One thing people lose sight of is what I call the "whack a mole" problem. If we spend a ton of money fighting the big killers, but doing little to focus on rejuvenation therapies then we will just keep succumbing to a different set of diseases even if therapies help us beat back the diseases we would have succumbed to without them.
For example, let's say I have diabetes. Then let's say some genius finds a complete cure for it. Ok, so it's not going to kill me now. But now I'll probably just succumb to heart disease. Let's say we cure that. OK, then cancer will get me. It's like the "Whack a mole" game at an arcade - you beat one disease down, but another one always pops up to get you.
This happens because so many of the killers in the developed world are really tied to the aging process. So really "curing cancer" or "ending heart disease" will just buy us minimal time. My bet is the economic benefits of a cure for cancer in older adults* would not be as great as people realize. At best it will buy us a few more years of low quality of life.
Targeting aging on the other hand allows us to "strike at the root" of the problem. Many of the cures and therapies attracting money now are just temporary hacks applied to a system that is slowly accumulating so many bugs that it's just never going to make it.
The "cure aging" meme sounds ridiculous and in truth, it is pretty ridiculous. However, curing any of the big killers is going to require a level of effort commensurate to curing aging, so why not invest scarce resources in targeting the root problem?
*Curing cancers in the young will have an economic benefit that more than covers the costs since the young have more years of economically productive life ahead of them. This is also why targeting diseases like AIDS tend to be economically worthwhile.
But the inverse problem also exists. Cure aging, great... but if you haven't also cured cancer and heart disease, your life still isn't likely to be that much longer.
We need to attack the problem on all fronts.
Also, it's worth pointing out that whether we "cure aging" is not a boolean proposition. All we can talk about is increasing the average lifespan. Curing cancer and heart disease will definitely do that.
He's saying that aging is a major contributor to cancer and heart disease (or at least, that we think it is). This is true. "Curing aging" means a dramatic reduction in the overall rates of cancer, heart disease, etc.
Curing aging would imply that humans would have a theoretically infinite life expectancy, modulo the various other things that kill us, which have a certain chance of occurring per unit time, based on various factors. In practice, that does mean a finite lifespan, but it vastly amplifies the effectiveness of any other cures or treatments we devise. That would entirely change the dynamic of many forms of disease prevention and cure. Suddenly, fighting diseases would no longer have a shadow of "staving off the inevitable", particularly in the elderly or those faced with chronic illness.
So, sure, we need to continue playing whack-a-mole, but we need the cure for the fundamental bug too.
Also, it's worth pointing out that whether we "cure aging" is not a boolean proposition. All we can talk about is increasing the average lifespan.
No matter how well you take care of yourself, you're going to be significantly less healthy at age X+20 than at age X if X>25. Curing aging would mean that would no longer be true. There would no doubt be diseases remaining, but your susceptibility to them would be that of a 25 year old regardless of your biological age.
> One thing people lose sight of is what I call the "whack a mole" problem.
Not that you said so, but I want to stress that the oversight you talk about isn't entirely involuntary. There a good deal of refusing to look at the problem, while trying to solve it anyway.
Looking at the Wikipedia page about the causes of death, I only see problems that few would not want solved. Plus, it seems to be exhaustive, so whacking every mole on this list would effectively Cure Death. But when I talk about it directly (as in "let's cure death"), reactions ranges from "it's impossible" to "why would you want to be immortal?"[1], to "that would be horrible!"[2]. Religion can also get in the way (though not systematically).
> For example, let's say I have diabetes. Then let's say some genius finds a complete cure for it. Ok, so it's not going to kill me now. But now I'll probably just succumb to heart disease. Let's say we cure that. OK, then cancer will get me.
Just wanted to point out that the diseases you mention, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, many cancers, etc. are diseases of the western world and in many cases preventable.
Heart disease and Cancer are not a disease of the western world in that you can find plenty them thought the world. The reason we see more of them in the "western world" is because you are far more likely to see them as your age increases and the western world has a lot more 'old' people than anywhere else.
PS: By old I mean 40+. And yes Japan has 1/3 the heart disease deaths, but when compared to the 1/10th obesity rate and better healthcare system it's not all about fat.
While our social welfare system isn't set up for it, it seems to me that if you make it 65 and feel not merely okay, but 20 years younger, there's no reason not to keep working (and thus paying for your care).
For example, let's say I have diabetes. Then let's say some genius finds a complete cure for it. Ok, so it's not going to kill me now. But now I'll probably just succumb to heart disease. Let's say we cure that. OK, then cancer will get me. It's like the "Whack a mole" game at an arcade - you beat one disease down, but another one always pops up to get you.
This happens because so many of the killers in the developed world are really tied to the aging process. So really "curing cancer" or "ending heart disease" will just buy us minimal time. My bet is the economic benefits of a cure for cancer in older adults* would not be as great as people realize. At best it will buy us a few more years of low quality of life.
Targeting aging on the other hand allows us to "strike at the root" of the problem. Many of the cures and therapies attracting money now are just temporary hacks applied to a system that is slowly accumulating so many bugs that it's just never going to make it.
The "cure aging" meme sounds ridiculous and in truth, it is pretty ridiculous. However, curing any of the big killers is going to require a level of effort commensurate to curing aging, so why not invest scarce resources in targeting the root problem?
*Curing cancers in the young will have an economic benefit that more than covers the costs since the young have more years of economically productive life ahead of them. This is also why targeting diseases like AIDS tend to be economically worthwhile.