The Truth about Human Aging

Jinn of Quality and Risk
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
— Alfred Tennyson

Jinn's Home

The Truth about Human Aging

Scientific American's June 2002 issue has an essay, called "No Truth to the Fountain of Youth" and a corresponding position paper collaboratively written by 51 top researchers in the field of aging research is online. That paper is entitled "The Truth about Human Aging" and purports to set out the current state of the science. Very interesting. Mankind has always had a desire for longer and healthier lives. Let's have a look at what these researchers say:

In the past century a combination of successful public health campaigns, changes in living environments and advances in medicine have led to a dramatic increase in human life expectancy. Long lives experienced by unprecedented numbers of people in developed countries are a triumph of human ingenuity. This remarkable achievement has produced economic, political and societal changes that are both positive and negative.

Strange. Life extension has "negative" consequences? By what standard? What about longer lives in developing countries? are they not a triumph also?

Although there is every reason to be optimistic that continuing progress in public health and the biomedical sciences will contribute to even longer and healthier lives in the future, a disturbing and potentially dangerous trend has also emerged in recent years.

Great. Things will continue to improve, not to mention the positive impact of individual lifestyle choices. Odd that they don't mention this, though.

There has been a resurgence and proliferation of health care providers and entrepreneurs who are promoting antiaging products and lifestyle changes that they claim will slow, stop or reverse the processes of aging.

Isn't that wonderful? there is a growing awareness of and demand for life extension products and advice; naturally, entrepreneurs have stepped in to match the supply to the demand. Another instance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work thanks to the operation of a free-market economy.

Even though in most cases there is little or no scientific basis for these claims, the public is spending vast sums of money on these products and lifestyle changes, some of which may be harmful.

Ah, I see. Our researcher friends are worried that the current scientific basis is not always well-known (in "most cases"), and that vast sums of money may be spent in actually harmful ways (but note the "may be"). No doubt these experts will enlighten the public so that we may spend our money in wiser ways. At this point, it seems that they are ignoring the "placebo effect" which basically means that even if some product has no direct effect by itself (it could be sugar), the mere fact that one is taking it has a positive effect. Why this is the case is not known, but we know it happens nevertheless.

Over the next few days, we'll examine each section of their position paper. This is an exciting subject, although I'm always wary of self-proclaimed "authorities" who decide to set the record straight for the ignorant masses. We'll tread carefully, check premises, avoid fallacies, look for the evidence, and keep a positive attitude.