But….haven’t we already gone through one of those? With computers? You know, the whole implementation of the microchip and personal computers and cyberspace/internet and through cell phones and smartphones? A complete revolution in the way information is processed and evaluated and disseminated and stored, allowing things like the development of the MRI and CT scans and mapping of the human genome and robotic/computer assisted surgery - to say nothing of telemedicine and the improved availability of medical records. Yet all of that had barely any impact at all in the trend of human longevity.
I suppose it’s possible that we might see another quantum leap in some field of human technology that might be comparable to the development and widespread development of electronic computing something was over the last 60 years or so. But if going from the pre-computer age to the Information Age didn’t materially affect human lifespan, I would be cautious about any such major changes manifesting over the next 40.
The technological advances I am speaking of are in the area of molecular genetics that seems much more directly relevant to the issue of human aging than computers.
With the sequencing of the human genome we now have structural information for all human genes. Transcriptome technology makes it possible to identify the genes involved in human aging. CrispR/caspase methods allow the editing of these genes. mRNA vaccine technology makes it possible to express artificial proteins in specific tissues. As we obtain a better understanding of the genetics of aging, which we are and will, we have the potential of targeting and modifying the genes involved in aging.
Now add to this rapidly evolving tech in regenerative medicine, which is the process of creating living, functional tissues to repair or replace tissue or organ function loss. Consider for example “tissue nanotransfection” where skin cells can be reprogrammed to develop as different tissue, and “organ bioprinting” that uses 3D printing tech to potentially create functional organs. Still early, but imagine where the technologies will likely be in 20 years.
Color me optimistic, but it does seem that the technology is developing that could give rise to a quantum leap in human longevity.
Yes and no. We know from archeology and from studying contemporary hunter gatherer groups (such as they still exist) that if an ancient human survived past about age five, they were likely to live almost as long as modern humans, but with a longer health span and better dental health.
Discovery of modern agriculture was terrible for human health. Daniel Lieberman wrote a fascinating book on this topic (and a whole lot more)
Color me skeptical. If you could cure every dread disease there is, human lifespan would only extend a few more years on average. Old age is a stone cold killer.
FWIW, a quantum is the smallest possible unit or amount. So new tech probably would be a quantum leap. That is, not very much.
I used to have caries all the time until I changed my diet. I haven’t had caries for well over a decade since I changed my diet.
I used to need new glasses every couple of years until I changed my diet. I haven’t needed new glasses for well over a decade.
I have saved a ton of money I used to spend on doctors, medications, and procedures..
Life would not exists if lifeforms didn’t have self defense mechanisms to ward off all the other lifeforms that try to feed on them. But if we poison ourselves…
What is missing in the above is that agriculture (a technology) promoted a sedentary lifestyle which promoted illness. By sleeping in the same bed night after night, month after month, we gave bugs a perfect sedentary target. Hunter gatherer nomads left them behind every few days – Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Science is the systematic study of the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It focuses on understanding the principles and laws that govern the universe. For example, biology is a science that studies living organisms and their systems.
Technology, on the other hand, refers to the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. It involves using tools, techniques, and processes to create something useful or solve problems. For instance, a GPS device is a technology that uses information from satellites to navigate and provide directions.
In summary, science is about gaining knowledge and understanding, while technology is about using that knowledge to create practical solutions.
I know, right? It’s fascinating stuff, and medicine (and the technologies that underlie it) will be much more advanced in 20 years than it is today. But the same was true 20 years ago. And 20 years before that. There’s always exciting new cutting edge developments in drugs and techniques and treatments and our knowledge of the body. Which have generally increased human lifespan, but at a relatively modest rate.
Of the things you mention, I think only the potential for genetic modification has any real chance of a marked increase in human lifespan. Organ development and related technologies are wonderful, and will vastly increase the lifespan of young people who currently lack available transplants - but their utility in increasing overall lifespan is very limited, constrained by the physical process of performing transplants. Surgery is traumatic and dangerous. We’re not going to be performing surgeries on healthy older people to replace a healthy 50 year old heart with a brand new one, because the process of performing that surgery is really chancy - and as the years roll on, it gets more and more dangerous and difficult.
As for genetics, it certainly shows potential in giving people protections against the sorts of things that will kill them before they reach very late life - cancer, heart disease, and the like. But even people that dodge every single bullet throughout their life and make it to close to the century mark without those things killing them will die within a decade or two. Without fail. In a huge population sample (in the billions), the people who have the very best genes and the best possible life path for longevity don’t make it past 110 in any great numbers. That leaves a lot of potential life expectancy for the population (getting more people closer to that 110 instead of dying of things in their 50’s or 70’s or so), but not a lot of optimism for using gene therapy to extend the outer bounds of longevity. Especially since so few other animals are able to avoid senescence outright - and none of them have metabolisms or biology similar to ours.
I’m about as far from a biologist as one can be, but from a layperson’s perspective it certainly doesn’t seem like the general condition of aging can be solved with genetic modification. Genetics might allow us to eliminate many - heck, maybe all - of the specific things that will kill you before you get to the theoretical limit of longevity caused by things just being too old to work. Give everyone the optimal genetic code for longevity. But it seems pretty unlikely that the best possible genetic code let the longest-living humans live that much longer than the longest humans have ever lived.
I bet you had an ancestor in the 17th century who similarly argued that based on scientific progress over that century human land transport will never be faster than via a horse.
Medical science in the 20th century was focused on curing disease. It is only relatively recently that humans are living long enough for serious attention to be paid on understanding how and why people age. And even more recent that the tools were developed that allowed scientists to seriously study the issue.
For obvious reasons most genetic aging studies are done on simpler organisms that are easy to manipulate. Way back in 2012, this paper expressed genes from a fish in a nematode worm and extended life span by 130%. Yeah, it is only a worm. But what this suggests is that in at least some animals, one can get a quantum leap in life expectancy through genetic manipulations. An Engineering Approach to Extending Lifespan in C. elegans
What makes you think the “best possible genetic code” for aging currently exists? It is easy to see how natural selection would optimize human survival long enough for reproduction. But I don’t see why there should be any positive selection for individuals to live well beyond their reproductive period. To the contrary, I think it is easier to hypothesize natural selection for inducing aging and death after the individual cannot reproduce so as to reduce competition with those that can. In short, there may be a genetic program controlling the aging process.
Evidence for such a thing comes from rare genetic diseases that accelerate the aging process. One interpretation is that these are mutations in genes that suppress at least some aspects of normal aging. If genes exist that suppress aging when we are young, perhaps they can be manipulated to continue suppressing aging when we are old. Progeria - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic
More recent evidence is the finding that aging occurs nonlinearly, with a big jump in aging at about age 44 and another at about age 60.This could be evolution’s way of telling us older folks that from the natural selection POV we are hurting the species and need to get out of the way. We may very well have a genetic program that does just that, limit life span so we don’t get in the way of the younger members of the species. Massive biomolecular shifts occur in our 40s and 60s, Stanford Medicine researchers find
Short answer is that I doubt there has been much natural selection for extended longevity. No evolutionary benefit to having people live a hundred+ years after their reproductive age. So I doubt humans have come anywhere close to genetically optimizing their longevity.
I am using the term “quantum leap” to mean a non-continuous change in level. In this case a jump from a max age of 120 to something like 200 years rather than a gradual, progressive increase.
In quantum mechanics, a quantum leap or jump describes the abrupt transition of an electron, atom, or molecule from one discrete energy state to another, without passing through any intermediate energy states.
Probably not. I doubt the question would have even occurred. But had someone put the question to him, that ancestor might have been able to make a pretty good guess about what land transport over the next forty years would look like. And he would have been completely accurate.
The entire framework of scientific inquiry and technological progress that would one day allow for land transport to exceed “horse speed” (and which we now call the Industrial Revolution) didn’t yet exist, and wouldn’t yet exist for another century or so. It’s hard to predict what’s going to happen over the course of a century or more, where enough time passes that you can have a completely new paradigm of things; but it’s much easier to assess where things might be going within the existing paradigm. And while all the stuff you’re looking at is new and exciting and represents an unexplored frontier of medicine, it’s not a complete rework of the framework of human knowledge the way the Industrial Revolution was - which might one day happen, but will take many decades if it does.
I think you misunderstand (or I was unclear). I was referring to the “best possible genetic code” among the range of genetic codes that humans, or perhaps other animals, currently have.
AIUI, that’s really the very far outside extent of what might be possible within the time frame you’re talking about - being able to change human genetics by snipping and cutting and moving existing genetic material around. We’re not anywhere close to being able to figure out how to, say, design from scratch a set of human chromosomes, much less knowing what that set of chromosomes would have to look like in order to avoid senescence. I’ve never heard of anyone discussing that even as a laboratory possibility over the time frames you’re talking about, let alone reaching the point where you would start implementing that technology into a sufficiently non-trivial part of the human population that this would become the social/societal issue you alluded to.
So we might reach the point where the “snip and replacement” of human genetic material with other pieces of existing human genetic material (or artificially repaired human genetic material to match sequencing we know already exist, or in the very far future perhaps using material from other species for limited purposes) starts becoming more widespread within the next four decades or so. I think that’s the really optimistic case, given how fraught that might be. But that’s only going to extend human life expectancy within the upper bounds of the best extant genetic code for longevity. It’s not going to start letting people live 200 years.
Although it might be noted that a lot of the shorter term nip and tuck is likely to be fixing a flaw … so, it might be that we already have people among us with the potential of significantly longer lifetimes except for a few flaws, which, if fixed would allow the longer time to happen.
BTW, I did go down a bit of a rabbit hole with this. I know it’s just an analogy, so this is really a tangent. Turns out that human land transport didn’t really get faster than via horse until sometime in the late 1830’s or early 1840’s, when locomotives started to approach 40 mph.
That would have been a shock to my 17th century ancestor, of course. But it would have been well within the anticipated development of existing technology to someone at the turn of the century (forty years earlier). People started envisioning steam locomotives shortly after James Watt developed his steam engine in 1765; the first patent for a steam locomotive was filed in 1784, the first working model of a steam locomotive was built in 1785, and the first full-scale steam locomotive was built in 1804.
If you had asked your question to someone in the late 1700’s (or the latest the early 1800’s) with even layman’s knowledge of these developments, they would have easily anticipated that it would be possible for land transport to exceed the speed of a horse. In fact, probably very likely. They would have been able to see that it was possible, and indeed likely, many decades before it actually happened - and close to half a century before it became at all widespread.
A lot of the time (and certainly in that one example) we can form a pretty good prediction of where the outer bound of technology might possibly be many decades in advance, given the existing state of affairs. We can certainly see the seeds today of anything that might be ubiquitous long before it actually becomes ubiquitous.
Absolutely. I’m not sure what the right terminology actually is, but I would draw a distinction between things that improve human life expectancy (how long the average human lives) and maximum longevity (how long is the longest-living human going to live). If you can “solve” for all the things that might go wrong to kill people in their 20’s or 30’s or 50’s or what have you, you’ll increase human life expectancy. But you won’t necessarily change human longevity (which is the term I’m probably incorrectly using to describe maximum actually achievable lifespan) very much. People that would have died at 20 will now live to 80 or 90 or 100 or whatever the longest is that a perfectly healthy human with the best extant genetics and best life history can go - but it doesn’t change where the outside number lies.
I understand that is your opinion, but no matter how much you repeat it that is all it is. There is no basis for it other than what you are arguing against hasn’t happened yet.
We know that mutations in one or two genes can cause greatly accelerated aging in humans. That suggests a few genes can impact the aging process. Therefore, it seems similarly possible that modifying the expression of one or two might delay aging. And this need not require redesigning the human genome, creating new chromosomes or even genetic nip and tucking. If the gene product(s) controlling aspects of the aging process can be identified it may be possible to affect those products with artificially made proteins introduced via injection, mRNA viruses, or implants. Much like how we now control diabetes and obesity.
A whole battery of genes associated with aging suddenly becomes expressed at about age 44 and another battery of genes at age 60. That suggests there is a genetic signal of some sort. Identify that signal and one might be able to nullify it and thereby delay the aging process. And once again I will note our ability to introduce artificial products into the body is improving by leaps and bounds, or perhaps I should say by nanolipids and RNA. It may be possible to delay aging by nothing more intrusive than an annual injection.
The science of aging is, ironically, young. Some interesting stuff going on. I know there have been several threads about heart disease here. Senolytics is showing some promise in reversing the impact of aging on cardiovascular decline, a major reason why old people die. https://www.ejinme.com/article/S0953-6205(25)00280-8/fulltext
And then there are Yamanaka factors that can apparently rejuvenate cells without the need for genetic modifications or increased risk of cancer.
The observation that genetic and chemical rejuvenation of cells is possible, restoring earlier gene expression patterns while retaining cellular identity, indicates that old cells possess information to reset their biological age, consistent with the Information Theory of Aging. Identifying how this putative information is encoded and where it resides will greatly speed the development of increasingly effective approaches to rejuvenate cells. Chemically induced reprogramming to reverse cellular aging | Aging
These Harvard PhDs seem to believe that the science of aging will be accelerating:
The assays developed in this study, combined with robotics and the increasing power of artificial intelligence, will facilitate increasingly larger screens for genes, biologics, and small molecules that safely reverse mammalian aging, and, given that aging is the single greatest contributor to human disease and suffering, these advances cannot come soon enough.
Look, I realize this is all speculative. But as guys like Bezos and Musk age, billions of dollars are going to go into how to reverse the aging process and there seems to be a lot of interesting possibilities.
There are better ways to spend your money, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, and all the related maladies can, not just be controlled, but eliminated with proper lifestyle, specially diet. Not just cheaper but makes life more enjoyable.
I totally agree that this is all my opinion, of course. And I noted above, I’m as far from a biologist as they come. But while it is certainly true that if we could double the human lifespan by messing around with one or two genes that would make it simpler to address (but see below)….is that really all that likely?
We starting to place a great deal of emphasis on aging research, but it’s not like we don’t know anything about genetics. And one thing we know is that while there are some attributes of the human body that are directly determined by a single gene or two (like, say the presence of sickle-cell anemia), there are also attributes that are not at all determined by a single gene or two (like, whether you have good eyesight or whether you’re tall or short). Even though there are conditions that relate to eyesight and height that are caused by single genes (like specific types of blindness or dwarfism), the general determination of those characteristics is massively polygenic - they’re the result of countless genes all doing different things.
Aging is something that affects every organ and system in your body, and is present in virtually every animal that exists on earth. So while it is certainly possible that aging might be something that could be radically changed by modifying a single gene or two….it really isn’t likely. We can’t rule it out, but it’s far more likely that aging is a complex polygenic phenomenon that’s affected by countless different genes.
Mapping the human genome and having CRISPR and AI certainly will help with researching aging, but while the science of aging is “young,” it’s not in its infancy. Google made the cover of time with its moonshot program to “solve death” back in 2013, and there’s been major intensive research into aging and its causes for the last 30 or 40 years. Progress has been made, and no doubt progress will continue to be made. But there’s no especial reason to think that a radical breakthrough in human longevity is any more around the corner in the near term.
I think it is highly likely - to the point of certainty - that there will be advances in treating specific things that contribute to our mortality like improved treatment of heart disease. Those things will help more of us live further into the greatest extent of our present “natural” maximum lifespan. But given the nature of aging as a biological phenomenon - its complexity and ubiquity among all animal life - I’m very skeptical that it’s the sort of thing that is likely to be materially altered by humans given the tools that we’re likely to have over the next 30-40 years.
Many things take a long time. No matter the strength of motive or the vastness of financial resources. We’ve been fighting cancer with massive investments in research and treatments and everything for close to a century, and we haven’t “cured” cancer - partially because cancer isn’t a single thing to be “cured,” but a constellation of different conditions that have complex and varied causes and treatments. I think something like “aging” is going to be more like that, and less like sickle-cell anemia. Something we can make progress in, which progress can improve life expectancy, but something that’s far more complex than the sorts of medical conditions that will be treatable with genetic knowledge and tools over the next few decades.
The first self-propelled vehicle was invented in the 17th century. It was a steam-powered tricycle invented by a Frenchman (I think). (And I’ll ignore Leonardo’s “self propelled vehicle from the 14th century which was supposed to be propelled by tightly wound springs because it was never built or tested.)
But in spite of the 17th century steam powered vehicle, the first practicable cars didn’t happen for more than 100 years (Benz), and it was another 30 years after that before Ford’s assembly line. (There were a handful of “cars” produced before that, of course; wildly expensive and mostly impractical, but they did exist - it just wasn’t society changing.)
So back to the topic at hand: it may be that there are genetic coders which signal “OK, end of life approach”, but there are other factors too, specifically - for one example - cell replacement. In no scientific setting that I am aware have they been able to get cellular reproduction (of human cells) to survive more than 40-60 replications. It’s like making a Xerox of a Xerox, at some point the image starts to degrade, the reproduction isn’t as accurate, and before long certain bits of the DNA strand become broken, lost, or invisible. If that happens along replication 20, well it’s carried along for however long but that person will likely succumb earlier than someone whose replication is better into further iterations.
This ‘extension of life” may, in fact, happen, but it’s not going to be solely genetic, there are going to have to be multiple approaches, all simultaneously converging on different aspects of the problem at the same time. It’s like a moonshot, where you have to overcome gravity, astronomics, life-support, chemical propulsion, telecommunications, avionics, and a host of other technologies all at once in order to accomplish the goal. That could happen for life extension, but my guess is that they will fall one at a time and we will see the kind of slow, incremental growth we’ve seen over the past 20, 40, and 100 years.
Google tells us that Cugnot’s steam-powered tricycle could only go 2mph (slower than a horse) and that it was invented in 1769, putting it 70 years past the 17th century. Both points support Albaby’s ideas on long-range predictions.