As I understand it, the current challenge to longevity lies in the "iteration" markers that get attached to critical chromosomes upon cell division. The current theory is that if we could affect these markers we could affect body chemistry by removing the markers that introduce old age. The trick is in figuring out #1 how to isolate these markers, #2 how to read them, and #3 determine the "proper" value for these markers so the body doesn't freak out. And it has to be controlled as the body progresses, as not all cells divide at the same time.

Very complex indeed.

To me, the objectors cited in the article were asking the wrong question entirely. What they should have been asking was "Why are the markers present at all?"

I often joked with my wife that I wanted to live to be a hundred. I have since retracted this statement after having come down with a bad back (disks, etc.). Before they extend life indefinitely, I'd like them to have a few more remedies in place for common ailments. I'm not so hot on the idea of living hundreds of years with sciatica or fused vertebrae. :S

Good question! As I age I see myself as far more wise in many ways though I admit I'm not as quick in some areas as I was when young. If I could use some sort of regenerative therapy I wonder what it would be like to have the speed of a 25 year old with the wisdom of an over-60 baby boomer.

By the way, I have two four-year-olds so i have good reason to live a long life!

Good points! I have been surprised at the responses from people like Kass that embrace death not as a sad inevitability but as something that so defines what is human that we should not want to defeat it.

To be fair to Fukuyama, he does give as an example of a problem with life extension the ageless dictator. But this seems a weak argument,

The radical changes in social structures, for example, not needing young replacements for aging folks, would present challenges. But there is no end to productive enterprises that love-lived humans or transhumans could undertake. And I assume that government would not look like what we have today.

First, what a great article. Next I can only think of many "Generational Ships" leaving orbit to seek out and inhabit the far corners of this wonderful Universe. Being able to bring back lessons learned and technologies learned for the betterment of all humankind. There will always be those that will find a problem with anything that is attempted.

I have no problem with those who advocate strict limits on the human lifespan, as long as they practice what they preach. :-)

All I can say is that, at my age, they'd better hurry up because I'd like to get in on it. If life extension is available, I'll settle for that until immortality is ready to go.

I agree with Zenphamy that what we have is a 'worship of Death'. We humans always deify the most powerful elements in our landscape - including pharaohs and Caesars. So it is no surprise that we have, in the past, deified Death. What is notable is that now, when we can challenge aging, we see this as an affront to that deity and rationalize why we should not do this.

Ending aging and producing a limitless life span is not challenging Death. Poul Anderson said it best (Tau Zero? I paraphrase): If the only thing that can kill Superman is a Kryptonite meteorite moving at near light speed striking him directly between the eyes...eventually, this will happen.

What delaying or ending aging will do is overturn the replacement model of our culture, where age obsolescence opens spaces in the rank structure that are then filled by younger folk. There is cause for concern were this model to end: what if a politician never died, never lost his grasp on his crony group? We will have to figure out how to deal with these things. We can do this.

I very much liked the way the article pointed out that as life span has increased we have had an increase, not a decrease, in technology and innovation. (Many people do not realize that life span for Americans has increased from "40's" to "80's" between 1900 and now.) Agification does not mean ossification.

I take about 25 nutrient supplements a day. Some of them probably do not do any good; I am pretty darn sure that none of them do harm. I am fighting back against aging and I enthusiastically applaud the entry of self-interested billionaires into this field - their resources will make my life better and longer.

Jan, so far so good

If one stops aging, and that is exciting, would one continue to mature psychologically? Most 18 year olds are pretty immature. I have two great grand children, I would love to see them grow up!

also, how much of that is just physical? I think attractiveness includes many things. I am one of those women whom male attractiveness really doesn't place much value on physical beauty. It's things like a face lighting up, how they move, athleticism(sticking to the physical). Obviously I place the highest importance on who they are intellectually.

How about 18 when you are really healthy on the average

Yeah- stop degeneration and let me live longer. Great idea. Just keep the government out of it. They will only mess things up like they do other things. How people in this country believe government IS the answer to everything really surprises me.

very interesting. I didn't consider peak attractiveness as much physical health-for a female, the risks of child bearing go up even at 25-30. as well onset of cancers such as ovarian and breast.

I knew a psychologist who specialised in courtship and relationships. She believed that women's peak attractiveness was ages 25-35, while men's peak attractiveness was ages 40-50.

Yes. In fact, I believe something like half of drugs approved for treatment of one ailment are used for other ailments as well. Aspirin is a prime example. It began a drug to prevent heart attacks long before it was approved by the government for that use.

I think it may be different between males and females, so I would say 18

A better example might be the pharmaceutical industry and how drugs developed for one purpose sometimes are found to have other benefits. The NASA discussion would be a good one.

People have been thinking about this since Gilgamesh, the oldest story in human history. In the end the most powerful man in the world can't become immortal, but he sees the things he helped build will go on after his life.

Most diseases are associated with age. If you could some how slow it down, that would reduce cancer, cardio-vascular diseases, and neurological problems.

Slowing aging or reducing its effects would be very valuable.

Your point is well-taken. I would add that just like in a free market we don't know in advance which products and services will best meet consumer needs and sell, we don't know which breakthroughs will best meet human health needs. Will repairing a damaged heart with nanobots, growing a healthy replacement heart from a patient's stem cells, or implanting a mechanical one work best? It will depend on which technologies are developed when.

By the way, while i take you point, NASA isn't a good example. The spinoffs of the space program in most cases could have been gotten for less money, though maybe not as soon, in the normal course of market activities. But space privatization is another topic!

Living longer per se is not that interesting, but stopping the aging processes is. When do you think the ideal age would be to stop the aging process? 18? 25? 40?

Very well put, both rational and passionate! You highlight exactly what nonsense is implied by Kass's statement.

By the way, I've written about Kass before. Concerning the transhumanist project, he says, “In perpetuation, we send forth not just the seed of our bodies, but also the bearer of our hopes… If our children are to flower, we need to sow them well and nurture them, cultivate them in rich and wholesome soil, clothe them in fine and decent opinions and mores, and direct them toward the highest light.”

But then he adds, “If they are truly to flower, we must go to seed; we must wither and give ground.”

My response is, What? If parents love their children they must die? My parents are 82 years old. I love them and want them to be around as long as possible. Damned selfish of me? And I’m an older father of very young fraternal twin girls. I want to live to see them graduate college, grow in careers, perhaps make me a grandfather, and much more.

Just as there is a deep, anti-human premise in extreme environmentalists, there is a deep anti-human premise in some conservatives. Here's a link to my earlier piece: http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/201...

I really don't understand the opposition to this. It's hard to know what advancements will be made while working towards this goal. To extend life we need to address many of the degenerative processes that take place in the human body. Almost certainly each step forward in this research will benefit all of us. I was thinking of it like the space program. Many of the advancements made helped in areas outside of NASA.

Good points and glad you're literally on with the program. There has always been a subculture in the libertarian movement interested in life extension. And I hope that as the quest is taken up by entrepreneurial achievers, more of them will follow Thiel's lead and take up libertarian philosophy. I like to say that most of them have the values of a Howard Roark but still need the politics of a John Galt!

I for one completely endorse any effort or enterprise aimed at conquering physical death, or at the very least, extending human health-span.

It makes so much financial sense too. What's the point of working so hard and earning all that money, only to get it prised from your cold dead hands!

I've been a fan of immortalist philosophy for 20 years, I have a very elaborate longevity regimen, and am often estimated at 10 or more years younger than I am. It's the ultimate selfishness, and I say that in a good way. It's also very selfless - saving your loved ones from the horrible heart-shredding grief of losing you.

I say, give it a shot. Regimes, products and techniques that actually work are like needles in a haystack of fake quackery, but well worth the search.

If you choose to embark on your own search, you will be periodically gob-smacked as you realise just how much our culture is predicated on human mortality.

Physical immortality is the ultimate form of Going Galt - lets DO IT! :D

The Post cites physician and ethicist Leon Kass who asks: “Could life be serious or meaningful without the limit of mortality?”

Could a man with such a statement supposedly couched in his concept of ethics and the desire for understanding of the frailties of human life, possibly make a statement so contradictory, with any integrity left. To actually find value in and worship death, and the transition from healthy, vitality to lingering and painful death--to have to see genius be debilitated by the failure of the cells in his body and lose the possible insights and discoveries into the very fabric of our existence--and to imply that the sluggish, often mistaken, steps of natural selection driven by naturally occurring accidents or environmental change, is a better determiner and limiter of what we can ultimately do to not only adapt our environment to our needs, but also life--and then to think that Leon's judgement in those matters is of any import to rational logic of a thinking human mind, is demented arrogance of the worst sort.

I can't imagine anything better than to have the years to learn everything that I've desired to learn, and had to pass over much of that, in order to learn and apply what I needed in order to become productive I my life. I can only dream of the man that can learn as much as possible and apply that to the world around him and of what could be achieved.

Yes I'm excited by the challenges being tackled by those that have the ability and capitol to move that science forward. I may be too old to benefit much from their efforts, but my children may-- but not if those men are stopped by the fearful, jealous, and socially conscious among us.