Open Longevity

The Most Important Event in Longevity in 2024. Debate How to Defeat Aging? This is the most important event in longevity in 2024 and one of the most crucial conversations in our field to date. The Nobel Prizes, most of the hype and investment, and humanity's hopes for radical life extension currently revolve around rejuvenation. Aubrey de Grey is an influential author and a staunch advocate for achieving radical life extension through a comprehensive system of rejuvenation. On the other hand, Peter Fedichev and the Gero team, which he leads, recognize the value of rejuvenation. In fact, they have an in-house project that has produced partial rejuvenation in old mice, and they are now developing an mRNA vaccine that could be the first rejuvenation/anti-aging vaccine. This drug has the potential to address many age-related diseases with unmet needs and significant market potential. However, Dr. Fedichev makes a strong case, covered by Popular Mechanics, about the limitations of rejuvenation for humans, suggesting it might offer only around 10-15 additional years of lifespan at best. This assertion, backed by several publications and public presentations, has made waves in our community, earning the Gero team the nickname “The Rejuvenation Party Poopers.” If Fedichev is right, those investing in life extension or supporting longevity startups—such as Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Yuri Milner, Brian Armstrong, Blake Byers, Michael Greve, Larry Page, and Bill Maris, —along with new investors, granting agencies, and entrepreneurs, should consider diversifying their bets. They should think not just about rejuvenation but also about halting aging by mechanisms as Fedichev suggests and start funding such approaches immediately. Time is ticking, and we could be the last generation to die from aging if we all go in the wrong direction. For many years, numerous aging theories have peacefully coexisted, with their proponents publishing papers, receiving grants, starting companies, and being cordial to one another. We now find ourselves in a postmodern situation where almost everyone in gerontology refrains from directly critiquing other approaches. The field and humanity are losing out because of this. We need open debate to address critical questions, set trends for future research, and develop effective therapies. An esteemed jury will be carefully weighing the evidence presented by each side. The stakes are high, with a $10,000 prize awaiting the scientist whose arguments and evidence prove most compelling.