Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should scientists try to reverse the aging process?

By Howard B. Owens
Jeff Allen

The short term goals of the research are certainly something we should be pursuing, tackling heart disease, Alzheimers, and other degenerative conditions. Where the idea is troublesome is in two places. First, the source of the stem cells. There is ample supply of stem cells via cord blood and should be the only source. Embryonic stem cell use is immoral and problematic from a supply standpoint. Second, the concept of reversing aging is a misnomer. To do so would be to disregard Physics and the law of increasing entropy. Everything in the universe is "aging", slowing down, decreasing in energy, etc. The research attributed in the article is rejuvenating tissue by the introduction of new cells. The effect is the apparent reversal of aging when in reality it is the temporary replacement with "younger", healthier tissue. The rejuvenated tissue immediately starts aging in a normal process just as the old. It is a temporary "reversal". It is an amazing breakthrough and we should pursue it for the sake of those whose lives can be prolonged and enhanced. We should however abandon this pursuit that we can play God and reverse a process that is inherent in all things existing.

May 5, 2014, 8:50am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Jeff, no matter how well we become at extending the duration of human life, nothing is truly immortal. If you believe in God, then you should believe that it's impossible for us to circumvent God.

I wonder what people used to believe when antibiotics and vaccines were discovered. We've been extending the human life span since the dawn of modern science, and it's going to continue happening. Such is the evolution of the human species, the most intelligent creature that has ever existed on earth.

Maybe we can use this discovery to better humanity. I don't think we should fear it. New problems and issues arise from discoveries, but I don't believe that those problems can't have solutions.

May 5, 2014, 9:42am Permalink
Scott Ogle

"To do so would be to disregard Physics and the law of increasing entropy. Everything in the universe is "aging", slowing down, decreasing in energy, etc"

This is the misreading of the second law of thermodynamics, probably first employed by Creationists to deny evolutionary science. In fact, the second law speaks to entropy in *closed* systems only, i.e. systems where no energy is gained. The earth is not such a closed system, as it receives its energy renewal from the sun. This may not directly concern individuals of any particular species -- any individual life form is a far more complex system than involved in a simple thermodynamic model. But individuals do not biologically evolve -- species do. The second law is in no way prohibitive of evolution, which is not any sort of closed system.

Just sayin'.

May 5, 2014, 11:36am Permalink
Scott Ogle

"Summer reading suggestion: Oscar Wilde's "A portrait of Dorian Gray."

A great suggestion indeed. I'm not sure but that working to improve the quality of life is a much better project than extending the quantity of time lived. That said, I'm not checking out. Call me a hypocrite, but I wanna live forever.

May 5, 2014, 1:24pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

So we are still stuck on science and faith(or just Christianity) being mutually exclusive. Doug if you reread my post we actually said the same thing. Scott, you can parse the theory all you want, I get it, Christians can't possibly understand science, but the fact remains that there is no eternal, or self renewing energy source(outside of God). All physical matter(therefore all life) relies on universal interdependence. Things that are sustained or renewed by outside sources are relying on a source that is itself deteriorating, therefore EVERYTHING is deteriorating, aging, winding down, whatever you want to call it. We cannot reverse the aging process in ourselves, or anything else. We can, at best, renew, rejuvenate, refresh, and improve. And we should. Science is powerful and should be used to it's potential to extend and improve both quality and quantity of life. My only point was that in his arrogance, man believes he can go beyond the abilities of his Creator and that is why Proverbs wisely states that "Pride goeth before destruction".

May 5, 2014, 2:02pm Permalink
Scott Ogle

"Christians can't possibly understand science. . ."

Of course they can. But some (a minority) struggle mightily not to.

". . .but the fact remains that there is no eternal, or self renewing energy source(outside of God)."

That's not a fact, Jeff, that's a declaration of faith. And as an agnostic, I can respect it in that sense.

May 5, 2014, 2:27pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

The "outside of God" is my statement of faith, that is why it is in parentheses. And I appreciate the addition of minority as all too often Christians are painted with the broad brush of intellectual inferiors who blindly follow a magical fairy tale. But absent the supernatural, there still is no eternal, self renewing energy source, hence the assertion that everything is winding down, that is a fact, until and unless one is discovered in the future.

May 5, 2014, 3:25pm Permalink
Scott Ogle

"But absent the supernatural, there still is no eternal, self renewing energy source, hence the assertion that everything is winding down, that is a fact, until and unless one is discovered in the future."

Again, this is a declaration of faith, contradicted more and more by empirical science. The supernatural is just about anything we wish to imagine it to be -- thus the huge diversity of ghosts and goblins, saviors and monkey-faced gods, and all things that go 'bump' in the night. In the meantime, new stars are being forged and born in nebula, in a firmament that continues to accelerate as it expands. Entropy indeed.

May 5, 2014, 4:02pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Then tell us about this independent, eternal, self renewing energy source that empirical science is proving more and more. If your argument is that it exists and we just haven't proven it yet then science requires the same degree of faith that "religion" does.

May 5, 2014, 4:17pm Permalink
Scott Ogle

It's what we've observed, Jeff. It was predicted by theoretical physics in the early twentieth century, and has since been verified by observation and measurement. It's rather old news now. But it's a huge topic, and you're free to read about it. There's much knowledge here, and much is understood about the phenomenon of star-birth. Except we can't explain the why of it. We know probably nothing about eternity scientifically, but we know the creation is ongoing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation

May 5, 2014, 4:36pm Permalink
david spaulding

first thing I thought of was the song "youngblood" that dave posted, then the thought that steve has, why don't they cure cancer first?
altering the aging process sounds creepy to me.

May 5, 2014, 7:43pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Steve, Alzheimer's isn't big enough for you?

I'd also say it's a false choice (logical fallacy). There's enough scientists and resources available in the world's richest country to work on both.

May 5, 2014, 8:03pm Permalink
Steve Hackett

Howard, if you would have spent the past two days seeing what I have seen, I think you might think differently.... I will leave it at that

May 5, 2014, 8:54pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Steve, sorry for whatever you may going through with a loved one, but already this year I've lost a brother to cancer and a mother to Alzheimer's. I wouldn't pit one against the other. There's no need to.

May 5, 2014, 9:02pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Why would anyone want to reverse the aging process? So, you can become babies? You do know as you get older you are going to need to wear adult diapers anyways?

Why not worry about more important medical issues such as Alzheimer's and cancer.
We are all going to die so, why not at least have our wits and be healthy enough to die peacefully in our sleep rather than suffer.

Imagine if, we did reverse the aging process. How would you conduct population control to avoid people from starving to death from over population?

May 5, 2014, 9:28pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Steve like anything in life experiencing something one time can seem overwhelming but in the past year while volunteering at Crossroads House. I have seen death from cancer, altzheimers (which my mother is currently in early stages of ) diabetes and many many others.

Some people welcome death others fear it. But everyone eventually accepts that it is something everyone goes thru. Like birth, death is inevitable. I really feel for what you have gone thru Steve, I have been there at the bedside of complete strangers while they go. No two are ever the same, ever. Everyone that comes to Crossroads has an expiration date, but it's not about that its about quality of the life you have left. None of us is guaranteed anything. Any one of us could pass on in a plane crash or writhing on a patch of asphalt after not seeing a car.

We all are going to die, some have somewhat of a choice some do not. The best we can hope for is that everyone we love knows it. And that we can look back and feel acomplished or satisfied about our little section of life on this planet.

Ending aging isnt gonna end death. But it might preserve the quality of that life until our bodies do say it's time to go.

May 6, 2014, 1:24am Permalink

Authentically Local