A while back my university magazine approached me to write a scientific article for a well-educated but non-specialist audience i.e. my fellow students.
After submitting it multiple times and trying to get in touch, I abandoned the whole thing (they didn't seem to be interested; or bother letting me know that they weren't interested anymore). I've just found the Word file and thought - hey, might as well share this with the world. Please take into consideration that some of the circumstantial aspects of this piece are now out of date.
After submitting it multiple times and trying to get in touch, I abandoned the whole thing (they didn't seem to be interested; or bother letting me know that they weren't interested anymore). I've just found the Word file and thought - hey, might as well share this with the world. Please take into consideration that some of the circumstantial aspects of this piece are now out of date.
Do you
believe in aging?

You’re lying down on a soft, lush green lawn, staring at the
crisp blue sky, watching clouds fly by. Could it be that you could fly beside
them one day? This isn’t the thought of someone who has ever been on a plane.
This is the thought of the millions of people before us who didn’t. Imagine
being them - it makes perfect sense, after all, that humans don’t have wings
and can’t fly. Full stop. Yet people fly, they fly everyday beneath the clouds,
above the clouds, and beside the clouds. A small fraction of people made that
possible. It could be argued that without the wild belief that somehow a wingless
human might find themselves beside clouds, the achievement would never have
happened. Discoveries and research are driven by people’s vehement belief that
there is more around us that we don’t know of yet. So how come certain topics
more than others stir up disbelief among many, despite the experiences of the
past, and a base of crude empirical evidence?

London, 16th century - the average life expectancy
is 30 years. The same place in the 21st century sees the average
life expectancy rocket to an average of 80 years and rising. Past experiences
show that it is possible for life expectancy to triple in the space of 500
years, with people not really making a big deal out of it. Improving sanitation
and healthcare may seem like easy things to have done in the past which
resulted in increased lifespan. Yet nothing is ever easy before it is done,
much like creating an aircraft is only commonplace once the very first one has
safely taken off and landed. The idea
that it is possible to reverse the process which results in the most deaths
worldwide – aging – is seen as an untouchable fantasy, and has been all along. Wasn’t
flying an untouchable fantasy?
The more big leaps are turned into small steps, the more
fathomable such breakthroughs become. Stopping aging has a very high rating of impossible indeed, yet stopping the
specific biological processes which may cause aging (mutant mitochondria and
death-resistant cells among others) has a much better rating, close to very much possible. The number of people
who believe aging will eventually be reversed at some point in the future is
much higher than the number of people who believe aging will be reversed closer
to our time. Will humans meet alien life? Why not? Will humans meet alien life
this year? A resounding no might be the answer. Imagine for a minute that a
group of people believe they will meet alien life within the year, despite
there being no chance of it happening. Aren’t their efforts going to
significantly increase that chance? Aren’t their actions the sole variable that
determines just how likely such breakthrough would be? If no one at all even
considered creating an airplane, how would it even be possible for one to have
been made?
I am currently taking part in a project about the so-called pro-aging trance. It’s a bit like looking back on the people
who thought flying was never going to happen, and trying to find out the
reasons behind it. Why did some people believe and others disbelieve? Could
those answers apply to people today and their beliefs about aging? Although
aging is biological in nature, studying people’s beliefs and profiling their
more general outlook requires a psychological approach. Faced with the apparent
certainty of death, people seek reassurance which can soften the thought of
something that is negative in essence. There
is a continuum of perceived control over one’s life, which runs between an
internal locus of control and an external locus of control. People who find
themselves at the end of the spectrum on the side of the internal locus of
control tend to attribute life’s events to their own actions, therefore blaming
themselves more for how things turn out, and even how the wider world turns
out. At the other end, people with an external locus of control see the world as
greater than them, and are likely to explain things in terms of luck and other
forces out of their reach.
The pro-aging trance is a term used to describe the state of
mind associated with accepting aging as an inevitable constant, therefore going
along with the prospect of aging and death. Strictly speaking, aging is an inevitable constant, but not any more
than us being wingless is. Many inevitable constants of nature have had
their effects nullified by our intelligent actions.
It is common to assume something as a fact of life when it
has been the case for a very long time, unchanged. Think of the monkey
experiment where several caged monkeys would be faced with a hanging banana,
yet each time they tried to reach for it, all monkeys were sprayed with water
(which they hate). The monkeys were replaced one by one with other monkeys
unaware of the water spraying. When the new monkeys tried to reach for the
banana, the other monkeys would stop them in a quite violent fashion. When
faced with the unavoidable, what can you do but accept it? People have been
accepting aging and death since our beginning. The premise behind the pro-aging trance is that people with an internal
locus of control are likely to believe in reversing aging, and either oppose it
on moral grounds, or attempt to join efforts to achieve it. On the other
hand, people with an external locus of control would reject the idea
altogether, or deem it so far-fetched that it deserves no attention from the
people alive today. The pro-aging trance project aims to discover if these
associations stand.
The project was started by Kelsey Moody and his team at SUNY
Plattsburgh, and is being contributed to by Stuart Calimport of Aston
University, Kemal Akman of Munich University, Barry Bentley of Cambridge
University and myself. The initial motivation behind starting this project was,
in Kelsey’s words:
“Like many immortalists, I couldn't figure out why the heck
everyone in the world wasn't getting involved with age-related research. Being a psychology student at the time (I
completed a major in psychology before declaring a second in biochemistry), I
had the training necessary to study the PAT.
I recruited three undergraduates to work for me and we completed a
rather comprehensive literature review on the topic, ultimately implicating TMT
(Terror Management Theory) and LH (Learned Helplessness) as major players in
what we call the PAT.”
TMT states that most human behaviour is caused by the fear of
death, while learned helplessness is a state of a person or an animal that has
learned to behave helplessly, even when the opportunity arises for it to help
itself. This is caused by a constant avoiding of an unpleasant circumstance to
which that person or animal has been subjected.
The results of this project will help understand people’s
attitudes towards rejuvenation biotechnologies, and that understanding is
needed to bring together the resources to advance the future of anti-aging
research into the present.
An interesting current parallel to the debate about whether or not humans can do anything about aging, and whether they can do anything soon, is the debate that is going on around self driving cars. Have a look at any technology blog and there are a load of people adamantly denying that such things as Google's cars will ever work in the 'real world'. I don't think such people will change their minds until 5 years after self driving cars have been driving all over England.
ReplyDelete