Tag: geroscience

Sorry, Dr. Coughlin, “Aging” and “Old Age” Are Real, and They Suck

Sorry, Dr. Coughlin, “Aging” and “Old Age” Are Real, and They Suck

Comments 0 Comment

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.

Author’s Note: This article was also posted on my Substack.

Coughlin’s audience spontaneously started clapping when he proclaimed that “old age” is made up in 2021. He repeats this mantra often.

Recently I attended a talk at the Broad Institute by Joseph F. Coughlin, who runs the “AgeLab” at MIT. I was shocked and disturbed by what I heard. In Coughlin’s view of reality, the elderly do not actually become less capable as they age, it’s just that society thinks they do. According to Coughlin, the elderly are unfairly cast out from society, forced to spend the rest of their days cooped up in nursing homes and retirement communities where they are treated as delicate creatures that need to rest. In Coughlin’s view, any talk of problems associated with “old age” perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Aging, Coughlin insists, is not actually a problem.

Coughlin began his talk by claiming that our entire conception of “old age” is based on a faulty theory about “vital energy” that was popularized in the 1800s. According to this theory, people used up “vital energy” by doing things like work and having sex, eventually reaching a “low battery state” where they needed to rest and conserve what little energy they had left. This faulty theory, according to Coughlin, is responsible for the belief that people become more fatigued as they get older, as well as the belief that people should retire so they can rest and conserve what little vital energy they have left.1 According to Coughlin, both of these beliefs are faulty.

Most shockingly, Coughlin boldly proclaimed that “aging is not a problem to be solved”. My jaw literally dropped upon hearing this, in disbelief at the chutzpah and utter disregard for reality on display.

Coughlin’s talk was very disrespectful to millions of people worldwide who are suffering from the ravages of aging. This issue is personal for me. I watched my grandmother struggle with severe dementia for years along with mobility issues and glaucoma. I also watched my grandfather’s quality of life slowly decline due to aging, robbing him of his mobility, quality of life, and dignity.

I challenged Dr. Coughlin on some of his points after his talk, but rather than admitting to some of the realities of aging he doubled down. He re-iterated his view that aging is “not a problem” and is a socially constructed concept. He wouldn’t accept my contention that aging is the underlying driver of all the diseases of old age.

Coughlin might like to pretend that problems of aging don’t actually exist, but biological reality is that people do become more sicker, less energetic, and less capable over time. Aging directly causes cancer, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, muscle loss, frailty, cataracts, macular degeneration, urinary incontinence, hearing loss, decreased libido, loss of taste and smell, weakened voice, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s, wrinkly skin, hair loss, mental retardation, memory loss, and a greatly weakened immune system.

While it is true that people are living longer now than decades ago and receiving better medical care, the problem of aging is still very much with us. In fact, aging is a larger problem today since we can keep people alive longer with medical interventions. These interventions (like stents, pacemakers, etc.) keep people alive but they don’t halt aging, so people now experience the horrible ravages of aging for longer than ever before.

Aging is not a slow, gradual decline. Rather, it’s something that picks of pace rapidly after age 65. The incidence of most of the worst diseases caused by aging increases exponentially with age. Age 65 is right around the “knee” or “turning point” of that exponential curve. It makes sense biologically to say those over 65 are entering “old age”. Consider that only 10% of people die between age 1 and age 65, but 20% of people will die in the next 10 years after that. Between 75 to 85, 30% more people will die. Things go downhill quickly after age 65.

Of course we shouldn’t assume any one individual isn’t capable simply because they are over 65. Noam Chomsky is still intellectually engaged at age 94. A few individuals are able to complete triathlons in their 90s. There is clearly significant variation in the rates at which people age due to genetics and other factors. At the same time as we acknowledge this we must not turn a blind eye away from the reality of how aging effects most people. Reality is that most of us are going to suffer from numerous issues as we enter old age. In fact, as much as it pains me to say this, a significant fraction of people reading this are going to die a slow, painful death unless we as a society get serious about treating and reversing aging.

Who is this guy, and how did he become an authority on longevity?

Dr. Coughlin, who has a Ph.D. in transportation engineering, created the MIT Age Lab in 1999. Always in a suit and bowtie, he projects a confident, authoritative presence. He is an energetic and engaging speaker. It’s not hard to see how after 20+ years of giving his traveling roadshow he has become a respected thought leader on longevity, despite having no formal training on the subject.

The core of Coughlin’s message is that aging isn’t a problem and that the elderly are unfairly stigmatized. It’s not hard to see why this message is popular. People don’t want to think about all of the horrible effects of aging they will very likely have to endure later in their life. People prefer to focus on the stories of people who thrive in their 80s and 90s rather than those suffering long drawn-out deaths in hospitals and nursing homes. Talk about “socially constructed categories” sounds intellectually sophisticated as well.

Now to be fair, Coughlin makes a lot of good points in his talks. He often talks about the loss of meaning and purpose many experience after retirement. He talks about how products for the elderly often use drab neutral “healthcare” color schemes like teal and beige. His book The Longevity Economy is about how to market to the growing number of older people, which he says is an often overlooked demographic. He seems to see longevity biotechnology in a positive light.

Coughlin was appointed by President George W. Bush to the White House Advisory Committee on Aging in 2005. More recently he was appointed by Governor Charlie Baker to the Governor’s Council on Aging in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, this is man who continues to wield power and influence over the direction of healthcare policy in the United States. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have bothered writing this post.

It’s not just Coughlin…

Putting Coughlin aside, I’d like to also point out that many doctors today share Coughlin’s view that aging is not a problem. In fact, I spoke to one such doctor at the event. This dismissive attitude is widespread in the medical establishment and requires forceful disruption to change. In Nick Bostrom’s Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant, for generations people accept the fact that a tyrannical dragon requires regular human sacrifice. When something is accepted as a “normal fact of life”, nobody even contemplates how things might be different. This is exactly the state of things today with respect to aging.

Many people also worry that talking about “aging as a disease” will reinforce unfair stereotypes.2 For instance Cathal McCrory and Rose Anne Kenny wrote the following in a letter to The Lancet: Diabetes and Endocrinology.

“we feel that labelling ageing as a disease serves to reinforce ageist stereotypes and risks legitimising insidious prejudice and discrimination of older people on the basis of age.”

Of course, “ageism” is a massive and thorny problem, just like sexism and racism, and I admit that more honest talk about the realities of aging could exacerbate this problem. At the same time, more honest talk about the reality of aging could also lead to more compassion towards and better social accommodations for the elderly. Regardless, the best path forward here is not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that aging doesn’t exist. We must confront both problems (aging and ageism) head on. The ultimate solution towards eliminating ageism would be to cure aging itself.

Appendix: biological reality

At a high level aging is very simple – it is the accumulation of damage over time. Aging is well understood and characterized in terms of specific biological processes. A famous 2013 paper called “The Hallmarks of Aging” identified four “primary hallmarks” that cause damage in the body – genome instability, telomere shortening, epigenetic alterations, and loss of proteostasis. Aubrey de Grey famously broke aging into seven specific damage causing-processes – extracellular aggregates, accumulation of senescent cells, extracellular matrix stiffening, intracellular aggregates, mitochondrial mutations, cancerous cells, and cell loss. Karl Pfleger’s very thorough review identifies 18 causes. There is substantial overlap between these lists.3 To the extent there is controversy about the causes of aging, it is mostly around whether there are any more fundamental processes that drive the different damage-causing processes that have been identified.

Let’s look at some graphs that show the acceleration of aging’s harmful effects after age 65 – 75:

Risk of death vs. age

From Our World in Data

Energy expenditure vs. age

Figure from Scientific American. Adapted from Pontzer et al. Science, vol. 373, no. 6556, Aug. 2021, pp. 808–12.

Cancer incidence vs. age

Figure from the National Cancer Institute.

Musculoskeletal conditions vs. age (back pain, arthritis, etc)

Conditions include low back pain, neck pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and others. Source: De Luca et al. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, vol. 30, no. 1, Dec. 2022, p. 22.

Cognitive ability vs. age

Figure showing data from the Seattle Longitudinal Study.

VO2 max vs. age (a measure of max cardiovascular output)

Figure from www.opportunityfitness.com.au. See also a similar graph in Loe, Henrik, et al. “Aerobic Capacity Reference Data in 3816 Healthy Men and Women 20–90 Years.” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 5, May 2013, p. e64319.

Grip strength vs. age

Figure from Murabito et al. Aging Cell, vol. 16, no. 4, Aug. 2017, pp. 888–94.

Footnotes

[1] I Google-searched a bit and can’t find any information on the historical “vital force/energy” theory other than Coughlin’s talks and articles. Coughlin writes about it in his book, The Longevity Economy, but he doesn’t cite any sources. The theory sounds plausible, but it’s curious there are no other historical accounts of it online other than Coughlin’s writings. If anyone knows anything further about this theory, please comment below.

[2] This follows a common pattern where someone points out a problem that needs to be solved, but then someone else points out a hypothetical social concern that may arise from trying to solve or solving the problem. People end up talking and arguing ad nauseam about the hypothetical social concern rather than actually trying to solve the problem. The result is that unnecessary suffering is prolongated. Another way of saying this is that people tend to focus on harmful secondary effects that might arise from tackling a problem rather than the massive gains that definitely would occur from tackling the problem. I may do this an article about this at some point, since I can think of several other examples of this phenomena.

[3] See Karl Pfleger’s summary spreadsheet for a comparison of “causes of aging” lists and his discussion here.

Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent and on LinkedIN. If you like his content, check out his website and consider subscribing to his newsletter on Substack.

Judge, Jury and Executioner Syndrome – Article by Arin Vahanian

Judge, Jury and Executioner Syndrome – Article by Arin Vahanian

Comments 1 comment

Arin Vahanian

The topic of life extension seems to bring forth strong emotions from people. While living longer and healthier is a goal that nearly all people say they have, there are critics of life extension who have become quite vociferous in their opposition to extending the human lifespan.  The truth is, living a longer and healthier life shouldn’t be controversial at all. After all, it is what we humans have been trying to do since day one.

However, when the topic turns to living a healthy life indefinitely, critics seem to come out of the woodwork, citing various reasons why humans should not live radically longer. While each of the major objections to life extension deserves its own space (and its own rebuttal), one objection, in particular, is rankling in its lack of substance – that human beings already live long enough.

As ridiculous as this objection is, we need to address it, not only because of the amount of damage it does to humanity by limiting life-extension research, but also because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. People who present this objection have what I like to call “Judge, Jury, and Executioner Syndrome.”

I can’t imagine that people in the 14th century suffering and then dying from the Bubonic Plague at age 20 or 30 would have considered their life to have been “long enough.” In the same way, nor could I imagine that someone would actually find declining and then dying from an aging-related disease such as dementia at age 75 to be desirable.

But how long is long enough? Is it 40 years, like it used to be in 19th-century England? Or is it 82 years, as it is in modern-day Japan? Or is it 100 years?

It is difficult to answer this question, because there is no correct answer to the question.

However, rather than going down a rabbit hole, the best way to answer such critics is to ask them why they get to decide how long people should live. Of course, they have no right whatsoever to decide how long the human lifespan should be. This should end the conversation right then and there, but sadly, in some cases, it does not.

To go further, one might want to ask these critics whether they believe their parents or grandparents, if they are still alive, have lived too many years and whether they would want them to die quickly because they have already lived “long enough.” Or, even better, we should ask critics of life extension how many years they think their children should live (if they have children). Of course, no one, other than a psychopath, would wish such suffering and death upon their loved ones.

Therefore, it appears that people who oppose life extension on the basis that humans already live long enough, tend to only hold this view toward other people, and not themselves or their loved ones. This seems to me to be horribly cruel, not to mention illogical. However, we should not consider those who claim they are satisfied with the 82-year lifespan for themselves, as being nobler or more altruistic than other people. After all, they are still trying to play judge, jury, and executioner!

The argument that human beings already live long enough attacks the very core of what it means to be human. Human beings are designed to want to survive, and to continue living. Otherwise, we would have stopped trying to live longer a long time ago, and as a consequence, we would have stopped trying to find cures for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. The very fact that we are so dedicated to finding cures for conditions that have ravaged humanity is proof that we are dedicated to living longer and healthier. There is no rule that says that human beings can only live until 100 years old, or that they are not allowed to try to live longer.

Of course, just as no one may decide how long the human lifespan should be, neither should we force those who do not want to live longer and healthier, to live longer and healthier. This is a personal choice that everyone must make for themselves. But opponents of life extension do not have the right, nor do they have the ability, fortunately, to decide how long the human lifespan should be.

Even if there is some unalterable limit to how long a human lifespan can be, wouldn’t it be better to come to this conclusion and obtain closure after conducting medical and scientific research, rather than hastily quitting, and in the process, damning all of humanity to pain, suffering, and death, solely to satisfy a falsely held belief that humans already live long enough?

I understand that no matter what I may be arguing in this article, there will always be people who do not want to live much longer and healthier than they do now, for whatever reason. While I respect their decision to not want to extend their own life, I also ask them to respect my wishes to live longer and healthier. Surely this seems like a fair position to take.

There is absolutely no reason at all to apologize for wanting to live a healthy life indefinitely. No one should be asking, “Why do you want to live longer?” Rather, we should be asking, “How can we live longer and healthier?” This sort of inclusive, optimistic, and honest approach will go a long way toward removing some of the obstacles to life extension, thus putting humanity just a bit closer to attaining what it has been seeking since the beginning of time – to live a longer, healthier life.

Arin Vahanian is the Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. 

Jim Mellon Announces Launch of New Book – Juvenescence: Investing in the Age of Longevity – Press Release by Biogerontology Research Foundation

Jim Mellon Announces Launch of New Book – Juvenescence: Investing in the Age of Longevity – Press Release by Biogerontology Research Foundation

Comments 0 Comment

Biogerontology Research Foundation

London, UK: Biogerontology Research Foundation Trustee Jim Mellon announces the publication of his newest book, Juvenescence: Investing in the Age of Longevity.

The book is a comprehensive summary of the emerging longevity industry, including profiles of longevity companies, investment opportunities, and aims to chart the major ideas of the geroscience’s thought-leaders and the vast implications this will have on economies and societies.

Often referred to as the British Warren Buffett, Billionaire Jim Mellon is well known for identifying major emerging trends before they become mainstream. Mellon made his wealth by investing in emerging markets throughout the 1990s. After many years of research and investing in the life science sector, Jim announced his vision for the emergence of the nascent longevity industry at Master Investor, one of the UK’s leading investor show in March of 2017, which was attended by over five thousand investors and entrepreneurs.

“The Biogerontology Research Foundation is proud to support what we feel will come to be seen as a landmark publication in the modern history of biogerontology. Jim has put an enormous amount of thought and effort into this new book, and has interviewed many of the field’s leading scientists in his research. The field of geroscience and the emerging longevity industry are both sure to prosper from very well-respected business personalities like Jim Mellon championing the longevity industry and projecting that it will become the world’s largest industry. Further, governments and policy makers should note the pressing need for a paradigm shift in medicine and healthcare away from ‘sick care’ toward comprehensive and disease-preventative healthspan extension. We are proud to have Jim as a Trustee of the Biogerontology Research Foundation and look forward to helping him lend mainstream credibility to the field and actionability to the dawning longevity industry” said Franco Cortese, Deputy Director & Trustee of the Biogerontology Research Foundation.

In 2012, Jim published his best-seller Cracking the Code, which summarized his vision for the future of the life science sector. In 2017, he announced his intention to focus much of his time and assets on the emerging longevity industry and make substantial investments into this area.

Jim and long-time co-author Al Chalabi toured many academic institutions, biopharmaceutical companies, and Silicon Valley tech companies to learn about the latest research and to understand the rapidly advancing field of longevity. Juvenescence highlights the technologies they deem the most likely to generate substantial longevity dividends and create sustainable and profitable industries. They travelled through the US and Europe, interviewing geroscience’s leading scientists and thought-leaders and provide an objective survey of their findings well as a detailed vision for the industry’s future and the most appropriate investment opportunities within the dawning longevity industry.

 

This is the cover of Juvenescence: Investing in the Age of Longevity by Jim Mellon and Al Chalabi

Credit: Jim Mellon & Al Chalabi

###

Earlier this year Jim Mellon announced the formation of Juvenescence Limited, a company investing in the longevity biotechnology. Since then the company announced investments in several high-profile longevity companies including Insilico Medicine, Inc, a Baltimore-based leader in artificial intelligence for drug discovery, biomarker development, and aging research.

About the Biogerontology Research Foundation:

The Biogerontology Research Foundation is a UK non-profit research foundation and public policy center seeking to fill a gap within the research community, whereby the current scientific understanding of the ageing process is not yet being sufficiently exploited to produce effective medical interventions. The BGRF funds and conducts research which, building on the body of knowledge about how ageing happens, aims to develop biotechnological interventions to remediate the molecular and cellular deficits which accumulate with age and which underlie the ill-health of old age. Addressing ageing damage at this most fundamental level will provide an important opportunity to produce the effective, lasting treatments for the diseases and disabilities of ageing, required to improve quality of life in the elderly. The BGRF seeks to use the entire scope of modern biotechnology to attack the changes that take place in the course of ageing, and to address not just the symptoms of age-related diseases but also the mechanisms of those diseases.