Life expectancy is increasing in the developed world. But Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey believes it will soon extend dramatically to 1,000. Here, he explains why.

Ageing is a physical phenomenon happening to our bodies, so at some point in the future, as medicine becomes more and more powerful, we will inevitably be able to address ageing just as effectively as we address many diseases today.

I claim that we are close to that point because of the SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) project to prevent and cure ageing.

It is not just an idea: it's a very detailed plan to repair all the types of molecular and cellular damage that happen to us over time.

And each method to do this is either already working in a preliminary form (in clinical trials) or is based on technologies that already exist and just need to be combined.


This means that all parts of the project should be fully working in mice within just 10 years and we might take only another 10 years to get them all working in humans.

When we get these therapies, we will no longer all get frail and decrepit and dependent as we get older, and eventually succumb to the innumerable ghastly progressive diseases of old age.

We will still die, of course - from crossing the road carelessly, being bitten by snakes, catching a new flu variant etcetera - but not in the drawn-out way in which most of us die at present.


I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already

So, will this happen in time for some people alive today? Probably. Since these therapies repair accumulated damage, they are applicable to people in middle age or older who have a fair amount of that damage.

I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already.

It is very complicated, because ageing is. There are seven major types of molecular and cellular damage that eventually become bad for us - including cells being lost without replacement and mutations in our chromosomes.

Each of these things is potentially fixable by technology that either already exists or is in active development.

'Youthful not frail'

The length of life will be much more variable than now, when most people die at a narrow range of ages (65 to 90 or so), because people won't be getting frailer as time passes.


There is no difference between saving lives and extending lives, because in both cases we are giving people the chance of more life
The average age will be in the region of a few thousand years. These numbers are guesses, of course, but they're guided by the rate at which the young die these days.

If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000.

And remember, none of that time would be lived in frailty and debility and dependence - you would be youthful, both physically and mentally, right up to the day you mis-time the speed of that oncoming lorry.

Should we cure ageing?

Curing ageing will change society in innumerable ways. Some people are so scared of this that they think we should accept ageing as it is.

I think that is diabolical - it says we should deny people the right to life.

The right to choose to live or to die is the most fundamental right there is; conversely, the duty to give others that opportunity to the best of our ability is the most fundamental duty there is.

There is no difference between saving lives and extending lives, because in both cases we are giving people the chance of more life. To say that we shouldn't cure ageing is ageism, saying that old people are unworthy of medical care.

Playing God?

People also say we will get terribly bored but I say we will have the resources to improve everyone's ability to get the most out of life.

People with a good education and the time to use it never get bored today and can't imagine ever running out of new things they'd like to do.

And finally some people are worried that it would mean playing God and going against nature. But it's unnatural for us to accept the world as we find it.

Ever since we invented fire and the wheel, we've been demonstrating both our ability and our inherent desire to fix things that we don't like about ourselves and our environment.

We would be going against that most fundamental aspect of what it is to be human if we decided that something so horrible as everyone getting frail and decrepit and dependent was something we should live with forever.

If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which God made us in His image.

Aubrey de Grey leads the SENS project at Cambridge University and also runs the Methuselah Mouse prize for extending age in mice.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm

I doubt it. The moment people start living even longer, is the moment overpopulation starts to get worse, and the moment even more wars start over land and resources.

Living to 1000 is a really bad idea. A top limit of, say, 90 is already rather excessive.

Sinclair hes right, once technology develops to the point that DNA can be manipulated directly codon by codon its easy to stop telemorase the principle cause of aging.

I´m all for it, our geniuses would also live 1000 years and contribute with their talents to our people. Of course, If it would be up to me I would dispense this treatment on whites...You know, like the Elfs ;)

You'd see some leftie idiots calling for sharing this technology with the negroes in Africa to avoid 'racist age differences' asap.

Of course thats what would/will happen, but then I would guess its going to be an expensive treatment, not on reach for your average untermensch. I quite look forward to it. A good step also for spacetravel.

They cheer for South Africa leaching off of aids medicines without paying for them too. I'm all for this, but I think the state of our society today isn't ideal for it. You're right about spacetravel, it would be a giant leap forwards. Combined with cryotechnology, we could send astronauts to other solar systems. Not that horrible planet of the apes of course. :D

Sinclair hes right, once technology develops to the point that DNA can be manipulated directly codon by codon its easy to stop telemorase the principle cause of aging.

I don't care about whether or not he's scientifically right. The problem here is that people will still be people, living to a thousand years or not: They will still breed, still get in wars, etc.

The world is already overpopulated. If healthy people could live to a thousand, that would make the problem many times worse.

Good news. :D

We might aswell note for future reference that Sinclair doe snot want to take advantge of these possible new discovery.

Now that would be a revolution if you ask me that I would not mind taking part with. All those ready to die in their under hunderd might do so.

Oh, I'd love to take advantage of it. But I'm also capable of realising that in the big picture, it is baaaad.

If the world was already fucked, I'd probably go for it just for shits and giggles.

I actually agree with sinclair. Overpopulation is already a problem. But the world needs me around as long as possible.

I'm pleased at the prospect. I'm 27 and I notice that in the back of my mind, if I think about the issue, I can feel a certain "time-pressure." Living to 1,000 would certainly relieve that pressure.

Then again, if the technology doesn't work out, my life force will simply choose a more suitable host when the current one expires.

Would it suck to be the last generation to die early? :(

Now, go excersize and eat healthy and pray that you'll live until the miracle of long life becomes available :222

As previously said this will only add to overpopulation. My mother and father are about 30 years older than I am, in the future we can expect mothers and fathers to be 300 years older than their 3rd or 4th set of children.

People embrace this idea as they are afraid of death. Again, most people embracing this idea are from the younger generation. I think this area of science will eventually happen, so I think the best idea is to construct possible solutions to the problems that will arise.

You're right about spacetravel, it would be a giant leap forwards. Combined with cryotechnology, we could send astronauts to other solar systems. Not that horrible planet of the apes of course. :D

My thoughts exactly. Those that are given the treatment should be forced into cosmos exploration service. Heck, I would do that.
You would not even need cryogenics if people lived to 1000. Cyrogenics is necessarily when people are short lived (say 100) but travelling a time of 500 years. I'm sure it would be boring as hell, but hey 'we will have new ideas to entertain people'!


The comment on being ageist is funny. I'm sure I'm a racist since I'm not allowing black people to be born as whites.