Life extension
Life extension is the concept of extending the human lifespan, either modestly through improvements in medicine or dramatically by increasing the maximum lifespan beyond its generally-settled biological limit of around 125 years.[1] Several researchers in the area, along with "life extensionists", "immortalists", or "longevists" (those who wish to achieve longer lives themselves), postulate that future breakthroughs in tissue rejuvenation, stem cells, regenerative medicine, molecular repair, gene therapy, pharmaceuticals, and organ replacement (such as with artificial organs or xenotransplantations) will eventually enable humans to have indefinite lifespans through complete rejuvenation to a healthy youthful condition (agerasia[2]). The ethical ramifications, if life extension becomes a possibility, are debated by bioethicists.
For other uses, see Life extension (disambiguation).The sale of purported anti-aging products such as supplements and hormone replacement is a lucrative global industry. For example, the industry that promotes the use of hormones as a treatment for consumers to slow or reverse the aging process in the US market generated about $50 billion of revenue a year in 2009.[3] The use of such hormone products has not been proven to be effective or safe.[3][4][5][6]
Ethics and politics[edit]
Scientific controversy[edit]
Some critics dispute the portrayal of aging as a disease. For example, Leonard Hayflick, who determined that fibroblasts are limited to around 50 cell divisions, reasons that aging is an unavoidable consequence of entropy. Hayflick and fellow biogerontologists Jay Olshansky and Bruce Carnes have strongly criticized the anti-aging industry in response to what they see as unscrupulous profiteering from the sale of unproven anti-aging supplements.[5]
Consumer motivations[edit]
Research by Sobh and Martin (2011) suggests that people buy anti-aging products to obtain a hoped-for self (e.g., keeping a youthful skin) or to avoid a feared-self (e.g., looking old). The research shows that when consumers pursue a hoped-for self, it is expectations of success that most strongly drive their motivation to use the product. The research also shows why doing badly when trying to avoid a feared self is more motivating than doing well. When product use is seen to fail it is more motivating than success when consumers seek to avoid a feared-self.[127]
Political parties[edit]
Though many scientists state[128] that life extension and radical life extension are possible, there are still no international or national programs focused on radical life extension. There are political forces working both for and against life extension. By 2012, in Russia, the United States, Israel, and the Netherlands, the Longevity political parties started. They aimed to provide political support to radical life extension research and technologies, and ensure the fastest possible and at the same time soft transition of society to the next step – life without aging and with radical life extension, and to provide access to such technologies to most currently living people.[129]
Silicon Valley[edit]
Some tech innovators and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have invested heavily into anti-aging research. This includes Jeff Bezos (founder of Amazon), Larry Ellison (founder of Oracle), Peter Thiel (former PayPal CEO),[130] Larry Page (co-founder of Google), Peter Diamandis,[131] Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI, invested in Retro Biosciences), and Brian Armstrong (founder of Coinbase and NewLimit),[132] Bryan Johnson (Founder of Kernel).[133]
Commentators[edit]
Leon Kass (chairman of the US President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2005) has questioned whether potential exacerbation of overpopulation problems would make life extension unethical.[134] He states his opposition to life extension with the words:
Aging as a disease[edit]
Most mainstream medical organizations and practitioners do not consider aging to be a disease. Biologist David Sinclair says: "I don't see aging as a disease, but as a collection of quite predictable diseases caused by the deterioration of the body."[143] The two main arguments used are that aging is both inevitable and universal while diseases are not.[144] However, not everyone agrees. Harry R. Moody, director of academic affairs for AARP, notes that what is normal and what is disease strongly depend on a historical context.[145] David Gems, assistant director of the Institute of Healthy Ageing, argues that aging should be viewed as a disease.[146] In response to the universality of aging, David Gems notes that it is as misleading as arguing that Basenji are not dogs because they do not bark.[147] Because of the universality of aging he calls it a "special sort of disease". Robert M. Perlman, coined the terms "aging syndrome" and "disease complex" in 1954 to describe aging.[148]
The discussion whether aging should be viewed as a disease or not has important implications. One view is, this would stimulate pharmaceutical companies to develop life extension therapies and in the United States of America, it would also increase the regulation of the anti-aging market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Anti-aging now falls under the regulations for cosmetic medicine which are less tight than those for drugs.[147][149]