Is aging actually reversible, not just slowable? (Article)

Some intriguing thoughts on the subject of reversing aging, not just slowing it down, from the relatively recent Scientific American article linked below. It discusses the use of hypothetically possible changes in gene activity to achieve this.

The essence of the experimentation described in the article seems to be that:

"New research suggests it is possible to slow or even reverse aging ... by tweaking genes that turn adult cells back into embryoniclike ones"

"The study adds weight to the scientific argument that aging is largely a process of so-called epigenetic changes, alterations that make genes more active or less so"

"... epigenetic reprogramming is the ultimate way to reverse aging"

"... even cells from human centenarians could eventually be rejuvenated"

However:

"The study also showed how fine the line can be between benefit and harm. When the researchers treated mice continually, some developed tumors and died within a week"

The researchers in the discussion were from places like Harvard and the Salk Institute, so the approach seems to be taken seriously, and may even have merit, but it's clearly much more theoretical than practical at this point.

And what about the entire matter of ethics? If it actually did become possible to reverse aging in the population on a large scale, who would get to do it? All of us? Some of us? Who would decide?

It's perhaps worth noting that in science fiction writing and films, this theme of reversing the aging process has been widely treated, often as a morality tale, with some dire and unexpected consequence happening to those who try it. Such as is the case in Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray."

Still, this approach could turn out to be one more avenue of research that might lead to significant coping possibilities in the matter of dealing with aging.

But If it actually did become possible for one to "de-age," and actually go back to really being, in actual fact, years (decades??!!?) younger, would you really want to do it?

Or should the "be careful what you wish for" admonition apply?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aging-is-reversible-at-least-in-human-cells-and-live-mice/

"Society may have some interesting issues to sort out someday."

Mattam, you are absolutely right about that.

Here's another possible example of a serious moral issue, based on a line I noticed in the article I cited in the OP. The line is from a discussion of anti-aging strategies used in mice:

"Other approaches that have been discovered to have anti-aging benefits in animals include ... parabiosis—the practice of giving old mice a blood supply from younger ones."

Well, okay, what if some rich and powerful older person learns of this and concludes in his own mind that it works for humans, too? Then he pays (handsomely) younger people for routine transfusions of their blood into him, thinking it will extend his own life. And what if he's right, it really does work?

(Well, it probably doesn't, but if someone like the older person thinks it does, it could still be an issue. BTW, here's someone who believes it's true, although, granted, it sure sounds like he's selling snake oil):

https://www.businessinsider.com/young-blood-transfusions-aging-disease-ambrosia-2017-1

But the issue of "buying young blood," with its vampirish qualities, is not only macabre, but the ethical issues involved would be immense!

No

Imagine if it was true and we all had access and all lived forever. How crowded the world would get.

Buy real estate for your great grandchildren.

81gyguy, you come up with the most interesting stuff

Side note here:

It has been established that smoking cigarettes "methylates" lung cell exogenomes (the outside rails on that little ladder thingie that is your DNA) making them more likely to mutate into lung cancer cells. This as the genes (the rungs on the ladder) are turned on or off by those exogenomic switches. Quitting smoking and taking up aerobic exercise demethylates those same exogenomic switches, thus lowering your risk of developing lung cancer.

Another recent article was on 90+ year old athletes. One is a fellow who recently broke his own bicycling record, set when he was 100 years of age and broke it at 105 by specific changes to his daily exercise regimen over 5 years. There are other seniors like this.

The consensus is that they can do these things because they have seriously exercised their entire lives and taken good care of themselves otherwise. Also that you can increase your capacity regardless of extreme age. You already have the ability to flip those exogenomic switches and extend your life, you don't have to wait for that.

I once again note that the top 20% healthiest in any age group are much less likely to die from ALL causes at any time. That includes cancer and getting hit by a truck.

Me too, Mel.