Untitled topic

> Sorry, have we solved aging? My question seems well phrased: Why don't we?

Examples of absolutes in your question: "everyone" "impossible" "nobody seems to care" "Nobody wants to talk" "wonder why nobody else cares?" "why nobody cares"

> why we haven't.

We don't really know what we're doing. We still don't today, but when I graduated, talking about life extension directly rather than specific old-age diseases like dementia and cancer was basically a sign someone didn't understand how hard the problem was.

In my lifetime I've seen: the invention of mammalian cloning; full genome sequencing (not just human genome, the first non-virus full chromosome was a yeast chromosome in 1992, the first full organism was a bacteria in 1995, the first animal was the nematode worm in 1998); CRISPR for (still basic but better than retroviral) gene editing; the Nobel prize for (if not the original discovery of) telomerase and its role in lengthening the telomeres that seem to force the Hayflick limit; what feels like an endless sequence of headlines about how lab rats have various multiples of life extension from calorie restriction, genetic engineering, and senolytic drugs (those which kill senescent cells); headlines about metformin and rapamycin potentially having anti-aging effects; and of course a few versions of AlphaFold which took us from "you can get a PhD by figuring out how just one protein folds" to "here's the folding of nearly every one of the 214 million proteins known to mankind plus a bunch of complexes between multiple proteins, RNA, DNA, ligands, ions, etc.".

We have a lot more work to do to get this ready for humans. Even with optimistic assistance from AI, I don't expect to see anything* on the consumer market until the mid 2030s, though it's possible to rush a lot of this stuff with a "move fast and break things" culture. (Between Kennedy in the USA and China's lax attitude to human rights, such a culture may in fact happen).

* except metformin and rapamycin and things like them, because those are already available for other conditions, so may end up as per GLP-1 drugs for obesity

The problem is wildly more complex than typically portrayed.

First of all, there is a lot of work already going in to slowing and eliminating aging. Every "please don't smoke" campaign is actually a "smoking causes early death so not smoking prolongs life" campaign, if you think about it. Healthy eating, cancer prevention and treatment, dementia etc treatment and prevention, brain training, physical and mental rehabilitation training -> all are efforts to reduce odds of untimely death meaning all are efforts to expand life expectancy.

Outside of this, consider the magical curing of age related death tomorrow. Do people with unbearable conditions now have to live with them forever? With their quadrapligia, lack of long/short memory, parkinsons, etc? Suppose we can magic hand-wave our way around those.

What of births? Approximately 130-140 million children are born globally each year. That's another billion in ~8 years. We already struggle to feed our current population with ~700million facing food insecurity, and estimates say that using all available space, not wasting, and being more efficient with our diets we could perhaps support 20 billion on this planet. This would, however, require perfect cooperation between everyone on earth deciding to share perfectly and agree to move to plant based diets where required. At current birth rate, we'd have less than 100 years to solve food waste and build out the capacity. Or is birth now controlled a la China? Who gets to decide? What happens when the decision turns out to be wrong and leads to inbalance of viable mating pairs? Do we pivot to global sterilization? No more births until we colonize Mars?

And where does everyone live? If we are maximizing use of arable lands, humans can then only live in un-arable lands because we need farms and greenhouses on those lands. So we have to live above the green-line on mountains, tundras and permanent ice, and deserts. And the more food we have to grow, the less land we have to live in, meaning density increases meaning that the odds of a super-spreader disease increases meaning that people will die regardless because in all of this we never cured death but only age-related death.

>And when I look at the problem... it seems entirely solvable!

If that were the case, that you really saw a clear path, you'd write the proposals and get the funding. If it is the case, rather, that what you have is simplistic hope/belief that it "should" be solveable, then you're in the same boat as everyone already doing the research, minus any actual research contribution.

Actually, there was a recent breakthrough that might be the door to open a path to addressing age related degeneration (I’m assuming this is what you mean, not immortality). The enzyme is called CMLase and it prevent the glycoslylation that leads to stiff collagen and aging in the skin. The keys are probably things like preserving cell metabolism, boosting mitochondrial function, preventing telomere shortening, and reducing repair from cellular damage (which can lead to “aging” and cancer). BTDubs aging is also 100% preventable - just don’t smoke anything, don’t drink, reduce grilled and smoked meat, limit sugar, use SPF 50 multiple times daily, exercise 3-4 times a week, etc. Basically don't do anything that leads to DNA repair or glycosylation and you become a superager. The number doesn’t matter as much as the experience of being that age.

You don’t really NEED a pill to do any of this. Instead we prolly all need a different type of society that is less stressful and prioritizes health education & supporting folks having great lives as they age. Ageism is killer, just take care of yourself.

We cherish abundance and happiness, but what’s the point of enduring pain and mediocrity, no matter how long it lasts?

How old are you?