The lucky breed (are we?)

There is a joke making the rounds at longevity conferences: 'Don't die'. Hang in there, but don't die (before science takes its course).

If a decade ago this seemed like a rather vague joke, today it appears to be a prediction rather than a prophecy. It seems, in fact, that this is the decade, or rather the hexennium (a six years span), since 2030 appears to be the timeframe of this widespread optimism, by which the promises of a slowing down the ageing process to the point of stopping it, regressing it, and moving the end of life to a hypothetical 'never', are about to see the light of day.

There are basically three reasons why this prediction could be right.

1) AI + computing capacity

The acceleration shown by the development of computational capacity and artificial intelligence systems has exceeded even the most optimistic forecasts. Many of those who thought that a general AI would never happen or, perhaps, would happen, but not earlier than 2050, have had to hastily revise their estimates. It is as if in 2023 we suddenly boarded a rocket whose destination we do not know. That is, there does not seem to be a terminus waiting for us at the end of the ride, but rather an endless circuit, galaxy after galaxy after galaxy. Of course, we will have to learn to avoid black holes, but stopping this rocket we are on, seems objectively impossible.

2) A new equation.

Despite the fact that the US Food and Drug Administration, the global key master in regulatory terms, still does not recognise old age as a disease state and thus as a suitable target for therapy, the widespread acceptance of the equation of old age=disease is a fact now entrenched among researchers, longevity thought leaders and, somehow, investors. Instead of treating individual diseases that typically occur over the course of age, would it not be better to treat one for all? In other words, if we could treat old age as such, would we not also combat all the other related pathologies? Seen as the Perseverance rover exploring Mars or the blimp Italia crossing the North Pole, the TAME study led by Professor Barzilai is now in its sixth year. The entire longevity sector is feverishly awaiting the outcome of its status-quo ice-breaking mission. If, as everything suggests, it will be successful, it will mark a historic paradigm shift: from treating each age-related medical condition separately to treating these conditions together, targeting ageing per se.

3) Hot topic: Investment!

For the first time, we have the distinct feeling that the great reservoir from which the longevity theme had until now drawn its sustenance - the United States - has found a serious alternative in the Middle East region. The US, with its somewhat baroque style bordering on ultra-liberalism and intricate regulations moves like an elephant with a hiccup, always protects the private investor first and foremost. In opposition to that, both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have launched a series of innovation initiatives in the longevity space directly supported by their respective governments which - besides counting on virtually infinite capital - have set longevity as a strategic goal. The difference is by no means trivial. It is, to all intents and purposes, a renaissance approach, whereby state patronage aims to drastically accelerate research in favour of humanity and the quality of its life, which thus returns to the centre of a strategic and social project and not to the pockets of a few super-entrepreneurs. While these investors have done a lot so far by carrying the burden of a taboo subject, and we must absolutely acknowledge them for it, they have also made longevity research appear a do-it-yourself pastime for the few ultra-rich. Sticking to the Renaissance simile for a second, 500 years after the splendour of the Medici, that method still influences our culture and society today. In fact, it is not just a matter of mere ROI to make a quick buck, but of organic growth and the ability to create a system, to develop and, above all, to lead a movement of opinion, sharing, and participation. In fact, in Saudi Arabia, the Hevolution Foundation is already the organisation only second to the NIH globally in terms of capital invested in longevity research and innovation. It is quite easy to predict how, before long, it will become the first. And how, some (or a lot) of the research that today is funded abroad will find a home in the Middle East, where skills, infrastructure and intelligence seem to be second to none. This is further evidenced by the stream of start-ups and scale-ups that are establishing themselves in the UAE to run (and grow) their operations. I believe we will have a clearer picture very soon: 2030 the date when much of this region's future will be visible in its programmatic entirety, ideally amplified by the showcase that the World Expo in Riyadh will represent, is only six years away.

I've decided not to include the various ongoing research endeavors aimed at hacking the (nine, twelve, or fourteen, depending on the school of thought) hallmarks of aging from the reasons why this hexennium will be the period in which the science of longevity demonstrates its validity. Why? Simply because as I write these lines, researchers at Osaka University have published a study showing that the HKDC1 protein plays a central role in the rearrangement of two key organs within cells, called organelles. The protein helps eliminate damaged mitochondria, which act as small batteries to produce energy within cells, in a process called mitophagy, helping to keep cells healthy. In other words, the tsunami of discoveries affecting the ageing process is set to flood your inbox: as you are reading these lines, dozens more discoveries have already surpassed the knowledge we had only a few minutes ago. And if epigenetic reprogramming, gene therapy, or a generic “cellular medicine” realm enhanced by new disciplines such as quantum chemistry are certain the canvases on which we will redraw our trajectory of healthy life expectancy, on the threshold of 2024 we can fearlessly assert our splendid ignorance. We know that we do not know, and at the same time, we have the firm certainty that we will know.

So, after 200,000 years of Homo Sapiens' wanderings and discoveries and innovations, are we the Lucky breed? That breed capable of capitalising on technological acceleration, taking advantage of a cultural paradigm shift, leveraging patrons willing to invest for the greater good of mankind, ingenious, visionary researchers, and entrepreneurs capable of holding their own when the prospects of longevity seemed only the illusions of some transhumanist fanatics? It seems to be up to us to witness this incredible experience capable of overturning the very concept of humanity and society as we have imagined it so far. It is our turn. So desperately in search of those good old memories that we are constantly trying to bring back our thirst for dominance as we did hundreds or thousands years ago; we who are incapable of keeping peace with our neighbours even for the duration of the blink of an eye; we who are so good at polluting our own home without shame, incapable of respecting our dearest ones, of accepting anyone different from us, of giving the same opportunities to those born in the wrong postcode, maybe just a block away from ours. Do we deserve this gift of science? What will we do with such a long, even endless, healthy life if we do not know how to grasp its meaning, if we do not know how to make sense of it individually and, above all, socially?

It is clear that achieving healthy longevity is an inherent human goal, acknowledging that progress has no cure. While the positive impacts on health systems or production environments are evident in a rational analysis, our approach should extend beyond merely finding a cure for aging.?Longevity research has come to converge on a basic concept: bodies are machines and machines wear out. Today's longevity researchers act like sophisticated mechanics, focused on finding remedies to repair the machine. That seems to be the subject of discussion that excites them most. The machine they are dealing with, however, has a rather peculiar characteristic: it thinks. And it does so in a way that is not necessarily rational. As Benjamin Labatut says:

Men and women act from the gut. They follow intuition and make mistakes out of sheer carelessness. Life is much more than a game. Its richness and complexity cannot be encapsulated in equations, however elegant or balanced they may be. And human beings are not the perfect poker players we imagine. They can be extremely irrational, driven, and side-tracked by emotion, victims of all sorts of contradictions.

The concept of longevity as we have interpreted it so far is based on healthy life span with the aim of extending it while slowing the process of ageing. But this thinking about an alleged shortness of the individual human life is misleading.

Each of us is the same age as the entire biological kingdom, and our bloodstream is an immense ocean of its collective memory. We are not that shortness or length of life. We are the transmitters of the entire stream since the appearance of man on the face of the earth. An archaeopsychic past that drags along the primordial instincts that have remained dormant for thousands of years.

Today, there is no "longevity service" that does not try to tell us and sell us tools to distinguish between our chronological and biological age. How old are our organs really compared to when we were born? Everyone is focused on finding the faulty parts and trying to repair them. Researchers care little about the rest. The prize of defeating?old age is too delicious. But is that really all we care about on the threshold of 2030? Perhaps this desire was fine a hundred years, fifty years ago, but today, can we be content with that? Can we imagine a healthy longevity without considering the context in which this life will be lived? Are we really going to accept being 120 years old in top shape - mental and physical - with no friends to chat with, on an overheated planet, invaded by boring digital prompters, surrounded by people on the edge of sustenance? Are we sure that - if not medically, then at least socially - associating old age with illness is a good idea? While this paradigm shift is the basis for the creation and development of a discipline called longevity, it is a terribly slippery slope that risks exacerbating that sense of contempt so already evident towards the old: to be old, even in splendid health, is to be sick. Of old age, in fact. Because it is hard to think that some of the problems that afflict us today and that are amplified with age - loneliness and isolation, pollution of the planet, misinformation, inequality and poverty, discrimination - can be solved just by the fact that we have discovered how to hack old age. That is not enough.

I know: researchers already have their own shoes to fill to solve the 'say forever!' issue and it is not their place to worry about the society in which this new life will flow as well. Or maybe it is. Longevity research is not and cannot be only about a bunch of biomarkers, the biology of men and women, it is and must be multidisciplinary, it must also concern itself from the outset with where and how a super-lived humanity will live its life.

We wouldn't want to launch new boomerangs blindly, as we have done for the last hundred years, only to find ourselves here devising Net Zero policies, fleets of electric cars (which Herr Benz already had ready in 1906), grandchildren to rent out to keep orphaned grandparents’ company. These are certainly good business opportunities to turn the economy around, but perhaps it is time to focus our energies on new solutions for a better future, rather than new solutions to fix the mistakes we have made in the past. We are the Lucky breed, it is up to us to play the wheel of fortune and decide in which world to live our, theoretically, infinite lives.

The biggest mistake we could make is to look at the finger of an eternally healthy life and not see the moon of a society unfit to welcome it. Don't worry, we can rely on an incredibly powerful weapon of defence: our irrationality. Although it causes the ungovernable chaos we see all around us, it is also a blessing, a strange angel protecting us from the crazy dreams of reason.

For the rest, try not to die. (As if dying is entirely up to us).

?

?