Video

Aubrey de Grey

6 Videos

Read Transcript

Scientist really like the rest of humanity, have overwhelmingly made that peace with aging. I can't believe that aging is something that we're just never going to be able to do anything about, or at least not in time that's relevant to them and therefore it might as well be something that we don't spend our time preoccupied by.

It might as well get along with [xx] but I think we might actually be able to affect, and of course the whole purpose of my work is to demonstrate that that's not true. But I do have some sympathy with it because it's only been quite recently that anyone and myself never come up with a realistic plan about really doing something about aging in the foreseeable future.

And of course it takes time for that plan to actually permeate cultural outstanding. So the real outside that led to all of this work was that we could actually take the body of information, the body of knowledge that had been developed by people who studied the Biology over many decades and ask, well OK, what if it's turning?

Now in order to do this, you don't look at old people, what you do, if you look at young adults, you say OK, what is the actual difference of composition between let's say a 25 year old and a 40 year old. Now we know that there's no much difference, but we know that the differences there are are critical, because that's why the 40 year old has that shorter remaining life expectancy than a 25 year old.

So that's the dynamics that really matters. If we could restore the 40 year old to having biologically the same composition as the 25 year old, we would have postponed that persons decent into ill health which is obviously still in the future anyway, but it will be further in the future. And the reason that's a practical and interesting concept is simply because if you look at actually what that damage is you just enumerate the types of things that we can actually identify that are different in composition, there are very, very few of them. So big insight was to see that they were so few that we could actually classify them into just seven major categories.

Seven categories of damage, three of them cellular, four of them molecular that accumulate and progress through our lives and that we have good reason to believe they eventually contribute to various types of age related disease and disability. At the moment, we can't comprehensively starve off or reverse any of the seven categories with what we have today.

But with all of those categories we have sufficient knowledge of, we have sufficient background technology so to speak that we have a very good chance in my view of being able to take the remaining step to turn that node into those [xx] within only a few decades. I think we have a 50% chance of getting [xx] seven categories withing the next 25 years.

Helpful? 5 people found this helpful.