We all contain biological clocks of sorts. We measure time not just by the passing of each second, but in the broader context of what we perceive to be a human lifecycle and the sheer reality of the aging of our bodies. This notion pervades all individuals, and it explains much of the patterns of human behavior. It is the reason why people chose to settle in their twenties and thirties, often building a nest with a mate choice and sometimes having children; and also the core reason for the notion of retirement. Significant institutions such as retirement and social security are premised on the acceptance of a population which will suffer physical and mental decomposition ending with death. The critical question is whether we do right in accepting the phenomenon of aging as a natural and immutable force of nature? To answer this we must seek to understand more deeply the reason of its existence as well as the positive and negative consequences of the human lifecycle on individuals and society. The stakes at hand are not only the death or survival of all readers (as well as everyone they’ve ever known or will know), but as I will seek to show, social development beyond the inherited class limitations which currently constrain human society.
Why is it that there has not been more questioning around the fundamental span and lifecycle of human life? Everywhere around us we see irrefutable evidence of individuals seeking to escape their personal death-sentences (except in the case that they are so bothered by the specter of their own mortality that they deliberately give themselves over to self-destructive behaviors). Those who would seek to combat aging as best they can shift to healthier lifestyles so as to mitigate the damage of time. Frequently, individuals turn to cosmetic solutions so as to disguise their true decay – the skin cream industry grows as does the use of plastic surgery. Bending and sagging women who in their youth took pride in turning heads undergo facelifts, collagen injections, silicone implants and other such crude manipulations of faces and body parts to resemble the gloss, smoothness and rubbery qualities of the youthful female body. Many more consume increasing quantities of drugs either to reduce morbidity (e.g., Lipitor) or for reasons of lifestyle (e.g., Viagra). Less attention is paid to mental faculties, despite similar breakdowns in the functioning of the mind. Yet how many among us would let our thoughts darken in the haze of Alzheimer’s? How many of our loved ones would we allow to suffer strokes that will strand them on an island of infant-like dependence as the waters of their perdition continue to rise? Despite this frenzy of activity among the older population to stave off crippling aging, society as such has accepted it as fact that technology cannot but play a relatively superficial role in a decay understood to be inevitable. We have accepted that our fate is to break down and rust as a bicycle that has been left out in the snow.
This last point would not be alarming if it were not for the fact that it fundamentally misunderstands life. Does a living cell decay by its very existence as a bit of iron exposed to the elements will rust? Obviously not – they are programmed to die. In fact, aging individuals who already have hair full of gray and a body replete with streaks of decomposition also have cells which have not aged a single day since they were born. The reason for this is that not all parts of the body age at the same rate – human sex cells are immune to aging, even if the reproductive system altogether (which is mostly composed of somatic cells) does break down due to age. In fact, if old parents produce offspring, the baby is still born at age 0. This true understanding of what this fact means is astounding: human reproduction constitutes the individuation of fully youthful cells which have arisen from two older adults who have united gametes. If cells necessarily decayed by their mere existence, would this not mean that human adults would not be able to give birth to youthful human babies? Would the baby not necessarily be born with the same cellular age of the parents, despite its physical immaturity? The fact that this is not so should fully dispel the rusting bicycle model of human life. In fact, combining this observation with an understanding of evolution makes clear that we are all part of an eternally youthful cell-line that stretches back to the first stirrings of life. Like bacteria, the human species has not aged a single day. Rather we ride the incessant churning of death as we continue to create new youth. The fundamental question is whether this inherent violence in human death and procreation is technically and ethically necessary.
Recent scientific discoveries have uncovered why it is that sex-cells are immune to aging while the rest of our cells (somatic) must be burdened by cellular damage with the passing of time: the answer lies in the mechanism of cell division. Whereas sex-cells have a particular enzyme (telomerase) which ensures that each cell-division creates new equally youthful cells – somatic cells lack this enzyme and therefore incur damage (shortening of the telomeres) as they continue to divide. It seems humans have been designed to last a certain number of years (and cell-divisions) before widespread cellular breakdown occurs leading to death (cf. Hayflick limit). However, scientists have been able to alter the DNA of regular somatic human cells so that these cells will also produce the restorative enzyme, thereby disabling the main mechanism of aging. The result has been the creation of immortal somatic human cells in the petri-dish: cells that continue to divide healthily without experiencing cellular damage (their telomeres do not shorten).
Given this staggering fact it is absolutely critical that humankind answer the following two questions. Firstly, can we create age-less bodies? – i.e., is it technically possible or expedient to reproduce this achievement of single-cell genetic engineering on the scale of entire human bodies so as to significantly extend what we understand as the human lifecycle? And secondly, should we do it – i.e., would it be unethical or socially damaging to seek to engineer the human lifecycle?
Technically, it does not seem to be nearly as difficult to disable this main mechanism of aging in the human body as it was to launch a rocket through the atmosphere, have a human crew take a few steps on the moon, and re-enter orbit safely. The Manhattan project which increased the human destructive capability and brought doomsday closer to realization also probably required much greater investment than would likely be required to provide this enzyme to each cell in the human body. When placed in this context it seems evident that it is only a matter of time and investment before human bodies are liberated from the shortening of telomeres which drives senescence. This would not put an end to diseases like cancer and so on, but it would definitely reduce human morbidity given that most death is partly enabled by the damage of aging (this is the reason heart disease is more prevalent in older individuals than young ones). The key technical challenge seems to revolve around inserting the telomerase gene into somatic cells in already-living individuals. This boils down to the main problem of most genetic engineering: changing the DNA of the billions of individual cells which constitute an organism. But we are not without ideas on how to do this. The highest likelihood of success seems to be the use of engineered retroviral vectors to insert this gene into all cells. It goes without saying, however, that insufficient vision, as well as a lack of scientific focus and investment still leaves us in a position where we must heavily invest money, time and talent in the necessary research and development to support telomere restoration.
Despite the remaining challenges, the achievement would perhaps rank among the most beneficial in history – the elimination of senescence driven by telomere shortening. And we must take courage in our understanding of what needs to be done. The only thing standing between humanity and success is widespread recognition of the necessity of this scientific innovation, as well as the approval to drive the required research. Once resources and human talent are committed to this technical question, it is a matter of time before a solution is discovered. Therefore, we would clearly be better off focusing more talent and resources on this question rather than purely cosmetic issues such as better skin creams and other treatments for the symptoms of aging. Even the extensive research in major killers of the day like cancer and heart disease would yield much lower benefits than a major breakthrough in the treatment of cellular senescence via telomere restoration.
At this point, many people may remain skeptical that this can or should realistically be achieved because they do not fundamentally believe human bodies should persist without breaking down. Such a view arises from a refusal to do away with the rusting bicycle model of life. These people may insist with pseudo-moralistic distaste that longer life would be unnatural. By such flippant opinions they would seek to write-off the lives of humanity to suit their sense of the natural. However, scientists such as evolutionary biologists and anthropologists, know that this notion of nature lacks a proper understanding around the drivers for lifespan found in nature. Human beings live longer than horses which live longer than mice, and so on. Yet some plants such as trees may live much longer still – with some trees being tens of thousands years old and still being in perfect health. Finally, bacteria never end but continue to replicate ad infinitum. The reason is that aging seems to be largely driven by the amount of predation and incurred mortality of the specific species. Species with few predators such as turtles, elephants or whales live longer because it is less important for them to reproduce quickly so as to evolutionarily out-innovate predators. This suggests clearly that lifespan is a biological trait which has been designed by nature in the game of evolution. These conditions have been surpassed by human society and no longer govern our affairs.
The evolution that will ensure the survival of the human species will be an evolution of the soul first, and technology second. The threats we face are not starvation, but man-made ecological devastation. The killers to combat are not the white fang of the ravenous tiger, but rather our own lack of imagination. We should never resign ourselves to fates we have not questioned, for true human nature is to unravel the seeming inevitability of nature by wit, skill and technique. Although the human lifecycle has been the passive beneficiary of advances in health which have extended average life-span through better care, humanity must still do away with the self-destruct feature in our evolutionary design.
As I will argue next, doing away with a life of aging is not only tantamount to saving everyone’s life for a significant number of years, it will also have huge social benefits which may not be immediately apparent.
