In his book Lifespan: Why We Age - and Why We Don't Have To, David Sinclair explains what he calls the Information Theory of Aging, why he believes it entails that aging is not necessary and should in fact be considered a disease, and why he thinks we are at the cusp of a monumental technological revolution that will greatly slow down or even eliminate aging.

The books is split into three sections. The first explains the biology of aging, the second explains some of the work that is being done on it, and the third is a more speculative future prediction about what life will be like without aging.

(if you want my opinion, I thought the first two sections were pretty good and the science was interesting though sometimes difficult to follow, while the final section was not as good)

Roughly, Sinclair believes people age because of epigenetic instability, caused by an antagonistic pleiotropic genetic "survival circuit". Without going too deep into the details, this survival circuit puts cells into one of two states: reproductive or repair. Cells that are in reproductive mode are not in repair mode, and vice-versa. In this way, damaged DNA is not replicated.

The way a cell's DNA is expressed is through the epigenome. Sinclair makes the analogy that the genome is a piano, and the epigenome is the pianist. The genome provides the raw material, the epigenome puts it into action. When cells are young, they reproduce, which means the epigenetic repair mechanism is not being used as often. By not being used, the repair mechanism basically ends up decaying, just like how an analog tape loses its integrity over time, or how a muscle atrophies when not used.

Cellular reproduction carries on for as long as it can, all the while losing access to epigenetic information. When cellular integrity degrades enough, the repair mechanism tries to take over, but it no longer possesses the information needed to repair, and so it does a botched job of it. The epigenetic landscape can no longer maintain cell identities, and we start to see the hallmarks of aging. The early benefits of reproduction come at the cost of aging later on.

To slow down this process, Sinclair recommends hormesis, or the exposure to low-dosages of harmful stimuli, in order to exercise this repair mechanism and keep everything running smoothly. In other words, discomfort is good for longevity.

But Sinclair also believes this epigenetic information is not permanently lost (otherwise young cells could not have been cloned from old cells), but instead simply cannot be accessed, sort of like how a scratched DVD still contains the information but it just cannot be read by the DVD player. Because of this, he thinks that potentially we could completely eliminate aging if we are able to get access to that original information again. His book discusses some of the new technologies being developed that may allow us to do so.

What interests me most here are the consequences from slowing down aging, or even completely eliminating it. This is the focus of the third section of Sinclair's book, and I felt it was the weakest. Sinclair is wildly optimistic about the prospects of defeating old age. He acknowledges that there will be challenges to overcome, but basically says that humans have done this kind of thing before and we can do it again. In my opinion, he comes across as just another scientist who, while being exceptional in their field of study, is quite out-of-touch with reality with respect to other things, especially social ones.

He claims (quoting Erle C. Ellis) that overpopulation will not be an issue, because he thinks that the quantity of humans is not the issue, but the way we live together, and that there is no environmental limit the Earth's capacity for people. It seems as though he is under the impression that a society of tens of billions of people can be rationally planned. Achieving this could only be done through the assimilation of all humans into one single global culture, which is something we are already seeing.

Sinclair also claims that job performance increases as you age, which makes sense as you gain more experience and wisdom with your years. By defeating aging, "old" people will be able to continue work if they wish, ultimately continuing to contribute back to society, increasing the GDP, etc. Sinclair does not believe this will cause younger people to be unemployed, because he claims the best way to create productive jobs for people of any age is to build and attract companies that hire highly skilled ones. Basically sounds like meritocracy.

Everyone will have lots of gadgets, probably embedded in their own bodies, to monitor all of their vitals and inform you (and your doctor, and anyone else who "needs to know"), what your health status is; from your blood pressure to your iron levels to your spinal fluid density. Going to the physician will usually be virtual and quick; you will just plug in your interface to your computer and hold a video conference with your doctor while they analyze your stats. Sinclair claims that while this might cause concerns for privacy, ultimately he thinks it's not a big deal and the benefits outweigh the costs, just like how people continue to use cell phones and the internet despite knowing their data is being mined.

The benefit of all these monitoring gadgets will be that humans will know exactly what the most efficient technique is to live. Spontaneity will be crushed under the iron heel of rational, deliberate, programmatic behavior.

Eliminating aging will signify a massive step away from the sense of humans being a product of nature. Sinclair defends his view by saying that we are niche builders, and that very little of our lives are "natural" (jet airplanes, computers and supermarkets are not "natural") - and I agree, but I don't think that helps his case if we are critical about how technology affects people.

It will make people more dependent on technology than ever before. They will be given the opportunity to live much longer - forever, even - but at the cost of filling a slot in the system that provides this opportunity to them. They will live longer, but they will utterly helpless without the state. They will never learn how to face death properly, but will instead keep running away, clinging to science to save them again and again, because when the possibility of escaping death is available, it will be considered suicide to not take advantage of it. People, who are miserable most of the time, will be miserable for even longer.

It will be pathetic, nobody will be brave, their freedom will be manufactured, and nobody will understand the respect and dignity given to those who age and die, because everyone will be more and more similar and thus evaluated only by how they perform in the workplace.

The elderly were respected in ancient times and before then, because they had accumulated wisdom. With the printing press (a major technological innovation), their wisdom could now be mass produced in books. Old people got pushed to the side. Sinclair believes that another technological innovation could bring old people back into relevance by putting them back into the workforce - but it was technology that made them irrelevant to begin with!

While it may have many drawbacks, one benefit of aging is that it gives people a sense of predictability in life. Without aging, death will occur mostly through traumatic accident. Instead of a gradual decline that allows everyone to prepare and adjust, people will suddenly vanish without notice. Here one day, gone the next, that will be the way things are. Everyone won't age, but they will still eventually die, but nobody will know how or when it will happen. It could be that this will make life seem even more frightening than it already is.

Anyway, your thoughts are welcome.