That's a deep mischaracterization of positions against aging research. People are against because in the way it's conducted and given the existing social order, it will reinforce inequalities and make the world a worst place. If you are more privileged you will live longer and have more chances to concentrate money and power for yourself or your family and away from less privileged people.
This is even more the case in a world on the verge of ecological and social collapse where the age expectancy is lowering.
If you are more privileged you will live longer and have more chances to concentrate money and power for yourself or your family and away from less privileged people.
It doesn't have to be that way, even in our current system.
Metformin was discovered in 1922 and is very low-cost to make. It's available over the counter in many countries but in the US and the EU, you currently need a prescription.
It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines [1].
It's used primarily for treating type 2 diabetes. What got noticed is diabetes patients on metformin (on average) outlived otherwise healthy people who didn't have diabetes.
Turns out it activates some of the longevity pathways being discussed on this thread. People on Metformin are also less likely to die from the diseases of old age: cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease.
Now many doctors are prescribing off-label for patients who want it.
There's a major clinical trial going on to see if aging can be treated with metformin [2].
Metformin costs pennies per day to take, so you don't need to be affluent or privileged to afford it.
Wealthier societies and individuals always get the first shot at new technologies, so this is a general argument against any improvement until we've established global communism. Cancer treatments and Covid vaccines have not made the world worse despite being unevenly distributed.
It's a particularly bad argument here because mitigating the harmful effects of aging would result in massive reductions in medical expenses. Governments and insurance companies would be highly incentivized to get them to as many people as possible.
No, it's not an argument against improvement, it's an argument against inequalities. Fighting inequalities is fundamental to unleash the potential of medical technologies. Potential that cannot be reached under the current economic model that is hindering research, progress and wellbeing.
The argument about medical expenses doesn't make any sense: it's more profitable to have sick people living longer and increare their medical expenses. The failure of the American healthcare system is proof that a market economy is not fit for healthcare.
The argument about medical expenses doesn't make any sense: it's more profitable to have sick people living longer and increare their medical expenses. The failure of the American healthcare system is proof that a market economy is not fit for healthcare.
Profitable for who, exactly? Companies, individuals, the state, or whole society? For that matter, which companies are we talking about?
This is even more the case in a world on the verge of ecological and social collapse where the age expectancy is lowering.