To Fund or Not to Fund: Why the Critics of Anti-Aging Research Have Got it All Wrong

There are so many arguments against supporting anti-aging research that, in order to convince anyone of the opposite, I should really start from here. In this specific area, any positive line of reasoning is simply doomed to failure when confronted with the solidly deaf wall of worries built by the anti-life camp. Sorry, couldn't think of a better name for this group and, with all due respect, maybe there even isn't a more conceptually appropriate and descriptive label. So, I've decided to play according to their rules today and to proceed  in my attempt of showing that there are compelling reasons for funding and otherwise supporting anti-aging research from the grounds set by the opposing team.

So, what exactly is the problem with life extension and longevity research? Actually, there's a bunch of them.

1. Resource prioritization

As this argument goes, resource scarcity imposes constraints on what areas we are going to fund. Some health concerns are more stringent than others, stringency meaning that a higher number of people gets to be affected by these conditions. In the end, chronic diseases like cancer or atherosclerosis lead to an accumulated decrease in well-being and eventually to a higher death toll.

The resource prioritization argument fails on several grounds. Firstly and most importantly, there is no medical condition out there that has managed to take as many human beings to their graves as aging has. Let me be clear about my concepts and tell you what I, while following Robert Arking, mean by aging:

the time-independent series of cumulative, progressive, intrinsic, and deleterious functional and structural changes that usually begin to manifest themselves at reproductive maturity and eventually culminate in death. 

Secondly, the resource prioritization argument fails to acknowledge the fact that many of the chronic conditions that we are dealing with are not independent from the process of aging itself, but constitute its direct consequences or byproducts.

As such, deciding to fund longevity research comes with an entire host of benefits that have the potential of improving and even revolutionizing other crucial areas of public interest as well.

2. Concerns about the future

In a world where aging has been put to a halt, overpopulation and environmental sustainability become real hardships that severely limit one's enjoyment of life, not to mention the health of our planet. According to this view, life extension is actually a problem and not a solution.

I couldn't disagree more with this line of thinking. Its major flaw consists in the fact that it overlooks one important characteristic of technological development: it is not limited to one specific area only, but it is usually diffused in such a way as to promote general progress. Given this, it is hard to imagine a world where humanity has managed to control and subdue such a complicated and complex process as physical aging, but has found absolutely no way to deal with resource scarcity and overpopulation. Even at this very moment there are discussions about colonizing Mars and moving to an overall more sustainable form of energy. On top of this, advances in the field of artificial intelligence might also ease the burden of having to deal with all our problems alone.

3. Nature and hubris

This viewpoint is mainly put forward in a religious context, though not always. The main idea behind it is that life extension is not natural and that our technological attempts to twitch it are hubristic. Taking the place of the Creator is unequivocally and intrinsically wrong.

As far as we can notice, human life span has continued to increase without any direct intervention on the aging process itself. Good sanitary conditions are not 'natural' either and yet they account for a couple of unproblematic extra years that we have added to our lives. Also, though I myself don't think very highly of this argumentative route, we should not disregard the fact that as human beings are products of nature, then, by extension, whatever they create, cannot but be products of nature too. Breaking this chain would lead to quite strange conclusions, by implying that humanity and nature are two independent entities. Obviously, this rings some bells.

Now, the claim of hubris can be placed on practically anything that humans have designed in order to counteract natural misfortunes. C-sections are hubristic and so is coffee because it interferes with one's natural sleep cycle. The hubris claim is very weak for the simple reason that it cannot target longevity research in particular as an instance of  moral wrongness, while not condemning other things that we generally and uncontroversially perceive as beneficial.

4. Frailty 

For many, living more than 90 years, let's say, is not desirable because no one wants to prolong an existence that is characterized by physical and mental deterioration. Now, the problem with this view is that it rests on a wrong set of assumptions. Anti-aging research is not about extending one's life in a state of physical weakness and bad health. It is about reverse engineering the effects of aging and about rejuvenating the body. Ultimately, this means that physical frailty and mental decline are fought against, rather than perpetuated or encouraged.

5. Boredom and disruption of the socio-economic climate

Living too much is plainly boring. What is one going to do with all those extra years? According to Leon Kass, a former chairman of the US President's Council on Bioethics, life is meaningful only because we know that we are going to die at one point! It is death that gives value to life, so by conquering death we only end up impoverishing ourselves and wasting our lives, really. Also, if we live to 200 or even 300, what is going to happen to our marital relationships and their equivalent? More abominably even, how will we deal with the gentrification of the society and its economic implications: the hijacking of the job market by the old and the lack of employment opportunities for the young?

Similarly to other arguments against anti-aging research, the problem with this view is that it analyzes the effects of life extension in a very static model of the world. If we can change this fundamental trait of the human condition, I assume that we will be able to cope with its challenges as well. It's really not easy peasy to rejuvenate a human body and I like to think that if we'll be able to do that we'd probably find a satisfactory way to adjust the pension system or the job market.

Now, as boredom is concerned, I think that should be the least of our worries. Ultimately, no one forces anyone to live without them wanting to. But I assume that it's nice to have a say in this crucial aspect of one's life.

I probably haven't covered all the objection that the anti-life camp brings against longevity research, but I think that I've addressed the most recurrent ones. What is interesting for me to notice is that feasibility does not represent a concern. So, if even the worst enemies of life extension attempts think that it can be done, then why not fund it and just give it a try? There's not much we can lose, but we have everything to gain.

Is There Anything We Owe to Processed Food?

Yes, gratitude. And a genuine one, on top of that. At least at one point in their lives, most people have consumed those foods or, better said, food-like products which come into colorful and shiny packages and which have a wonderful flavor that sends our taste buds into frenzy, making us want more and more. (Or maybe that's just me...) However, at the first occasion, the majority of these processed food eaters will have absolutely no hesitation in trash-talking their culinary choices. Some of these opinions are heartfelt, though scarce. Truth be told, once you've had enough of it, processed food kind of loses its charm. Not to mention its horrible consequences for one's body. Other views, however, are just automatic responses triggered by the socially embedded and widespread perfectionism concerning health promotion and extension.

Now, the question is, are we being fair to processed food? Did it only bring obesity, diabetes and heart disease into the world or is there something more to it? If you ask me, I'd say that easily available, already cooked food has, at least, tried to be our friend. It's probably comparable to the way in which communism has tried to bring about social equality and justice. As some would put it, it's not that the idea itself is wrong, just its poor implementation.

So, how come that the implementation of the idea of processed food ended up going badly and hurting us altogether? As with most stories, it all starts at the beginning. The rationale behind preserving, processing and packaging the fuel that keeps us going is far from being a mystery: convenience. You can find and store this type of food anywhere, buy it cheaply and eat it fast. And this is not even its most exciting feature. Its caloric density makes it a good partner for surviving crazy office hours without a lunch break in between, for surpassing deadlines without getting up from one's desk in order to secure a meal or simply for doing whatever one enjoys doing without having to worry about nutrition. Imagine what our life would be if every time we got pressed by an ongoing project, we'd have to stop every now and then to cook (from scratch), or even better, to start chewing raw food. Just think about how many apples you'd need to fit into your required caloric intake for one day only.

When eaten under these specific conditions, processed products are active contributors to our social, cultural and economic progress. Unless we recognize the input that these foods have had for our evolution in the past few years, we'd be hiding behind a mask of hypocrisy which, in the end, will not be able to deal with the current obesity epidemics and associated diseases. The truth is that processed food has been abused. Also, because it is prone to be abused, it might very well not be a sustainable option for the future. Letting this aside, it did help us to get to where we are right now. And quite a lot, I'd say.

Apart from allowing people to invest more time and effort into their activities, which jointly led to an improvement in overall well-being, processed food also acted as a propelling force behind the empowerment of an important segment of the world's population. Who could that be? Your guess is correct: women. In Michael Pollan's words, 

[t]he outsourcing of much of the work of cooking to corporations has relieved women of what has traditionally been their exclusive responsibility for feeding the family, making it easier for them to work outside the home and have careers. It has headed off many of the conflicts and domestic arguments that such a large shift in gender roles and family dynamics was bound to spark. It has relieved all sorts of other pressures in the household, including longer workdays and overscheduled children, and saved us time that we can now invest in other pursuits.

Right now, most of the public discourse or popular views surrounding processed food are built on the idea that these products are detrimental to our health and, as such, we should do whatever it takes to get rid of them. I couldn't agree more. Just one small mention. Let's try to be fair and part gracefully. We owe process foods a lot of our working and free time, many of our technological innovations, social progress and cultural delights. If we want to improve our health and built on the legacy of the fast food era, we need to move forward rather than look back. More specifically, we need to combine the convenience of processed food with the advantages of a more natural nutrition in such a way that we can reap the benefits of both trends. I don't really see any other viable option.

On Inevitable Things and Coping Mechanisms

On average, coping mechanisms are more good than bad. Imagine going through life without any guardian of your negative thoughts, destructive behavior or haunting problems. Each day would be a pretty messy business, wouldn't it? But then again, do not think that the opposite is bliss because it really isn't. Nobody likes overachievers anyways... 

Now, as many have already pointed out, the problem with coping mechanisms is that they might gradually lead to a semi-conscious rejection of reality. And at the end of the day, reality denial perpetuates rather than eliminates one's hardships and frustrations. Thus, don't be surprised if and when the act of coping, which in its honest self doesn't commit to deliver more than it promises, fails you. Coping is not problem solving. But, according to some, under certain circumstances, it is the next best thing.

And here is where the issue of inevitability comes into play. By their very definition, inevitable things are bound to happen no matter what. Moreover, most of the time, they are bound to happen in a very specific way, while nothing (or very little, at best) can be done about them. In this context, as problem solving is out of the question, coping is all we're left with.

There are so many inevitable things around us that people have generally chosen to cope with. Among them, aging and death are my favorite examples, probably because I genuinely and equally dread and despise them. In all likelihood, it is the most rational approach to develop, at the individual level, some defense mechanisms against the disturbing thought of non-existence. But then there is this striking fact that we should not disregard: many times, the inevitability of things comes with an expiration deadline. 

Through displays of genius and huge effort, people like you and me have managed to stop the unstoppable over and over again. This is by no means an exaggeration. Just think about those times when viral infections were an irreversible sentence to death or, on a less dramatic note, when one's inborn sex would forever remain unchanged even if it didn't correspond to one's self-image and self-assigned gender. We might take such things for granted nowadays, but this was not always the case. The reason for the accomplishment of such grand projects lies firstly in a change of attitude: from compliance with the given to non-compliance. Only after allowing the 'what if' to make its way into our thoughts and speech can we actually proceed to thinking about overcoming the inevitable.

This is what the situation is now with the fight against aging and death. In some ways, embracing religious precepts and the promise of an afterlife transforms non-existence into something that many actually look forward to. Oh, the gardens and the foods and the clouds and the people and the peace... Who would want to give that up and exchange it for nothing, really, except the idea that maybe it doesn't have to be that way? 

Although there are many important scientific breakthroughs related to aging and its associated diseases, the thought of supporting this path gives many people the chills because it forces them to review their life principles and reassess their coping mechanisms. Some will say that living to 200 is not natural, while having absolutely no problem with using antibiotics or birth-control pills. Others will invoke the boredom of a long life. Who knows, non-existence can potentially be more exciting, but it's also pretty long because it's infinite. The point of the matter, though, is this: refusing to perceive aging and death as inevitable leaves permanent scars on one's life views, which will possibly make one's days a bit more daunting than otherwise. But, on the bright side of it, it prevents the self-sabotaging inertia that kills innovation, progress, and, in this specific case, a whole lot of other people too. Also, if I think about it there are some other reasons for optimism as well: personally, I know more individuals that have conquered death by still being alive than those who didn't . What about you?

In closing, I would like to highlight the fact that the long and widespread existence of certain things doesn't make them right, nor acceptable. Inevitability is only as inevitable as one allows it to be.

There Is a Bright Side of Things

If you ask me, I'd say that usually what doesn't kill you fails to make you stronger. But there are exceptions to that. And quite fortunate ones, actually.

As it happens, certain uncontrollable events in our lives leave a footprint on the person that we choose to become in the future. This is a trivial fact that is in no need of much discussion. What I'd like to emphasize, though, is the importance of choice.

Whenever we encounter an obstacle or face some kind of hardship, we have two options ahead of us: to accept or to respond to them. Responding to adverse turns of events leaves one better off than embracing the acceptance route, but, sadly enough, it cannot compensate for the beatitude of the initial perturbation-free state. There is a bright side to what I just wrote, though, and it consists in the fact that it is not always true!

There are some cases when an unlucky situation leads to highly favorable outcomes. Of course, if one chooses to respond to the challenge, rather than to passively accept it. Look at health and body weight, for instance. It is a well known fact that not all thin people are healthy. Moreover, those individuals that have the tendency of being thin without investing too much effort into their lifestyle might very well end up disregarding important aspects related to their diet. Ultimately, why not have a dessert everyday if it doesn't show?

Now, on the other hand, there are those people who are unlucky enough as to be predisposed (by genes and/or early life environment) to store fat rapidly, lose it with great difficulty and to be constantly haunted by terrible food cravings. Without any act of will on their part, scale numbers are nothing but a very bad, though lucid, nightmare. 

As many people care about the way they present themselves to others - sometimes even more than they care about  regular blood tests -, the tendency to gain weight might act as a propeller for positive lifestyle changes. Eating less refined carbs or engaging into regular physical activity do not only improve one's body measurements, but they also have a good overall impact on one's general state of health.

At the end of the day, it might just be the case that bad luck will give you the impetus that you need in order to do the right thing or to grow in some way. Of course, it's not going to be easy, because otherwise nobody would wait for the push.

Why Modesty is Not a Virtue

Every time we think and say nice things about other people, there is that little voice in our head that takes the time and effort to congratulate us on this accomplishment. It is indeed one of the most beautiful things to be kind – in thought, speech, and action – with our fellows.

However, whenever we want to harbor that loving and admiring attitude towards ourselves, we automatically feel compelled to add the same overused phrases, like 'in all modesty' or 'modesty aside'. Our own positive self-evaluation is nowadays mostly accompanied by an apologetic triad meant to show that although we might be speaking highly of ourselves right now, that's not what we usually do and for sure not what we usually think!

Why should this be the case, though? What are the reasons for which I should be prevented from admiring and recognizing the beauty that resides within me? Why is it a good thing to appreciate other people but not yourself?

Modesty is the answer to all of the above questions! We have been used to perceiving modesty as a cardinal virtue for quite some time already and what we've learned is that modesty is morally desirable for obvious reasons.

Modesty is good because it prevents boastfulness.

Modesty is good because it encourages humility.

Modesty is good because it fosters compassion and empathy.

Modesty is good because the human being is an imperfect creation.

Modesty is good because, through it, we may come to realize our downsides.

Modesty is good because it limits our egos.

Modesty is good because it forces us to see beyond ourselves.

Yes, in short, modesty is so very good!

Now, what would you say if I told you, in all possible earnest, that modesty is not only not good, but rather very bad and undesirable? I have my own list of reasons to argue for this and I will happily provide it in the next lines.

First of all, modesty is dishonesty. Whenever I am being modest, I am not being honest. I am hiding myself, while at the same time I'm hiding the fact that I'm hiding myself, all with the help of the polite and socially approved mask of – yes, you already guessed by now – modesty.

Modesty is bad because it is self-deceiving. Not acknowledging my beauty means that I can never have a full picture of who I am and, together with it, of what I want in this life.

Modesty is bad because it lowers my self-esteem and creates frustrations. If I cannot admit that I'm good and bright, then what choice do I have other then to believe that I'm mostly ugly and unappealing?

Modesty is bad because it prevents me from growing and from knowing when I've grown. There is no progress chart when you're not being honest to yourself, no before and after pics.

Modesty is bad because it severs the authenticity of my relationships with other people. Not letting significant others see me in my true light means that we will never be able to communicate deeply and wholeheartedly.

Finally, modesty is bad because it convincingly pretends to be otherwise. It's the friendly and charismatic back-stabber surrounded by an aura of innocence. 

We're living in a world where being modest is an unquestionable quality and we take it for granted up to the point that we give up discussing it even before we start to. Blinded by modesty, you will never be able to see your good side, your divine bits, and cultivate them properly. 

So please, do let go of your modesty! I'm not going to say it's easy, but it's not particularly hard either. You don't need to boast all your virtues in order to stop being modest. That's not what this is all about. Just be true to yourself, to who you are, to what you hold dear and show this to others as well.

Only then will you be able to become the person you've always wanted to be!