youthful look is more important than life itself, and that it determines your behaviour and the choices of those you interact with.
Other example: if I were searching for a new romantic partner I wouldn't go for a 55 year old, no matter how good he looks (and I can think of a few - certainly nipped and tucked - actors that I find physically attractive) because I would be concerned about him getting sick and dying.
On the other hand, I would't consider a 25 year old either, because given how society is constructed - how it breaks up people's lifespan in preordained segments - we would clash about how to live our lives. This is such an important issue, at least at my age, that I can honestly say that I don't find men at the peak of their youthful vigour attractive, if not in a rarefied aesthetic perspective - as in: oh, that china looks exquisite.
You may think that looking 22 is the be-all and end-all, but you'll change your mind in the future, when losing loved ones to old age and feeling that you don't have TIME to do all the things that you want becomes more of a problem.
@Barbara T
To a 15 years old a 25 years old man is an adult but not old as long as that person look like the average 25 years old. People began to be considered old in their 30s and 40s because in most cases those are the ages were people start looking old. May be you definition of old is different from their definition but that doesn't matter much because most people who are 40 years old look different from people who are 20 years old. and it have much greater effect on your social life than how many years you might live.
Just knowing that you look good can make you happy and feel good about yourself.
The way you looks affects the way people perceive you and is much more than getting a job or a wife.
Many rich old/ugly men manage to get a lot of hypergamous gold diggers. in fact many women tend to prefer older men because they look for a "daddy" that will provide and take care of them. It disgust me and I don't want to be in this kind of "relationship" and it is no better than using an escort girl "services". Many men thinks like me and other just learned to accept it because our society is keeping the man stuck in his traditional roles even through they are no longer relevant in modern society with modern women.
Many men including me prefer to be with a woman who is really attracted to them like they are attracted to her and feel hot and pretty and not just "hot" in a "manly" way, but society tells them that their only value is based on how much they can provide and take care of the woman.
What I wrote her answer your question about why I want to look young. And for your other question, I am 27 years old.
And we will have lower mortality only after we reduce the effect of aging on our bodies and since there are much more reasons for death than skin aging we are going to retain our youthful looks before we notice any real change in mortality.
@Barbara T
At 40 years of age you have plenty of time to spend 5 years on education and work in the field. Some employers might discriminate you because of age but it isn't that unusual to find a different career in that age. Many people feel "old" for new education because there are much younger students in most universities and they think that they will stand out, mainly because of their looks.
It have nothing to do with how many years have left in their lives, those people I am talking about are in their 30s or late twenties. Who counts his/her remaining years in life in those ages?.
dtkamp, of course early anti-aging efforts won't be perfect. Who says otherwise?
The anti-aging enthusiasts, as you call them, talk about what they want to achieve, not about what we already have. As I said, we know that all that geriatrics does is help old timers linger on a few more years.
I also don't understand your contention that old people will live a very long time. How?
Being very old means BY DEFINITION that your mortality risk is very high. Keep an 80 year old in the state of an 80 year old for 10 years instead of letting nature run its course, and he'll die at 95 instead of 90. Five extra years is hardly a long time. Mathematics dictates that someone with the mortality profile of an 80 year old will not live much longer. It is simply not possible.
Conversely, if you take that same 80 year old back to the state of a 65 year old you have effectively rejuvenated him, possibly buying him time to see second and third generation treatments that may shave another decade or two off his biological body. And so on so forth.
And even if nothing better than these early treatments is ever invented, he will have gained a couple of decades to enjoy life, like many 65 year olds do today.
Also, if you return an 80 year old to the state of a 65 year old you save money on healthcare, most of which is spent during a person's last 12 months of life. Sure this person will die one day and it will be expensive, but the expense can be offset by allowing them to be productive for longer.
Finally: "The response to my objection from the enthusiasts seems be that, by definition, any less-than-perfect outcome from anti-aging-related treatments means that those treatments are not true anti-aging treatments."
Who says that?
What they mean is that there is a conceptual difference between slowing aging by tinkering with metabolism (see metformin) and reversing it, be it through repair strategies or reprogramming. Slowing aging is "not true anti-aging treatments" because the gains are limited and hit a roof.
On the other hand, reversing aging - and nobody disputes that initially this will mean turning a 70 year old into his 60 year old biological self, not into a twenty-something - is the path to the pot of gold. Only, this isn't idealism or fantasy, because unlike only 10 years ago nowadays everybody agrees that reversing aging is not a question of if but of when.
@golden axe: ok, you are totally missing the point.
"Many people feel "old" for new education because there are much younger students in most universities and they think that they will stand out, mainly because of their looks."
You think people in their 30s and 40s reject education because they are ashamed of "their looks," with the judgement here coming from a crowd they couldn't care less about?
Seriously, how old are you, 12?
Also: "It have nothing to do with how many years have left in their lives, those people I am talking about are in their 30s or late twenties."
If you think that gerontology's aim is to soothe the insecurities of a twenty-something who feels "old" because they don't have the skin of a teenager... well, you are missing the point to an extent that I don't quite understand what you are looking to find in this forum (Derm forum seems more appropriate).
You are not old when you are in your 20s. Period.
@dtkamp: "I'm talking about the cost of aging, of extending oldspan, not whether the participants would appreciate the extension"
You didn't understood the Tithonus Error definition. The Tithonus Error is the belief that you can extend lifespan without extending healthspan. Biologically, the Tithonus Error makes no sense at all.
@Barbara T
People in their 30s and 40s refuse to attend university because they will stand out and I saw many people who say it and it isn't about being "ashamed for their looks" but about the simple fact that they feel very different from younger people and looks have a major role in this. There are some other reasons for this like the "plan" they have for their lives because most people want to get married and have kids before some age, usually 30 and looks also play a role in those cases.
You have plenty of time left naturally as a 30 or 40 years old so it isn't what prevents most people in their 30s or 40s to get new education.
I am not saying that you are old in your 20s,30s or 40s, you are young when it comes to how many years you have to live without any special treatment, but in terms of looks you can become old in your 20s,30s or 40s.
What I am saying is that your looks have a major role in society and your social life and there is no point in trying to deny this fact.
And I am not the only one who want to look young for the rest of his/her life. Are you saying that you don't care about your looks and don't want to look young?.
For the love of god: people in their 30s and 40s don't "refuse" (!!!) "to attend university" because of their looks, and "looks [don't] have a major role" in the fact that "they feel very different from younger people."
The issue is that a 35 year old would die of boredom getting sloshed in a student bar with a bunch of 18 year olds. Unless the 35 year old in question has a serious case of arrested development, her feeling "very different" stems from the fact that she has zero interest in socialising with children. If what she wants is gaining an education for career purposes, she doesn't give a flying f about the student bar or, as a matter of fact, the students. She doesn't scuttle away after class because she is "afraid of standing out" as you seem to think. She scuttles away after class because she has better things to do. I can tell you this because I've been there. I started a degree when I was 18 and another when I was 32, which is when I realised that my 18 year old self had no idea whatsoever of what my 32 year old self would feel a decade and a half down the line. Tell me what an "old" person like me feels when you are "old" yourself instead of projecting your feelings onto people you clearly don't understand.
Second, you really don't understand that looking old is a proxy for being old, not the actual issue, do you?
A 30 year old worries about a grey hair today because she knows that it portends *actual* old age and disability. It's a lil' window into the far off future, not a problem at that stage, unless for some strange reason she needs to look much younger than she is (perhaps she is an undercover agent in a high school?)
Following from this:
1) I wouldn't want to look 20 because it would cause huge problems at work since no one would take me seriously. I don't aspire to become the next supermodel, to be a groupie, or to snatch a spotty 19 year old (yikes), so why would I want that? Let's say I decide to go back to uni. Why would I want to be mistaken for a 20 year old and then either have to explain myself endlessly to avoid the mind-numbing boredom of conversing with a bunch of kids, or be a total fraud, lie and pretend to be 20 until my teenage boyfriend sees my passport and his mum calls the police. Seriously, for what??
Looking 35 when I am 55... sure (and I could be wrong), but looking 20 without any extra life when my birth certificate, career stage, life experience etc. say otherwise... no, thanks.
2) I would happily have 100 extra years of life looking 40 (and even 50 or perhaps 60), over having 40 extra years of life looking 20 - IF society and everybody else knew it and treated me accordingly. One last time: there is nothing *intrinsically* negative in looking, say, 50. The problem is that this phenotype is a cue for society that your options are narrowing. For example, you can't be hired for physically demanding jobs and you can't bear children. And even if you do choose to have children with donor eggs or whatever at that ripe old age, you will never stop hearing the tut tuts of those who brand you a selfish bitch for giving birth to someone who has a good chance of being orphaned at a relatively young age.
It's not looks, it's life.
As for the rest... dude, I suggest that you grow up before worrying about getting old.
@Barbara T "Conversely, if you take that same 80 year old back to the state of a 65 year old you have effectively rejuvenated him, possibly buying him time to see second and third generation treatments that may shave another decade or two off his biological body. And so on so forth.
And even if nothing better than these early treatments is ever invented, he will have gained a couple of decades to enjoy life, like many 65 year olds do today."
You're making my point. Now you've got a society full of biological 65-80 year olds, living for decades in that prolonged state. People at those ages have all sorts of medical problems, along with greater susceptibility to stress, both physical and psychological, along with many physical limitations (there's a biological reason why the retirement age is near 65).
@Antonio
Of course you can extend lifespan without extending (youthful) healthspan. Poor states of health do not guarantee death anytime soon, especially if we keep tweaking the system back to a previously somewhat less unhealthy state (see above discussion).
@dtkamp:
1. "Now you've got a society full of biological 65-80 year olds." That's not that old. My parents are early 70s and very happy to go on. My dad still runs his business and my mum travels a lot. They have no issues apart from high blood pressure, which is under control with cheap meds.
2. Unless your idea is to shoot everyone when they turn 80, if you rejuvenate all the 80 year olds to being 65 again, you end up with a much younger society, not an older one as you claim.
3. You can't be rejuvenated to 25 before being rejuvenated to 65 (or 77 or 51 or whatever). It's just an unavoidable step along the way without which we'll never get anywhere. A magic pill that just bam! shaves 50 years off you overnight is never going to exist. It's all incremental, if hopefully exponential.
"Poor states of health do not guarantee death anytime soon, especially if we keep tweaking the system back to a previously somewhat less unhealthy state (see above discussion)."
In the above discussion I actually made the point that keeping an 80 year old at the age of 80 for more than a few years is mathematically impossible because an 80 year old has a relatively high chance of dying every year. So either you start rejuvenating him by making his body a little younger as time goes by - so 79, 77, 71, 68, 65 etc. - until he is young for real (although you'll lose many along the way), or HE.JUST.WON'T.LAST.LONG.
You can't keep people old forever because old age is not static but dynamic, with the movement's direction being towards death and the speed of that movement at age 80 fast enough to guarantee a head-on collision in the near future.
@Barbara T
In my country(Israel) people usually start academic education in their mid twenties and still many people in their early thirties don't want to go to a university because they afraid they won't fit in socially. There are several reasons for that and they includes appearance.
You just refuse to understand the simple fact that looks play a significant role in social interactions and the ability of people to fit in some group of people.
I don't think anyone who find some new wrinkles or gray hairs think about old age diseases like alzheimer or heart diseases. It simply affects their appearance, that why there is a multi-billion dollar industry based on selling non effective "anti-aging" products that hides those signs of age.
You can claim that you personally don't want to look younger but when you just deny that anyone but me want it or pay attention to appearance its hard to take you seriously here.
You need to stop taking what I am saying as a personal attack on you. If you don't care about looking hot and attractive and don't want to talk with "children" that is your right and you don't need to ignore the existence of people who don't think like you.
@Barbara T
The current average death rate (few % per yr for age range 65-80, as I recall) is due to specific physical causes that would likely be at least partially addressed in a world where limited rejuvenation is undertaken, so the notion that biologically older folks will auto-self-destruct on queue to limit their numbers is just wishful thinking. Also, their numbers will be continually augmented by those who are either unable to be rejuvenated at younger ages (for technical or monetary reasons), or who simply choose to wait until aging is obvious (i.e., until something goes wrong). And, interestingly, that's exactly the history we've seen with medicine and patient behavior: after-the-fact treatment, with limited prevention, getting people stuck in prolonged, less-than-optimal (relatively unhealthy) states.
With regard to people being happy to be stuck at (biological) age 65-80, with all its limitations, well I don't get that at all, and doubt if most in the anti-aging community have that in mind. Sure, lots of people are happy at that age, but that's confounded by retirement, which often reduces stress enough to accommodate their newfound frailties. If you give such people a choice between living in a younger state or in an older state for the next 50 years, they would obviously choose the younger state, with its greater energy, disease resistance, robustness, etc.
We're essentially arguing about how the population statistics will play out in the context of imperfect anti-aging treatments, and whether there is a risk that such treatments will make things worse rather than better with respect to societal costs (even if preferred by individuals). I concede that I don't know the answer to that question, but so far the counter-arguments seem weak, containing more hope than fact. imho Of course I hope you're right! (but suspect you're wrong) :)
@"You just refuse to understand the simple fact that looks play a significant role in social interactions and the ability of people to fit in some group of people."
Sure, looks play a significant role in social interactions and I want to be the best looking chick in my milieu. But "you just refuse to understand" that since I am 40, I have zero interest in hanging with 18 year olds (the group I would fit into if I looked the age you are peddling), and thus I couldn't care less if they thought that I looked old. I have no interest in being "hot and attractive" to people I am not attracted to myself, to kids who don't have a say in what I can do with my life. Their judgement has zero bearing on my existence. I mean, do you care if a 14 year old won't touch you with a bargepole because she thinks that you look decrepit? Ok, maybe you do care, but then I would say that you have serious issues you need to take urgently care of.
So one more time: I never said that people, or I, don't care about appearances. What I said is that I care about life much more than I care about looks, and that I have no use for looking 20 when I am 60, because unless these looks come with added life they would be utterly un-usable.
No 20 year old boy would marry me because no matter how young I "look", I would be dead before he is 40 and too tired to do 90% of the stuff he wants to do before he is even out of his 20s. No one would give me a new job, or a mortgage, or a business loan without a collateral etc. etc. etc. (refresh your memory with my post above.)
Also, I am pretty sure that when I am 60, like every other 60 year old I have ever met, I will have no desire to (re)start popping pills in clubs and instagram my butt to "fit in with some group of people" i.e. a bunch of teenagers. I mean, is this what you think life is, not moving on from adolescence? Jeeezzzzus.
By the same token, why would kids in their early 20s want to hang out with someone who may look like them but is on a different planet as far as interests go? What would they talk about? Do you think that a 20 something wants to discuss grandchildren and gardening, learning tax return tips, and listening to music that played on the radio before they were born? Come on.
You don't seem to understand that looking young is not the reason people bond, and that the world - employers, romantic partners, banks etc. - cares a lot less about how you look than about how long you are expected to remain on this planet.
But anyway, I don't take your ideas as a personal attack at all. I am just reminding you that anti-aging is not about making someone who is biologically old look "hot and attractive" but about making them live much longer, healthier lives, with youthful beauty being only a welcome BY-PRODUCT of the effort, not its goal as you seem to believe.
As I said earlier, if that is what you are interested in, you will find that a dermatology forum is much more in tune with your ideas.
1) "the notion that biologically older folks will auto-self-destruct on queue to limit their numbers is just wishful thinking."
It's not a notion, it's mathematics! If a person's risk of getting a killer disease is 50% of the risk they had before undergoing partial rejuvenation, they will STILL die of a killer disease, likely 8 years later since 8 years is mortality's doubling time after the age of 30 (Gompertz law). Seriously, it is against the laws of physics to have old people not dying. The older the person, the sooner they die.
2) "With regard to people being happy to be stuck at (biological) age 65-80, with all its limitations, well I don't get that at all, and doubt if most in the anti-aging community have that in mind."
I never said that. What I said is that by giving an 80 year old 15 years of extra life they may have a shot at living long enough to benefit from better second and third generation therapies that will rejuvenate them further. This is the concept that de Grey calls LEV, longevity escape velocity. And if your rejuvenated 80 year old isn't so lucky to get there, he will still be grateful for 15 years of extra life lived as a relatively active person rather than as a bed-ridden 95 year old.
3) "their numbers will be continually augmented by those who are either unable to be rejuvenated at younger ages (for technical or monetary reasons), or who simply choose to wait until aging is obvious (i.e., until something goes wrong)."
??? Those who can't be rejuvenated will die, as they do now. They won't just linger around forever with other throngs of zombies - which won't be such anyway because those who don't die will get younger as new therapeutics come to the market. I don't understand why you think that it is possible to shave 15 years off an 80 year old but impossible to do the same for someone who is 65. The damage they suffer from is the same, and if anything it should be easier to attack it in younger cohorts, when it hasn't yet produced too many downstream issues.
In essence, I think that you are conflating slowing aging with rejuvenation, both of which are pursued by the "anti-aging community" as this is a very vague, very large umbrella.
If you do the first you may end up with people living a few extra years (not remotely as many as you think though) in bodies that are biologically 80+. But rejuvenation through damage repair or reprogramming operates on entirely different premises and has entirely different outcomes.
@dtkamp: "Of course you can extend lifespan without extending (youthful) healthspan."
You should read (carefully) some of the articles I linked and also some other introductory articles, like those in the right bar: what damage-repair is, what other approaches are there, why damage-repair should be better, what the Gompertz equation is, etc. It's a bit boring to explain the standard mistakes that have been explained time and again and are already compiled in introductory articles.
Anyway, I'll explain why the Tithonus Error is wrong. If you have the level of damage of a 80 years old and your damage burden evolves at the rate of an 80 yo, you will have the same life expectancy of an 80 yo. There is no magical aging clock that dictates that you have to die in schedule independently of your level of damage, a clock that you can medically modify and make you live longer while being decrepit and frail. Damage increases exponentially, as does your mortality risk. No gerontologist of any school of thougt supports the Tithonus Error.
Excellent essay Reason. This was the article I'd been hoping from you since the Covid lockdowns started.
I read it the same day my 87 year old mother was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus. The zombie stupidity of the human race is almost too much for me sometimes.
@Barbara T
I am not talking just about social bonding with people, I am mainly talking about how will you standout because of your looks in many places that are filled with young people.
I gave you some example about how many people feel uncomfortable with going to places that are filled with younger people even when the age gap is insignificant when it comes to measuring how many years you have left to live. And not you or people in their 30s can call people in their twenties "children", the age gap is way to small for this.
Many people get shamed for not "acting their age" just because they are older people who act like people in their early twenties especially when it comes to dressing or just having fun. And in most cases you get this treatment from people who don't really know you and your date of birth because of skin aging.
I am trying to explain you that a lot of the bad influence of aging on people's lives is related to how you are marked as "old" and it is mostly because of appearance rather than how many years you think you have to live. Your example with a 60 years old woman and a 20 years old guy doesn't prove much because you can see the same thing even when the age gap is insignificant in terms of how many years you have left to live.
I never said that your life span doesn't matter, but in most cases it doesn't have much of influence on your life.
Women usually live longer than men but you can notice that most women prefer men who are older than them because most people under 60 don't count how many years they have to live and don't live their life according to this.
And why should a 14 years old find me "decrepit"? I probably look better than her and anyway she is irrelevant for me romantically/sexually because she is a minor and it is a completely different thing than dating someone in legal age that is chronologically younger than you.
You need to realize that many people in their 60s want to do many of the things they done when they were younger but they are shackled by the fact that they are marked as "old" by their appearance and they are afraid of the reaction of people who don't know anything about them.
You also need to realize that there is nothing wrong with not acting according to your age and do things that look more suitable for 20 years old "children".
"I am not talking just about social bonding with people, I am mainly talking about how will you standout because of your looks in many places that are filled with young people."
-
Ah, ok. That level of shallowness. Surely evening out the appearance of people in bars is what drives the greatest scientific effort of our times!
Also:
Is it really that hard for you to understand that most non-teenagers don't give a toss about how teenagers perceive them? Or do you think that my 40 year old friends and I are afraid that we'll "stand out" if we go and sit in a restaurant where there are a bunch of people in their 20s? Why on earth should we care? We don't, just like you don't care about what children think when you sit in a McDonald's filled with them.
You need to stop telling 40, 60 year old people how they feel based on how YOU feel now or imagine that YOU will feel when you are their age.
I think you may want to look for professional help - I am talking about a psychologist - if the appearance of your skin is giving you this level of social anxiety.
---------
"And why should a 14 years old find me "decrepit"?"
-
Because you are. Anyone over 20 looked decrepit to me when I was that age
---------
"She is irrelevant for me romantically/sexually because she is a minor and it is a completely different thing than dating someone in legal age that is chronologically younger than you.!"
-
And you can't understand that just like you don't want to date a 14 year old (hopefully because you have nothing in common, not because you are afraid that you'll get arrested) or be part of her "social group," equally older people may not want to date or hang out with someone much younger. I wouldn't date a 25 year old, and not for fear of "standing out."
Get over yourself, will you.
---------
"Your example with a 60 years old woman and a 20 years old guy doesn't prove much because you can see the same thing even when the age gap is insignificant in terms of how many years you have left to live."
-
Uh????
---------
"You need to realize that many people in their 60s want to do many of the things they done when they were younger but they are shackled by the fact that they are marked as "old" by their appearance and they are afraid of the reaction of people who don't know anything about them."
-
No they don't. They are tired, they have other interests, other priorities, yawn at the stuff their grandkids do. Do you still want to play with Action Man like you did at age 8? Why don't you go and skip rope with the tweens in the park?
How incredibly self-absorbed to believe that the things that you, golden axe, want to do at age 27 are the things that any 60 year old without a serious case of arrested development wants to do. And that the only reason these 60 year olds don't go clubbing, post selfies on instagram, or camp out in the mud at a music festival is because they worry that their "looks" will make them "stand out."
You really, truly, have no idea of what you are talking about. I am flabbergasted.
-
"Life span [...] doesn't have much of influence on your life."
-
Hahahaha!!!
You must be a comedian.
Or a 12 year old.
PS. you may want to check this out, it may help your anxiety:
https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/skin-care-secrets/anti-aging
Barbara T. is a bully and makes ad hominem attacks, how is she allowed to comment?
@Barbara T
There are very common facts you keep deny over and over again because you take it as some kind of an insult from some reason:
1. Usually people avoid some activities and behaviors because they are afraid that because of their age they will look weird and be judged by other people (regardless of those people's age) who will judge them for not acting their age. It can be anything from going to a night club to just stay single and enjoy life because the people who are doing it are usually young.
2. The reason why some people are considered "old" is mostly because of their appearance and not because of some estimation of their remaining life span. Many people considers 30 as "old" despite the fact that they can easily live as much as a 20 years old, especially if you are a woman and he is a man because women tend to live longer.
3. Everybody who really cares about their looks want to look young because it simply looks better. young appearance is more attractive regardless of the years you have to live.
Those are known and obvious facts but you insist to deny it and comes up with statements about how people like you don't care about what teenagers think about them despite the fact that it have nothing to do with what I say. You also refuse to understand the obvious fact that there is a big difference between an adult who is younger than you and an actual minor.
You can't treat adult people in their 20s as "children" or as less developed than you. I really hopes you don't do it in real life because that will be extremely rude.
Stop taking what I say as an insult to you, I am talking about people in general and not on your specific case.
I mostly agree with Barbara on the looks debate. Most middle aged / old people I know don't mix in youngsters groups mainly because they are not interested in what they do. That doesn't mean that they can't do activities they did in their youth, like taking a second university degree, but their approach is different, more interested in the study and less interested in social activities.
Play nice. I don't like to delete conversations, but I will if people can't behave.
@Antonio
Many people in older ages tend to stick with some friends they knew when they were younger in university/college or high school. They also tend to make less new friends and there was even some studies about this.
People are much more than just their age and you can find younger or older people who are more like you than people your age. and sometimes you have to socialize with people even when they are not exactly like you.
@mcmp:
So, isn't calling me "a bully" an ad hominem attack?
After a dozen posts where a twenty-something insists that I "must realise" that people my age are "depressed" and "afraid" because a random twenty-something in the crowd like him thinks that we look "old" I am frankly tired of being hectored.
If golden axe feels like his face is too old for a student bar I feel sorry for him. Botox will help.
But claiming that most 60+ year olds would rather have a face that won't let them "stand out" at a Cardi B concert (because that's what sixty-somethings secretly want to do) rather than good health and more life in good health is bonkers.
His words: "when you are marked as "old' by your looks it affects your life much more than most of the health problems of old age."
No. Frailty, illness, pain, and death affect your life much more that being a 30-35 year old (his stated cutoff for "old") with a less supple complexion than the people sitting behind you in a bar.
Or would you prefer fooling a random stranger that you are 20 years old over not having cancer?
If so, please elaborate. I may have got it all wrong.
My understanding is that giving old people skin smooth enough for clubbing (without any health benefits) is NOT why scientists are trying to reverse aging. Period.
@Barbara T
There was nothing in my quote about choosing good appearance over health in general. There are many things that are considered "health problems" that aren't life threatening or affect too much your ability to live your life like reduced strength or stamina in old age. There are many young people with similar health problems that are common in old age that live typical happy lives of people their age.
""depressed" and "afraid" because a random twenty-something in the crowd like him thinks that we look "old""
You just keep twisting what I am saying and interpret everything I say as an insult instead of actually trying to understand.
Many people feel too old to do many things because they feel that they will stand out and be judged by people around them(20 years old are adult people and not "children") even when they are just 30 years old(I never said 30 is old but that many people consider this age "old") and have most of their lives ahead of them. You know why people get "old" so quickly and being marked as "old"?, mostly because of their appearance.
I saw many questions online from people who ask if they are too "old" to do things like university or going to night clubs while they were just in their 30s or even late 20s and they mentioned the fact that most of the people in those places are younger than them as the main problem. You said that you don't want to talk with 20 years old "children" as a 40 years old but I am talking here on an even smaller age gap of only several years.
There is no reason you won't be able to socialize with people just because they are several years younger than you.
Appearance have an important effect on your life and that why you can see people feeling "old" at ages like 30 because they or other people in their age start to look old.
If everybody was looking young than the term "old" would loose its meaning in many social scenarios.
@golden axe:
I wrote a point-by-point reply to your last iteration of the same erroneous convictions you started out with, but then I decided that I will post it on my blog as an example of age-stereotyping. Adding another wall of text only to repeat, for the millionth time, something that you don't want to hear would be spamming this thread even further.
Suffice to say that I don't take your opinions as a "personal" insult.
I am insulted in a more diffuse way on behalf of my generation because you keep insisting that we feel the way you imagine we feel, and not the way we do feel.
If you want to believe that most of us in our 30s and 40s are "afraid" to go out because we feel "old"
and that we "worry" about being "judged by other people"
and that this is "because of skin aging"
and that we want to do the same things we did when we were 20
and that we refrain from engaging in these activities "because [we] will look weird"
and that we "refuse to attend university" because "[we] think that [we] will stand out, mainly because of looks" (as opposed to because we are afraid of giving up a paycheck and blow our savings in the hope of a career we may not excel at due to a shorter TIME LEFT before retirement)
... if you want to believe all of these things, feel free.
If you want to believe that "looking old affects your life much more than most of the health problems of old age" (I am, as always, quoting you verbatim), and thus that old people want to look good in a nightclub much more than they want to avoid age-related diseases that are not immediately fatal (the logical consequence of your words), feel free too.
But stop pushing your fantasies about people you clearly know very little about ON these people, even after they told you repeatedly that you are wrong.
It is ludicrously arrogant. And infuriating.
Or, be ready for me to "explain to you" what most 20 something Israeli men feel, think, and want. Because you see, I saw a forum about it on the internet last week and once I even hung out with a couple of dudes from Tel Aviv!
Surely I must know young Israeli men better than a young Israeli man does.
@Barbara T
Again you focus on taking what I am saying as an insult instead of actually thinking about what I am saying.
I gave you examples on how even people in their early 30s or late 20s feel "old" in some scenarios like going to universities, so how is this because of their remaining life span or not being able to find job?. BTW many people make a career change at the age of 40. I also saw many online questions about people asking if they are "too old" to go to university in their 30s(or younger) and they said it themselves that they fear to standout among people in a different age group.
And its not like a 30 years old can't at least socialize with people only several years younger than him/her.
"and that we "worry" about being "judged by other people""
Almost everybody is worried about being judged by others and people(at any age) judge people who "don't act their age".
"and that this is "because of skin aging""
Appearance affects the way people perceive you.
"and that we want to do the same things we did when we were 20"
Your hobbies don't need to change with your age. The main reason people change their hobbies with age is kids and family and in most cases it is forced on them by their new life or by society itself.
"and that we refrain from engaging in these activities "because [we] will look weird""
When people "don't act their age" they are being judged by society and by strangers who don't know their date of birth.
The way you generalize about what people your age should or shouldn't want to do just because they are in their 40s instead of 20s is a good example for that.
"old people want to look good in a nightclub much more than they want to avoid age-related diseases that are not immediately fatal"
This is not the logic of what I am saying. Not any age related health problem is fatal at any point. You don't die from hearing problems or Constipation.
You just keeping ignoring my point that life is much more than being alive and healthy and there are other important things.
You probably saw in your life an example for almost everything I mentioned here. You just act as if I am making those things up because you feel "insulted in a more diffuse way". Your attitude is just wrong and it prevents you from understanding what I am saying.
"in your life" I mean that you saw those things yourself by watching other people or even by watching TV
For goodness sake: the reasons most people in their late 20s and 30s feel "old" going to university has nothing to do with looks.
1) They (or we, since I have first hand knowledge of this) have little in common with an 18 year old; they are boring, and this is why we don't want to socialise with them.
and / or:
2) We worry about graduating at 35+ and starting anew on a junior salary; we worry about competing with 21 year olds, who are preferred by graduate recruitment schemes because more malleable; we worry about getting in debt after giving up a well paying job; we worry about not inconveniencing our families.
We DO NOT worry about what the pimply 18 year old who sits next to us in class will think of our skin.
You may have found a few such people on an internet forum (like I found you here), but those people are NOT representative of my age group, which you clearly have zero understanding of.
-
"Almost everybody is worried about being judged by others and people(at any age) judge people who "don't act their age."
No they aren't and no they don't.
First, we are not worried about being judged by "others" (as opposed to someone whose opinion we value), especially if we don't pretend to be 20, which is not something that the vast of majority of people my age do. And that's because we are JUST.NOT.INTERESTED in a second helping of the stuff we did when we were 20, or in hanging out with 20 year olds. We can speak to them, of course, but given the choice we will mingle with people closer to us in age because - and I know this will come as a shock to you - we just like them better.
Second, I don't know who your friends are, but most people I know - of any age, as you say - don't expend much energy judging others for not acting their age. Most people are not that petty or devoid of better things to dwell on.
-
When people "don't act their age" they are being judged by society and by strangers who don't know their date of birth.
Again: very few people "don't act their age," because when a 40 year old goes for drinks in a bar, or dancing (not in student clubs, which 30+ year olds are just.not.interested.in), or to restaurants, or scubadiving, or shopping, or travelling etc. nobody thinks that they are not acting their age.
We don't care about how you, a "stranger" we won't ever talk to, feel about our behaviour.
Take off your blinkers: people don't judge us for going about our lives, and either way, we don't care if some crazy person thinks that our skin is too old for us to go skiing without "feeling weird."
-
"This is not the logic of what I am saying. Not any age related health problem is fatal at any point. You don't die from hearing problems or Constipation."
!!!
Hearing problems and constipation are not "most of the health problems of old age."
1) Have you ever met an old person?
Are you aware of the existence of "health problems of old age" like heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, COPD, hypertension, cognitive impairment, osteoporosis... the list is too long to continue.
Do you believe that a 70 year old would choose to have a face that allows him to not "stand out" when he goes clubbing (which he won't be able to do even if for some absurd reason - probably dementia - he wanted to, due to his osteoarthritis, COPD etc.) over getting rid of even one of those diseases?
You think that not looking like the 20 year old with whom he doesn't want to spend time in the first place "affects [his] life much more than most of the health problems of old age," these problems being the diseases I mentioned or even, for that matter, hearing loss?
2) I have to repeat this: have you ever met an old person?
"You focus on taking what I am saying as an insult instead of actually thinking about what I am saying."
Because what you are saying IS an insult, since you keep insisting that we are wrong about our own feelings.
We do not feel about things the way you claim that we do.
Period.
You are projecting your own insecurities and desires on us, because you cannot - will not - understand that the priorities of someone who is 40 like me are not the priorities of someone who is 20 like you.
Your worry is looking too old to be in a student bar and being "judged by strangers."
Our worry is BEING too old to have children, to change careers, to get a good job etc.
Our worries are our aging parents, who would much rather get rid of their diabetes than have the skin of a 20 year old.
Period.
What arrogance to think that the desires of a twenty something - or even of all the twenty somethings in the world - is the blueprint for what everybody else desires from their life.
"Your hobbies don't need to change with your age. The main reason people change their hobbies with age is kids and family and in most cases it is forced on them by their new life or by society itself."
1) First of all, no. Most people don't end up with a family because "it is forced on them by society."
You don't want a family? Fine.
You think that most 30+ don't want a family - with kids or without? You are very wrong.
Stop insisting that everybody else in the world has you fringe views.
2) Second. Of course I don't have to change my hobbies, and I didn't.
I liked going to bars when I was 20 and I still like it today - so I do it (of course, I graduated out of the student union and cheap tequila shots.)
I liked skiing when I was 20 and I still like it today - so I do it.
I liked travelling when I was 20 and I still like it today - so I do it (and thank god I don't need to stay in stinky dorms anymore.)
The difference, what has changed, is that I do all these fun things with people my age, not 20 year olds like when I was 20 year old myself. Some of my mates are old friends, some are new.
Because you know, you can still meet likeminded people if you don't hang out in places full of non-likeminded people, e.g. for people my age: a student bar.
I stopped doing stuff like popping pills in clubs (I still go dancing, but it's tango now) over a decade ago, and it wasn't because I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror and thought: oh god! I can't show my face in a club anymore because at age 28 and with this faint line on my forehead people will think that I am weird!
I stopped because I got to tired of it, it became b-o-r-i-n-g.
Are you acquainted with the concept of personal development?
And guess what, since I do all these good things (old and new) with people who are roughly 35-45, nobody "judges me for not acting my age" or sees me as "old."
Problem solved!
You still haven't figured that perceptions of "old" and "young" are relative, uh?
"You probably saw in your life an example for almost everything I mentioned here."
"in your life" I mean that you saw those things yourself by watching other people or even by watching TV"
-
?????
Are you basically telling me that I am right, as in, the only evidence for your claims can be find on TV rather than in actual life?
Or better, in MY life, since I am a component of the age group that you insist on misrepresenting.
Because no, with a hand on my heart I can say that I don't know anyone 30+ who wants to hang out with people in their early 20s. Or who forsook going to university out of fear that his teenage classmates wouldn't find him attractive. Or who went, and then gave half a hoot about their assessment of his skin.
It doesn't mean that no such person exists, but I haven't met one because these are not real concerns for an average thirty-something.
-
Or are you saying that my rebuttals to your claims are not real, kind of: "stuff only seen on TV"?
Because I AM 40 years old.
My friends ARE 35-45 years old.
I didn't learn stuff about myself and my social group "by watching TV."
This must be where you got your information though, since you talk about people in their 30s and 40s as if they were two dimensional cartoon characters.
Whatever, that's definitely my cue that I have been taken for a ride (shame on me for not realising it sooner... Eh, it must be old age.)
So enjoy the last dregs of your 20s, because as you hit 30 people will think that you are "old." You will be judged for not acting your age.
You will become unattractive.
You will be given the evil eye if you dare set foot in a bar, and you will spend your Friday nights crying yourself to sleep over the irreversible decline of your skin.
It will be hell.
Have a nice life!
@Barbara T
1) As I said earlier in some countries like mine people going to university in their 20s and even in my country people in their late 20s and above feel "old" going to university. You think 30 years olds can't socialize with people several years younger than them? don't you have friends in their early thirties?.
And most of those who ask if they are "too old for university" don't have a better job or an actual career or a family to provide for, They usually postponed the idea of higher education and then later in life they decided that higher education is the best option for them to have better income but afraid that they are "too old" for going to university.
And as I said before people are making career change at 40 years old so there is no reason people in their late 20s or 30s won't do it.
2) It is pointless to keep denying the fact that people who like to do stuff that doesn't fit their age face judgement from their surrounding and many of them don't like this judgement. A quick search in google can show you questions like this https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-call-me-a-creepy-old-man-for-partying-in-my-30s-Am-I-too-old-to-go-clubbing
you can also see many other similar questions like this about clubbing and many more question about if some age is "old" for something in particular or in general.
You still want to act as if I am making this all up?. There is no point in trying to deny it because nobody is talking about you in particular but about people in general so nobody care if YOU don't care how some people see you.
It also contradicts your statement that "very few people "don't act their age,"" because as you see many people face this kind of judgement or live their lives according to this potential judgement.
3) You brought up life threatening diseases in your list and ignore the fact that there are many other health issues of old age that are easily manageable like weakened muscles, reduced stamina and weakened eye sight. Many of the diseases in your list doesn't affects your life too much and/or not even something that is mainly caused by aging like COPD which is caused mainly by smoking.
You are just ignoring my point that your appearance in old age have a drastic impact on your life and that why people are considered "old" regardless of old age diseases and way before they are actually old enough to be considered at risk to get those diseases.
And why you keep seeing what I say as an "insult" and take it personally?. As I said before I am not talking about you in particular but about people in general. You really need to change your attitude.
@golden axe
"your appearance in old age have a drastic impact on your life."
No.
The appearance of people in their old age does NOT have a "drastic impact" on their life.
Old people are happy if they can get through the day without too many aches and pains.
As for my attitude, what I really need to change is my inability to resist replying, even though I know that I am talking to a brick wall.
Your knowledge of people in their 30s and 40s comes from Quora.
Mine comes from belonging to that generation.
Enough said.
@Barbara T
There are actual people behind those questions and it doesn't matter what platform they used to ask those questions. and with a quick search in google you can find many more of those questions on other websites.
People care about their appearance and it have a dramatic effect on many social interactions and how people perceive you. and old age have a dramatic effect on people's appearance so obviously it will have a serious impact on their lives.
And about what I said earlier " Your hobbies don't need to change with your age. The main reason people change their hobbies with age is kids and family and in most cases it is forced on them by their new life or by society itself. "
It didn't came out right. What I wanted to say is that many people don't really change their hobbies but simply abandon them because society tells those people that they are to "old" for those hobbies and must "move forward" toward having kids even when they don't really want this. Kids and family takes the place of the hobbies they once had and people also get judged when they try to have a good balance between their personal lives and their family.