October 9, 2025 • 67 mins
Daniel and Kelly get answers to listener questions about why we age from Dr. Venki Ramakrishnan, author of "Why We Die: The New Science of Aging and the Quest for Immortality".
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
They say that only two things in life are certain,
death and taxes. For the lucky among us will pass
away quietly at an old age. But why is aging
and thus death inevitable? And how do we even define aging? Yes,
you can define it by the ticking of the clock,
but is there a biological way to define it that
(00:29):
gives you a better shot at really understanding how the
passage of time has worn away at your body. If
two people in their thirties can mix their old cells
together to make a brand new baby, then why can't
those same two people just start making young cells for themselves?
And shouldn't evolution favor living a really long time so
(00:50):
we can make more babies and be around to help
them grow. Aging can be a counterintuitive phenomenon, and Daniel
and I get many questions from our audience the extraordinaries
about the aging process. However, despite the furrows in my
forehead that get deeper each year and that my son
sometimes stares at, this biologist is not an expert in
(01:13):
the science of aging. But lucky for us, we were
able to get doctor Venki Ramakrishnan, author of Why We Die,
The New Science of Aging and The Quests for immortality
to come onto the show to answer your questions. Welcome
to Daniel and Kelly's extraordinarily Old Universe.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Hi.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist. I round my age
up two hundred.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Hello. I'm Kelly Waidersmith. I study parasites and space And Daniel,
last time we talked, you rounded up to fifty. Have
you just decided that, now that you're fifty, yere rounding
up to one hundred because that is not a helpful
wait around.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
I think that's totally consistent. When I was forty eight,
I called myself fifty, and now that I'm fifty, I
got a round up to one hundred. It totally makes sense,
not to me. Plus, I think I look pretty good
for one hundred.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Yeah, you look great for one hundred, But I say
you look good for fifty two.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
But like, I don't.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Yeah, I know that that kind of rounding doesn't make
sense to me. But that's all right, all right.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
So here's my question for you today, Kelly. If you
could take a pill that would extend your life to
a thousand years or a million years, would you do
you want to live a super crazy long life?
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Umm? Al right, So one, okay, So selfishly, I would
need to know about the quality of that life, and
if the quality of my life was going to be
as good it is now, for all of that time,
I would think about it. But to be honest, the
only reason I'm thinking that I might want to say
yes is that I want to live at least as
long as my son lives, because he's going to need
(02:55):
care his whole life, and I don't want him to
ever be alone. And so if I could live as
long as he lives, one hundred percent, So what about.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
You, No, I see, life is like a hike. You know,
hikes are wonderful. There's oneful moments you're glad you went
on them. You're also glad when they're over. Nobody wants
to be in a hike that lasts until the end
of the universe. And maybe sometimes the best part of
a hike is when you get to sit down at
the end, you're like, oh wow, what a nice walk done.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Especially at the end of a good hike, Yeah, you're like, ah,
all right, I'm ready to be done.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Exact.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
And my grandpa passed away recently, and I think he
had that kind of life. He hiked it was a
good trip, and at the end he told everyone, he's like,
I'm ready, and then he passed away into sleep, and
I was like, man, I really hope that's in the
genes somewhere, because that's pretty solid.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
And I hope that listening to this podcast has improved
that everybody's quality of life out there were making your
hike through life more pleasant.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Maybe it will improve their quality of sleep, which at
the end of the episode will discover is an important
part of being healthy. So we're doing our part.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
You're saying that listening to the podcast could technically scientifically
extend your lifespan.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Maybe maybe listen to our prior episodes about how you
evaluate scientific statements and see what you think, dear listeners,
and whether.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
You should believe people who have skin in the game exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Yes, all right, Well, so we get loads and loads
of questions about aging from the extraordinaries, and so I
pulled them all together. We found an amazing expert to
answer the question. Amazing, amazing, he does such a great job.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
How do you know this Nobel Prize?
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Kelly Oh, thanks for pitching myte We both were on
the short list for the Royal Society Book Prize. Yep,
Why We Die is thank you Rama Christnan's book, and
A City on Mars was my book, and we both
made the short list for the Royal Society Prize.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
And you're just gonna omit those crucial piece of information
that you won the prize. So Kelly is the author
of a book which edged out a Nobel Prize winning
nonfiction science book.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
I was not gonna mention that. Thank you for ult
over the years.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
I appreciate it, all right, Well, this is a wonderful
conversation with a deep expert who also has the unusual
quality of being able to explain things clearly yes.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
And being so nice, so nice.
Speaker 5 (05:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Anyway, So I had so much fun. I feel so
lucky we got to do.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
This interview before we bring on our expert, who want
to know abel prize in this area. We asked you
guys what you thought was the reason for aging. Here's
what people had to say.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I underested it to be oxidative pressures where new copies
of things just aren't quite as good as they used
to be and there are errors throughout. Short answer telemeres
real answer, so that there's someone to say I wouldn't
do that if I were you to the younger generations,
it's not like the clouds are going to yell at themselves.
Speaker 6 (05:50):
Certain proteins that mark ourselves or do something along the
lines of maintaining how are unique gets repeated or transcripted deggregate.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Over time, the.
Speaker 6 (06:04):
Body forgets how to make a new body the way
that it once did.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
We age as a consequence of too many gas station burritos,
ninety nine cent big gulps and betrayal by Teilomeir.
Speaker 7 (06:15):
At a molecular point of view, it's really hard to
maintain consistency in the gazillion times molecules and the cells
needs to produce these error skips that canap until the
whole body the case, my.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Short answer is we age due to the passage of time.
Speaker 8 (06:31):
I think we age because we need to die ultimately.
I think it's conducive, if not crucial, to the evolution
of life itself, for organisms to have a finite lifespan.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Every beginning as an end.
Speaker 9 (06:46):
So I believe I've read somewhere that the reason why
we age is because there is a shortening of some
kind of a protein or molecule within our cells.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
And so for DNA current to fray and just gets
left up to entropy.
Speaker 8 (07:05):
Aging and death are just part of the evolutionary.
Speaker 7 (07:08):
Process and processes that have brought us to where we
are today.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It's just a fact.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Thanks everybody for your speculation on this concept. Now let's
talk to the expert and find out what we know
and what we don't know.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Doctor. Thank you. Rama Krishnan was initially interested in physics,
but I'm going to go ahead and give a point
to biology because he transitioned to focusing more on this
field and the biology stuff worked out well for him
because in two thousand and nine he received a Nobel
Prize for his work on ribosomes. He was President of
the Royal Society from twenty fifteen to twenty twenty and
recently wrote the book Why We Die, The New Science
(07:44):
of Aging and the Quest for Immortality. And today we'll
be talking about the science of aging. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Thank you, and thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, we're super excited to have you. We get so
many questions from our audience about aging, and every time
I'm like, look, I know when you look at me,
I look like the right person to ask about.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Well, they should look at me then, and there's so
much discussion out there about aging and how to prevent
it and if it's possible, and so much snake oil
being sold out there. It's so important to cut to
the chase.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
It's certainly having a moment, and I'm a little bit cynical.
I think it has to do with my generation, the
boomer generation, that's used to having everything it wanted in life,
suddenly coming to terms with getting old, and so, you know,
there's a lot of anxiety in the air. Although having
(08:38):
said that, you know, this fear of death and fear
of aging is simply as old as humans, you know,
because ever since we learned about mortality, we've fretted and
worried about it. And I like to say we may
be the only species that's aware of mortality. Other animal
(09:00):
maybe are aware of death, but they're not aware that
they all have a finite lifespan and everybody is going
to die. I'm not sure that other species have that
understanding that we do. And when we somehow obtain that understanding,
perhaps as a result of cognitive development, language and so on,
(09:25):
ever since then, it has become it became a theme
and if you look at most religions. They're all about,
you know, how to deal with death and what happens
after we die.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
I don't know if it's a blessing or a curse
that our species is aware of that.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yeah, I mean many species aren't even aware of death,
you know, it just simply happens.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Well, can I start us off with a very broad
sort of philosophical question, which is, how do you define
aging biologically? Because as a physicist, I might think, well,
you have a clock and it starts and it stops,
and that's your age. But we're interested in more than that, right,
It's some sort of like decrease in the quality of life.
You're gradually moving towards death. It's this fact that you
(10:08):
don't just like live for sixty two years and then poof,
you're done. Your body degrades. How do we define aging
in a crisp way scientifically?
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah, so it's not. It's definitely related to the chronological
clock to time, but the rate is very different, not
only for species, it's vastly different for species, but it's
also different for individuals within a species. If you go
to your high school reunion, you will immediately be aware
(10:37):
of that the fact that people don't age at the
same rate, and I think aging molecular biologists would define
it as the gradual accumulation of changes and damage to
us over time that can happen different rates in different individuals.
(10:59):
And it's not just damage. Some of it has changes
that occur with time. It may occur at different rates
in different individuals, and these changes may have a purpose
early in life, for example, modifications of our DNA, but
they cause us or at least they're strongly correlated with
(11:21):
aging later in life. So that's how I define it.
And this accumulation of changes in damage leads to a
gradual loss of function, and when that loss of function
reaches some point where some critical system fails, then you
(11:45):
have death. And so a death is a result of aging,
but its exact moment can't be predicted because in a
complex system, you can't predict exactly when a critical component
will fail.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Aging and changes, but that must mean very different things
to different parts of your body. You're talking about your
nerves or your skin or your eyes. Are there ways
we have to measure it?
Speaker 2 (12:10):
It happens at every level. It happens at every level.
But I would say fundamentally it happens at the molecular level,
and that then manifests itself and each increasing level of complexity.
So you can go from molecules to collection of molecules
in our cell, to components of the cell, to cells themselves,
(12:34):
and then entire tissues, and you know the way cells
communicate with each other, like our immune system. So you
can see that, you know, it happens at the molecular level,
but it starts manifesting itself at increasingly higher levels, you know,
until the point that you know, we see aging as
(12:57):
various forms of frailty, you know. So in fact, a
very good measure of aging is actually something called the
frailty index. They'll measure things like can you get out
of bed? How fast can you walk you know, fifty yards?
What's your grip strength? How good is your eyesight? How
good is your cognition? You know, how good is your memory?
(13:19):
So all of those things are indications of frailty at
a macroscopic level, at a level that you and I experience.
But ultimately the underlying causes are molecular.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Okay, and is aging universal. So we're getting to one
of our first listener questions right now. One of our
listeners noted that they had heard stories about immortal organisms
and they wanted to know are they actually immortal.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Yeah, I had to say, there's a lot of hype.
What happens is people will study an organism that ages
very slowly, and suddenly they'll say, oh, this has no
sign of biological mortality. Let me back up and explain
what I mean by that. So, in normal species, the
(14:06):
likelihood of that we are going to die at any
given time keeps increasing exponentially. So for example, that chances
that you'll die when you're ten are very small, but
the chances you'll die in the next year when say
you're ninety five or one hundred or almost fifty percent, okay,
so the chances keep going up. Now, in some organisms,
(14:32):
it appears that that likelihood of dying you know, of
aging events, not of being eaten by a predator or
starving or anything else. Those are called external causes. But
you know aging, just dying of aging, that probability doesn't
seem to go up with time. And so there are
(14:55):
some species, like a freshwater species called the hydra. There's
another species called the immortal jellyfish, and these tend not
to show any signs of biological aging. That is, the
likelihood it's going to die just doesn't seem to change
with time. But in fact what is happening is it's
(15:17):
probably aging very very slowly. So if you looked, if
you simply followed a hydra in the wild, it'll die
of some other cause, not of old age. But if
you kept it safe and followed it long enough, you
will find that it too, gradually ages because no regeneration
is perfect. You know, the reason hydra and jellyfish appear
(15:41):
not to age is they constantly regenerate their tissue using
specialized cells called stem cells. In a way, they're like plants.
You know, plants have stem cells all over themselves, and
that's why you can take a cutting from a plant
and you know, grow an entirely new tree with it. Right,
we can't do that, but you know, some animals regenerate,
(16:03):
like starfish. You know, it cut off an arm and
it'll regenerate an arm. And you know, some of these
species can regenerate, you know, any tissue, and but it's
not perfect. And so I would say to your listener
that yes, everything will die, but they die at different rates.
I mean, they age at different rates.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
And so everything ages. It's universal across organisms. Do we
understand why we age? Like, is it an inevitability of
like thermodynamics or molecular copying or something, or is it
an evolutionary advantage?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Well, there there are two ways of looking at it.
One is, you know, the physicist way would be that
you know, second law wins and there's always increase in
entropy and disorder and eventually things sort of degrade. And
you know, life is not a you know, equilibrium system.
The problem with that is that life is not a
(17:00):
closed system, and if you apply enough energy and enough
resources you can reverse damage. And in fact that's what
we do. So why is it then that we age
and die? Well, I'll tell you the evolutionary argument. The
evolutionary argument is resources are limited and throughout our history
(17:23):
and in fact, until recently, resources were limited for humans
as well. You know, we had to struggle to have
enough food to live and so on. When resources are limiting,
the organism has a choice to make. Does it put
more of the resources into maintenance and repair, which requires energy,
(17:44):
requires food, et cetera. Or should those resources be put
in too rapid growth and development? Now, if you take
a mouse. For example, a mouse lives about two years,
whereas a blue whale lives a few hundred years. So
why is it that there's this vast difference. Well, the
(18:06):
evolutionary argument is that evolution doesn't actually care how long
you live. Evolution simply cares about how successful are you
going to be at passing on your genes because it's
selecting for those genes, it's not really selecting for you
as an individual. And so in the case of a mouse,
(18:28):
there's no point in spending a lot of resources getting
a mouse to live to be forty years. And the
reason is that long before that it'll be eaten, or
it'll die of starvation or in a drought, or all
of a zillion external causes. And so in the case
of a mouse, it's more advantageous from an evolutionary point
(18:51):
of view for a mouse to grow very rapidly, produce
lots of offspring, and then you know, it doesn't matter
whether it dies, Whereas with larger animals, their metabolism is
also slower, so they take longer to mature, their offspring
take longer to produce and grow up and mature, and
(19:11):
so in there it does make sense for evolution to
have selected for longer lifespan in order to ensure fitness. Okay,
because otherwise it may men not actually have the chance
to reproduce, or not to reproduce enough. And it gets
worse than that. It's not even that evolution doesn't care
(19:34):
what happens to you after you've produced your offspring. Evolution
also will select for traits that are advantageous early in
life that will get you to maturity and reproduction, even
if those exact same traits will cause you to age
later in life. And there are many examples of that
(19:55):
in my book. For example, certain mechanisms that cause us
to age may have evolved as anti cancer mechanisms. Now,
of course you want to prevent cancer early in life,
but later in life they may cause aging, and ironically,
cancer itself increases as we age the likelihood of getting cancer.
But that's a different story.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Can you give us an example of an anti cancer
strategy that causes aging?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Leader Yeah, sure so. One very classic example is that
most of the cells in our body can only divide
a certain number of times, and then they reach a
state called sinesence. Senessen cells are these dysfunctional cells that
can't divide and they actually secrete inflammatory compounds. And as
(20:42):
we age, we accumulate more sinescent cells and that becomes
a problem and inflammation becomes a problem. Now, why do
cell stop dividing? Well, it turns out that our chromosomes
are linear DNA molecules and their ends are specialized struck.
It is called telomeres. Now, the copying mechanism for DNA,
(21:04):
every time it cell divides, that DNA has to be copied.
The copying mechanism is such that our chromosomes get slightly
shorter every time the cell divides. Okay, and these ends
have a special structure. Now, when they become too short,
that structure unravels. When it unravels, the end of our
(21:27):
chromosomes looks to the cell like a broken piece of DNA.
That the cell has evolved mechanisms that if there's a
DNA break, it will either try to repair it, or
if it can't repair it, it will send the cell
into Sinessence. Why, because a cell with a defective genome
(21:50):
is at cancer risk because it's about you know, it
could do all kinds of you know, abnormal things, and
it's much better to send that cell off to sinessence
and have it be removed by the immune system, then
have it continue with a DNA defect or a chromosome defect. Right,
So the cell has evolved as DNA response damage response
(22:14):
in order to get rid of cells that are problematic
in this way. But of course that same thing is
causing senessens and increase in senescent cells as we get
older and causing us to age. So that's a very
you know, clear example of how something that may have
(22:34):
evolved as an anti cancer mechanism early in life really
is a cause of aging later in life.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
All Right, I want to hear a lot more about that,
but first we have to take a break. Okay, we're
(23:06):
back and we're talking about aging.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
So you mentioned that as cells go on and replicate
the telomeres, you get shorter. But we and this is
another listener question, but we're able to, you know, combine
our gam meets with somebody else and make a fetus
that has all new cells. And you also mentioned that starfish,
can you regenerate an entire arm using stem cells? So
why is it inevitable that our cells will break down
(23:31):
when we seem able to set the clock back if
we want to so we.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Have evolved so that most of our cells have lost
that ability to regenerate, probably because you don't want all
of the trillions of cells in our body to be
able to keep dividing at will, because that is also
a cancer risk, okay, because they could acquire mutation and
then they could become cancerous. So we have specialized cells
(24:00):
called stem cells, which can keep regenerating. They don't go
into senescence, and these specialized cells their role is to
regenerate tissue. Now where do these stem cells come from, Well,
they came from the fertilized egg. The fertilized egg is
(24:21):
the ultimate stem cell because it's what is called a
toty potent stem cell. That means it can make everything
in the body, including the placenta. Okay, then that separates
off into placental cells and the cells that actually form
the fetus and the body, you know, and the organism.
(24:43):
Early in development, those cells are called pluripotent because they
can make any kind of tissue. They could make kidneys,
they can make lungs, they could make brain cells, they
can make anything. But as the fetus, as the embryo
I should say, develops, the stem cells become more and
more specialized. And then you have amatopoetic stem cells, which
(25:05):
can make anything in the blood system, and that includes
all of our immune system and our red blood cells,
et cetera. Another kind can make anything in the nervous system,
you know, neurons, glia, all of those cells. Others can
make skin and hair and so on. So you get
the picture. The stem cells are becoming more specialized, but
(25:26):
those stem cells have a balancing act. They have to
reproduce so that they maintain the stem cell population, but
they also have to differentiate and produces more of the tissue.
So there's always this switch going on. Do they reproduce
more of themselves so you have more stem cells, or
(25:47):
do they make the tissue keep regenerating the tissue they are,
and there's always this balance. But as we get older,
our stem cells get depleted because they also get defective.
They also age, they also become sinescent, and so you
get this depletion of stem cells. You also get the
remaining stem cells are not optimal. They become what are
(26:11):
called clones. Instead of having a diverse population of stem
cells as when we're young, you get these clonal stem
cells which are suboptimal. They're selected for being able to
reproduce rather than being effective at generating tissue. So these
stem cells also decline. So that's why we can't keep
(26:33):
going forever, you know, by regenerating tissue. Now, the other
question your listener had was, you know what about our
germ cells. You know we can you know, we keep
producing babies that are age zero. They're not. You know,
in my book, I point out that a forty year
old woman doesn't give birth to a baby that's twenty
(26:53):
years older than a twenty year old woman. They're both
zero right, born at a time zero. So that's a
combination of two things. One is our germline cells are
highly protected against damage. They have better repair mechanisms for
repairing DNA damage. They're shielded against DNA damage, et cetera.
(27:15):
So that's one aspect. The others there's a brutal selection process.
You know, a female is born, a female human is
born with about a million or so eggs. But you know,
if you look at the number of menstrual cycles and
a woman over a lifetime, it's only maybe a few hundred.
So why do you need a million eggs? You know,
(27:37):
when you're really only going to use at the most
a few hundred, right, So that's because there's a lot
of selection in the process of going from the germline's
precursor cells to the egg that's actually eventually selected for ovulation.
There's a lot of selection. Sperm, of course, you know,
(27:57):
is highly selected. I mean, you know, each fertilization event
there you know, I don't know how many I would
had to guess and take a guess, but maybe it's
a million sperm cells or something, and out of that
is only one is selected, you know, So they have
to raise and they have to you know, win the competition.
So they are also selected for fitness for health. And
(28:21):
then after the fertilized egg is formed, you know, it
is also checked. So if the developing embryo is at
all defective, there'll be spontaneous abortion. Often a woman won't
even know it, you know, the very early spontaneous abortion.
Later abortions are what we call miscarriages, and that's another selection.
(28:44):
And even within the growing embryo, cells are selected against
if they're defective. The embryo keeps growing, but it kills
off cells that are defector, which I found remarkable. So
it's this combination of selection and protection that ensures that,
(29:04):
you know, the child that is born is has its
aging clock soon reset, okay, at each generation.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
But is it technically possible for us to reset our
own clock? Is it just like a bad idea evolutionarily,
or is there something that prevents us from just like
constantly being at teko zero.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
I don't see how you would reset your entire clock.
You know, in the whole organism there are people. So
if I were to back up just a little bit,
there is an example of taking a fully grown adult
cell and making a whole new animal from it, Okay,
(29:48):
And the first time that was done was by John
Gordon who received the Nobel Prize for it when he
cloned a frog from a skin cell. So he took
a skin cell from an adult frog and implanted the
nucleus of that cell into the egg of another frog
and then just grew it up and it resembled the
(30:09):
frog from which the skin cell had been taken, you know,
so it was essentially a clone. And then people asked
could they do it to mammals? And that made big
headlines when Dolly the Sheep was cloned. Now Dolly the
Sheep turned out to be very sickly sheep and died
at about half the age of a normal sheep. So
everybody said, ah, this is because Dolly the Sheep was
(30:32):
cloned from a fully grown adult cell which was already
kind of old and damaged and didn't go you know,
wasn't a normally produced sheep. It was done by this
weird cloning procedure. But it turns out that there are
many other cloned animals, and in fact, with Dolly, the
other cohorts like Daisy and Debbie, they're all females that
(30:54):
had d names and these sheep though by and large,
had normal lifespans. And so that means that you could actually,
you know, reset the clock to substantial degree by erasing
all the marks on the DNA. Okay, it's not perfect,
(31:14):
because the cloning itself involved lots of selection. You know,
it is very very inefficient. It only works small fraction
of the time, and most of them end up in
miscarriages or or they don't take and so on. So
at least in theory it's possible. Now, could we do
to cells in a more systematic way what Dolly the
(31:37):
sheep or John Gerdon did with his frog, Because they
just treated it in various ways, but they didn't have
a clear idea of what was what was it? What
were they doing to make that adult cell go back
to resembling a fertilized egg and start growing a new animal.
You know, it's like going backwards in time, right, And
so a Japanese scientist named Shinya Yamanaka asked, could you
(32:03):
take these stem cells that are in the final stage,
or even the final cells like a skin cell or
you know, lung cell or whatever, and have them go
all the way back to pluripotent stem cells so that
they could then, you know, become any kind of cell.
And remarkably, he found that if you take four genes
(32:27):
and introduce them into one of these adult cells and
turn them on, you could change the genetic program of
the cell and have it go backwards all the way
back to pluripotence. Now, this has created a big industry
in the stem cells because stem cells are going to
be useful for all kinds of things. For example, if
(32:48):
you want to replace damaged tissue, you know, let's say
you want to replace pancreas in diabetics so that they
can produce insulin. There are all kinds of things being
talked about, and they're you know, cartilage and a guy
like me with very bad joints. So or for a
guy like me with you know, very little hair, you
(33:09):
could imagine stem cells stimulating new hair growth, Okay, and
that would be a billion dollar industry.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, if you could develop some like gun you pointed
a part of your body and you're like, make this younger.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Exactly, So people asked, now, the problem with going all
the way back is that you have the risk of cancer,
you know, because it's you're taking these cells. They're not
quite exactly the same as a normal embryonic development is
it's the somewhat artificial process that you're using to go
(33:44):
backwards in development. And when they try to grow those
plur iportent stem cells, they often would get these tumor
like growths called teratomas, and so there is definitely a
cancer risk. But what a number of scientists asked was
supposing you turn on these Yamanaka factors transiently, you know,
(34:06):
just turn them on and then figure out a way
to turn them off after a while, then what would happen. Well, astonishingly,
they tried this in mice and they found that the mice,
you know, resembled younger animals. They suddenly had better fur
and muscles, and you know, by various markers they seemed younger.
(34:31):
So this idea of cellular reprogramming is a big area
in the longevity field, but it's still in early stages.
Even though there's a lot of excitement the idea that
tomorrow you're going to go and get a treatment that
will suddenly make all yourselves younger, it's really not going
(34:52):
to happen anytime soon, and it's because there are lots
of problems. One is, you know, you have to get
the right dose, you have to make or it's safe.
You have to make sure it goes to the tissues
and just the right amounts. These are all big challenging problems.
And you know, of course a long term cancer risk
is another problem. So I think it's very exciting and promising,
(35:16):
but it's not something that's around the corner as it's
often hyped. I mean that's my opinion. Of course, you know,
people will disagree with me those but remember a lot
of these people have quite a lot of skin in
the game. They have financial interests, they've founded companies and
so on. So you have to slightly take what they
(35:39):
say with a pinch of salt.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
So you've mentioned that one of the reasons that we
age and die is because it has something to do
with resources.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
And with evolutionary choice. Basically. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
So now many humans like me live in an environment
where there are too many resources maybe, and we should
take in fewer resources, and we live in an environment
where we're better and better at being able to treat cancer,
because it seems like we keep coming up across you know,
cancer is the thing that's holding us back. So if
we were in a high resource environment and we could
figure out how to cure cancer, do you think we
(36:13):
might be able to get our life spans up one
hundred years or something.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Well, somebody did a calculation. Demographer named Jay Olshansky from Chicago,
who's a leading expert in this area, did a calculation
a number of years ago, maybe twenty five thirty years ago,
which suggested that if there are four major causes of
(36:37):
major diseases of old age that caused death, one you
mentioned cancer, the other one is diabetes, a third one
is heart disease, and the fourth one is dementia. Neuer
degenerative diseases and of course the newer degenerative diseases are
among the hardest to treat. But let's say you could
(36:58):
eliminate all four of them. The suggestion is you're only
gain about fifteen years of lifespan if you eliminated all
of these four causes. And the reason is that they
will not affect the normal process of aging, you know,
which leads to frailty of you know, system wide frailty.
(37:20):
And there's always this argument, is aging a disease And
people say, well, you know, all of these major things
like diabetes, cancer, etc. The risk goes up with age.
In fact, the biggest risk factor is age. The older
you are, the more likely you are to get one
of these things, or more or several of them. But
(37:40):
the other argument is that, well, these diseases don't happen
to everybody. Not everybody dies of cancer, not everybody has
heart disease, and also young people get cancer, so it's
not directly related. And aging, on the other hand, is
something that happens to every single person and it's inevitable.
So how can you call something that's both ubiquitous and
(38:03):
inevitable a disease. It's simply a process of life. And
I tend to agree with that. But the reason they
want to call it a disease is because then it's
easier to get approval for clinical trials. Well, I think
they ought to try some other thing. For example, they
can choose a target, a disease target that's strongly correlated
(38:28):
with aging, for example ostere arthritis or loss of various
functions and so on, and then they could use that
as the measure of success of their drug. So there
are ways to get around it. But I don't think
that just eliminating these diseases will increase lifespend that much.
(38:49):
And in fact, even people who in the aging field
who have bet so. Olshansky was on one side of
a bet with another gerontal just named Stephen Ostad. Stephen
Ostad made a bet with him that the person who
lives to be one hundred and fifty has already been born, okay,
And that bet was made some time ago, and they
(39:11):
bet it so that in one hundred and fifty years,
you know, the amount would be worth that a billion
dollars or something. Of course, you know, maybe it'll cost
a billion dollars to buy a sandwich, but by that time.
But anyway, but they made this bet. Now. Stephen Ostad
also doesn't believe that it's just going to be because
(39:32):
of eliminating disease. Rather, what he thinks is that we're
making progress in slowing down or arresting aging itself, and
that's the reason why we may end up living longer.
And for example, you know, there's a drug called wrappamicin
which is somewhat is related to caloric restriction, which also
(39:56):
allows animals to live longer. That, for example, can increase
lifespan in mice by you know, twenty or thirty percent. Well,
if we live you know, ninety years, you know, thirty
percent of that would already get us to one hundred
and twenty or so. You see, So maybe he's counting
on on things like that. I tend to be on
(40:19):
the Olshansky side. I think that I'm really fundamentally increasing lifespan,
and especially healthy lifespan. Is not going to be as
easy as they say, because it's highly multi factorial. There's
so many things going on.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
Well, how do we know you're not just a shell
for big death?
Speaker 2 (40:40):
You know?
Speaker 3 (40:40):
Are you being paid by the death industry?
Speaker 1 (40:45):
All right, well, take a break, and when we get
back we'll talk.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
More about aging, and we're back.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
So we have another question from a listener, and here
it is, I'm curious why immune systems seem to decline
with age. Shouldn't they get supercharged because by then, when
you're old, you've basically seen everything.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
It is true that immune systems are exposed to more
things as we age, but immune systems are essentially a
collection of cells, and the cells themselves age, and so
they don't respond as well as they do when we're
younger or when we're in our prime. And this has
(41:44):
to do with molecular damage affecting higher levels like the
cell and communication between cells, and so for all kinds
of reasons, our immune system as a result of this
accumulated damage doesn't function optimally.
Speaker 3 (42:03):
So it's got a lot more wisdom, but like less
energy and effectivity.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Yeah, and actually it doesn't function as well. For example,
it responds in an aberrant way. It's not as well regulated.
You know, the immune system always has to be very
finely regulated because you don't want to react against yourself
or against harmless things. You only want to react against
truly dangerous entities. So that fine balance is disrupted, and
(42:33):
so you get essentially a dysfunctional immune system, and you
also get a lot of inflammation as a result. So,
for example, I mentioned those sinescence cells. The reason those
sinessn cells secrete inflammatory compounds is as a signal to
the immune system that hey, there's something wrong here, come
and clear it up. And so the immune system will
(42:55):
come there. It may be the side of a wound,
or an infection or or some other stress, and it
will deal with it. But as we get older, not
only do the number of sines and cells increase, but
the immune system doesn't respond as well to the signals,
and so you get this sort of auto catalytic or
(43:15):
you know, you get this essentially, this explosion in the
growth of sines and cells and inflammation.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
And is this something that's understood across species. One of
the listeners asked why cats and dogs have the same
age related diseases that we do, but they appear at
a younger age, maybe smaller number of years.
Speaker 2 (43:37):
That's simply the fact that this allocation of repair to
maintenance and repair to growth and reproduction, that balance is
different for different species. You know, you could ask why
do whales live so long? Well, one reason is they
have a slower metabolism than say animal like a mouse.
(43:58):
But the other reason also is but they have a
large number of repair enzymes. You know, if you look
at just DNA repair enzymes, they have many different repair
enzymes when they sequence the genome of some of these species,
and elephants, for example, have many more copies of a
DNA repair enzyme than mice.
Speaker 3 (44:20):
Do because they live longer, so they need more repairs.
Speaker 2 (44:23):
Yeah, and they have to they have to maintain that. Also,
there is a paradox They have many more cells, and
so the chance that one of their cells could become
cancerous and kill the whole animal is much higher in
a larger animal than in a small animal. But paradoxically
it's mice get cancer more often than elephants, and that's
(44:44):
because the elephants do have this additional capacity to repair.
So it's all evolution really just optimizing for fitness. Remember,
evolution does not optimize for long life. It doesn't care
about long life. It cares about survival of genes because
(45:04):
that's what it selects for.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
This might be a little too far off topic, but
I've seen articles that say, like green sharks never get cancer.
Are there actually species that never get cancer or it
just takes them away and we don't see it often.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
It is almost entirely that we don't observe them long enough.
So for example, I'll give you an example of Glapicus tortoises, right,
you know, they live to be two hundred years old.
And I like to joke that there's probably a Galapicus
tortoise wandering around now that might have actually met Darwin.
Oh you know, that's a cool thought, right, But anyway.
Speaker 3 (45:37):
Let's have them on the podcast so exactly, so.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
You know, if they could talk, they might be able
to tell you quite a bit. But anyway, No, it
was thought for a while that these things, these tortoises
don't age. Well, actually they do age. If you look
at old tortoises, they have terrible eyesight, and you know,
there's slow moving, there's skins, you know, old you know
(46:02):
they have all these.
Speaker 3 (46:03):
They don't know how to use the VC exactly.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
They have all of the same problems, and it's just
that it happens more slowly, Okay.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
And I gotta say, Daniel, I think the VCR joke
aged you more than anything.
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Well, the fact that you laughed at it aged you.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
Oh, you got me. That's true. That's true. So let's
jump back, if that's okay, to another example of folks
trying to extend lifespan. So I've heard of examples of
like taking blood from young mice and giving it to
old mice, and then I think there's a guy, Brian
Johnson who's trying to limit aging by using his son's blood.
(46:38):
Is there any evidence that that's anything other than nuts.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
That's an excellent question. And it is true that when
they connected an old rat to a young rat, the
old rat benefited by the exchange of blood and the
young rat actually suffered. And then they were wondering whether
it was really due to the blood itself, or maybe
the young rat had better liver and kidneys to detoxify
(47:04):
the blood, and so it wasn't just the blood, but
it was just that it had better organs to clean
up blood. So they separated them and simply give them transfusions,
and they found that, in fact, the effect was still there,
but it was more that the old rat had things
in it that were harmful to the young rat. That
(47:26):
was more the case than that the young blood was
beneficial to the old rat. But it did. But there
was some effect both ways. Now this is true, and
when the people discovered it, they caught all sorts of
creepy phone calls from rich people asking, you know, whether
they could get young blood and so on, and in fact, companies.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
Where do babies? It's kind of exactly.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
And in fact companies sprouted up, and as you can imagine,
mostly in California. I think.
Speaker 3 (48:01):
That's what I would get, you mean, the center of
innovation and forward thinking and creativity.
Speaker 5 (48:06):
That's why you said, ye, anyway, that's somehow obsessed with youth.
But but anyway, some of these companies would would get
blood from young donors and sell them at a huge
markup to rich people wanted them. And in one case,
the FDA actually tried to shut one a company down
(48:28):
and then it opened up under a different name. And
in one case the CEO said, well, look, our people
simply don't have the time to wait for clinical trials,
you know, Oh my goodness. It was really bizarre coming from,
you know, a CEO of you know, a health based company.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
But you're saying that there are real benefits to having
transfusions of blood from young people.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Well, there's certainly seemed to be in animals, and so
there's a big bar of research to find out what
is changing in blood as we get older, and what
do these factors do. You know, if they're harmful in
old age, what do they do? Maybe we can inhibit them,
or if they're beneficial in early life, maybe we can
(49:16):
take advantage of that and introduce them into older people.
So I think that's a very legitimate and broad area
of research and lots of very you know, top scientists
from very well known universities are actually working on that.
But you know, this idea that you should just take transfusions,
(49:39):
you know, it's not really going to help that much
at this point. And Brian Johnson whom you mentioned, actually
did this experiment of keeping it all in the family.
He took blood from his son and gave his blood
to his dad. But he's also, I mean to give
him some credit, he's obsessed with a you know, or
(50:01):
not aging to be more precise. He spends like a
couple of million dollars a year on all kinds of
longevity treatments and measurements, and you know probably has you know,
fitness programs and all sorts of things.
Speaker 3 (50:16):
Okay, Well, the thing that fascinates me about Brian Johnson
is that he does take a lot of data, right,
he is.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
Exactly focused data on metrics, right, He's focused on metrics.
Speaker 3 (50:26):
But he doesn't look young, Like even though he says
he has all these metrics which are equivalent to an
eighteen year old, he still looks like a vampire. So
he sort of captures this like, well.
Speaker 2 (50:36):
I would say, no, I'll give him credit. He's his
late forties. He looks pretty good for late forties. But
I'll tell you my son is in his late forties.
Yeah he does none of this stuff. Yeah, okay, but
he runs regularly and eats well, and he looks just
as good as Brian Johnson. And I'm not just being biased.
You could look him up on online. He's a cellist.
Speaker 3 (50:56):
So well, you're definitely biased, but I don't don't not
believe you, But you know, I think it raises a
deeper question, which is, like, is it possible to be
young biologically by all of these metrics, as you say,
you know, you're measuring the damage to whatever molecular mechanisms,
but still somehow not be young in the sort of
social sense.
Speaker 2 (51:17):
That's that's a very good question. You know. So you
know I mentioned the high school reunion and how we
all look different. Yeah, so that's led to this quest
for biological markers of age. Okay, yeah, because you want
to know. You know, your birthday may have been, you know,
forty years ago, but how old are you really in
(51:37):
biological terms? Right, So the people have come up with
different clocks, you know. So one clock is this so
called DNA methylation clock. So these are little tags that
get attached to our DNA from the time we're conceived. Okay,
it happens even in utero. We're aging even in utero, okay,
And that's apparently better correlated with with mortality than chronological age.
(52:05):
You know, So chances that you're going to die are
more correlated with your data infilation than they are with
your date of birth. So so that's you know, used
as a clock.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
But does that suggest that if you could somehow adjust
that you would extend your life? I mean, is it
causal or is it correlated?
Speaker 2 (52:22):
That's the real question. You know, we don't know the
extent of causality. The other case is that as we age,
extra sugar groups get added to our proteins. It's called lication.
And so you can measure this, you know, addition of
sugar groups to our proteins, and when that happens to
(52:45):
our proteins of our immune system, it also doesn't work
as well. So people think that it has some connection
with this, you know, decay of the immune system. But anyway,
that's another clock. Now people will sell you kits. They'll
tell your denim infylation kit or a glacation kit or
a full blood you know library. You know, they'll just
(53:08):
analyze a bunch of stuff in your blood to give
you a sort of biological age, and each one will
say this is our thing, is the most accurate? Okay. Now,
I think these are all very useful research tools because
if you have a longevity intervention, like an anti aging intervention,
(53:29):
you can see are these markers changing more slowly or
are they changing at the same rate? Okay, and they'll
give you a good idea of you know, are you
aging faster or not. But people need to come together
and agree on a panel. You know, I don't think
a single clock is going to tell you the whole story. Yeah, okay,
(53:51):
I think they need to agree on a panel and
then say okay, here's a panel and this is what
it represents, and it might be a complex thing. There's
no point in talking about your biological age because your
liver may not be the same age as your kidney
or your lung. You know, you can imagine if you're
an alcoholic, your liver might be older than other parts
(54:14):
of your bodies. So I think people need to have
a more complex view of aging, of biological age.
Speaker 3 (54:21):
But don't we also need to unravel this question of causality.
I mean, if you identify a marker, even or even
a complex panel that indicates biological age, adjusting those results
doesn't necessarily make you younger. It's like I can turn
back the clock literally and it will read a different number.
Doesn't make me younger. And if this is just a comment,
one more thing which is one of my favorite mechanisms
(54:43):
that Brian Johnson keeps track of is that, and I
love that he's totally transparent about his data, is that
he measures his erection quality during the night and he
posts this data online, which I think is hilarious. But
you know, just as an easy example, if the guy
took a viagara every night when he went to you
probably would have like glorious erections all night long. It
wouldn't make him any younger, right.
Speaker 2 (55:05):
That's true. But you know, let's take dinner methylation. You know,
so one of the things about those reprogrammed cells is
that they have changed the methylation pattern as well, you know.
So I mean that one of the distinct things about
going back to an early embryonic state is that the
(55:26):
methylation pattern is different. So there may be some element
of causality, because methylation does change the program of our
gene expression. So if you're going back to an earlier state,
you maybe you're going back to an earlier program. But
I agree that, you know, causality, you know, needs to
(55:49):
be established by careful experiments. You know, is is it
sufficient to reverse methylation and without cause on automatic cause
something to look younger. There are some scientists who claim
that they have reversed aging just by this process, but
it's highly controversial.
Speaker 1 (56:08):
So I imagine our listener is going to want to know,
as an expert in aging who doesn't believe, you know,
that there's a magic pill out there that's going to
give us an extra fifty to one hundred years, what
do you do to slow the aging process?
Speaker 2 (56:21):
Yeah, yeah, I should say, you know, there's no theoretical
reason why we couldn't all start living to be one
hundred and fifty eventually. Okay. The thing that I'm what
I'm saying is that we don't know how to do
that at this point, and more importantly, we don't know
(56:43):
how long it's going to take. And that's where I
differ with some of the more extreme optimists that the
field is full off. Okay, but what we can do
right now before then? I want to address one question.
If you ask most aging research, they would say, oh,
we're not interested in extending lifespan. We're really interested in
(57:06):
extending health span. Okay. And this whole thing is based
on an idea called compression of morbidity. So as we
get older, we start accumulating various morbidities. You know, you
could say diabetes is one, or heart disease or dementia, accounts,
et cetera. You know, frailty of various kinds or morbidities,
(57:27):
and the ideal life would be that you're extremely healthy
and then suddenly we have undergo a rapid decline. Okay.
This is called compression of that morbidity into a very
short space of time. You have a span of time.
So that's the goal. The question is is that even possible. Well,
(57:49):
in the last few decades we are all living healthier
as a result of improvements in health, but it's also
extended our lives, so that our period of morbidity has
not changed. Okay, so it's just postponed. And in fact,
you know, we're living more years and it's sort of
(58:11):
decline than you know veras before, we might have died
brutally quickly, okay, as soon as something went wrong, you know,
would collapse and die, and now we're sort of prolonging
it and have a long period of morbidity. So it's
not clear that as we improve things, we're going to
(58:33):
somehow keep healthy and reach some fixed limit and then collapse.
It may simply be that we'll live a bit longer
and still have that inevitable period of decline. That's an
unsolved question, no matter what people will actually say. The
one exception to this are super centenarians. These are people
(58:55):
who live to be over one hundred and ten and
even over one hundred and five. They tend to be
extremely healthy. Many of them have never seen a doctor
until they're one hundred or so, and then they suddenly
go into a decline and die. Now you could ask
why is that, Well, it could be that they're selected
(59:16):
and they're just there's a selection bias there. First of all,
they may be lucky in the combination of genes that
they have, but they each combination, there's no fixed combination.
They may be different than each individual, but somehow these
combinations give them that edge. Another is that they may
(59:36):
simply have been lucky in avoiding various diseases and cancer
and accidents and so on. And you're looking at the survivors, okay,
and so it's not something that's translatable to the rest
of the population necessarily. So that's still debating. And people
are studying centenarians, which I think is a great idea,
(59:58):
and trying to find out more or about their lifestyle
and their genome and also their methylation patterns and so on.
Now you asked, what could WeDo, Well, I advocate the
trio of diet, exercise, and sleep. It's been known in
(01:00:19):
many species that caloric restriction improves lifespan and improves health
in old age. And of course caloric restriction is extreme.
It means you're consuming just the bare minimum number of
calories required to have a steady state. In other words,
you're not losing weight and starving, but you're just steady.
(01:00:40):
But that will leave you hungry and cold, and your
loss of libido and all sorts of side effects which
maybe not worth it. Yeah, you know, it reminds me
of that joke about the doctor who said, you know,
if you do these things, you'll live live longer, and
the patient said really, he said, well, I'm not sure,
(01:01:00):
but it will feel like it so anyway. So, but
but you could have a moderate diet, you know. And
it is true that a healthy and moderate diet will help.
And exercise has all kinds of things, including, by the way,
those regenerative abilities, regenerating muscle, and even regenerating mitochondria, which
(01:01:22):
are these organelles in our cells. So exercise has huge
benefits that are only now becoming clear. And then the
third which I think Americans need to take more note off.
And by the way, I am an American who lives
in Britain, although I'm now also a British citizen. So
Americans particularly ignore sleep. Okay, and sleep is really important
(01:01:49):
because that is when a lot of the repair and
maintenance mechanism of the cell, the clear, clearing out garbage,
you know, repairing damage, et cetera. Much of that occurs
when we sleep. And there's actually a very nice book
called Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker, which talks about
(01:02:10):
all of the things about sleep. So though that trio
is extremely healthful. Now, things like stress, cause you know,
accelerate aging. But you know, if you exercise and sleep,
you will also be less stressed. And if you exercise
you'll sleep better, sleep better, you're less likely to overeat
and you know, snack and so on. So there's it's
(01:02:31):
like a three legged stool that help you know, each
one helps the other two.
Speaker 3 (01:02:36):
But then let me ask you about that specifically, because
it feels like as we get older, it's harder to
sleep longer it is well. And yet you're telling me
that sleep is crucial for old age, and so it
seems like a death spiral there exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
And that's why if you exercise and eat well, you're
more likely to sleep well. And and then it's a
it's a kind of virtuous cycle. They help each other,
each each leg help the other two. And then there
are social things. For example, again, Daniel, you mentioned causation
versus correlation. But there's strong evidence that people who are
(01:03:11):
socially well networked in old age, for example, they have
circles of friends, family, they're socially involved, tend to have
lower mortality rates. And people with a sense of purpose
in life, independently of the social network they have a
sense of purpose in life also tend to live longer.
(01:03:32):
And so this would argue for being socially involved and
perhaps you know, contributing, you know, maybe volunteering and having
some sort of purpose just beyond watching your Netflix Q,
although that some people would argue that's a purpose too,
but anyway, but having a real purpose in life might help.
(01:03:54):
Now again you might say, well, people who are healthier
and you know, not as fast may be more inclined
to do these things. So there is this correlation causation issue,
but I think it's it's well worth considering.
Speaker 1 (01:04:09):
Is it time for the alien question, Daniel?
Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
I think it is. So we often wonder on this
podcast not just about the scientific mysteries here on Earth,
but scientific mysteries more broadly in the galaxy. And so
since we're in this moment where we you know, maybe
on the cusp of discovering aliens on the other planets
in the next decade or whatever. Do you think that.
Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
I'm very agnostic about that, by.
Speaker 3 (01:04:32):
The way, as Ama, I sure, though enthusiastic. But say
that we're there, you're an astrobiologist, you're on a mission,
you're landing on the planet. Do you expect that life
cycles on alien planets will also have the same sort
of aging patterns that we see here on Earth.
Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
I think so, because I think natural selection is a
universal process. You know, if you think of life as
essentially the ability to reproduce, self, replicate, and evolve are
two essential characteristics of life. So if you have that,
you will have natural selection, and so it will if
(01:05:09):
inevitably have these trade offs of resource versus maintenance and repair,
and and of course if it's carbon based, then you
know it's more likely even to have that. And and ultimately,
ultimately the laws of physics, which you know are result
in chemistry, which results in damage that's not going to change,
(01:05:33):
you know, somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (01:05:35):
So everywhere across the galaxy there are grumpy old aliens
telling those young kids to get off their lawn.
Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
That that that I would I would bet on that
if I had to. But I'm I'm somewhat skeptical about
I think we don't know what the probability of life
here is, and until we know that, we have no
idea whether life elsewhere is very likely or whether we're
alone or somewhere in between. We just don't know. I
(01:06:05):
should say some of the enthusiasm for extending lifespan to
very very long lifespan is by people who want to
do extra galactic travel. You know, there are people who
feel that we may be the only intelligent species and
we should go off and colonize not just Mars, which
you guys have pointed out as extremely hard anyway, but
(01:06:30):
you know, even other galaxies, and so they figure, well,
if we have to do that, then we have to
be able to survive the voyage, you know, and so
we should you know, we need to start working on longevity.
So it seems like a crazy idea, but anyway, that's
how it is.
Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
I think for a lot of people, it's like, you know,
they'll say, oh, I want humanity to do it, but
what they mean is that I want to be the
one who does it in particular.
Speaker 2 (01:06:52):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely, yes, all.
Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
Right, Well, thank you so much for being on the show.
This was fascinating. I'm sure our listeners are going to
be thrilled with all of the answers, and thank you
for your time.
Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
Thank you, it's been a real pleasure chatting with both
of you. And by the way, I really enjoyed your book.
Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
Oh thanks, I loved your book. Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary
Universe is produced by iHeartRadio. We would love to hear
from you.
Speaker 3 (01:07:21):
We really would. We want to know what questions you
have about this Extraordinary Universe.
Speaker 1 (01:07:27):
We want to know your thoughts on recent shows, suggestions
for future shows. If you contact us, we will get
back to you.
Speaker 3 (01:07:33):
We really mean it. We answer every message. Email us
at Questions at Danielankelly.
Speaker 1 (01:07:39):
Dot org, or you can find us on social media.
We have accounts on x, Instagram, Blue Sky and on
all of those platforms. You can find us at D
and K Universe.
Speaker 3 (01:07:49):
Don't be shy write to us.
They say that only two things in life are certain,
death and taxes. For the lucky among us will pass
away quietly at an old age. But why is aging
and thus death inevitable? And how do we even define aging? Yes,
you can define it by the ticking of the clock,
but is there a biological way to define it that
(00:29):
gives you a better shot at really understanding how the
passage of time has worn away at your body. If
two people in their thirties can mix their old cells
together to make a brand new baby, then why can't
those same two people just start making young cells for themselves?
And shouldn't evolution favor living a really long time so
(00:50):
we can make more babies and be around to help
them grow. Aging can be a counterintuitive phenomenon, and Daniel
and I get many questions from our audience the extraordinaries
about the aging process. However, despite the furrows in my
forehead that get deeper each year and that my son
sometimes stares at, this biologist is not an expert in
(01:13):
the science of aging. But lucky for us, we were
able to get doctor Venki Ramakrishnan, author of Why We Die,
The New Science of Aging and The Quests for immortality
to come onto the show to answer your questions. Welcome
to Daniel and Kelly's extraordinarily Old Universe.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Hi.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist. I round my age
up two hundred.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Hello. I'm Kelly Waidersmith. I study parasites and space And Daniel,
last time we talked, you rounded up to fifty. Have
you just decided that, now that you're fifty, yere rounding
up to one hundred because that is not a helpful
wait around.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
I think that's totally consistent. When I was forty eight,
I called myself fifty, and now that I'm fifty, I
got a round up to one hundred. It totally makes sense,
not to me. Plus, I think I look pretty good
for one hundred.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Yeah, you look great for one hundred, But I say
you look good for fifty two.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
But like, I don't.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Yeah, I know that that kind of rounding doesn't make
sense to me. But that's all right, all right.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
So here's my question for you today, Kelly. If you
could take a pill that would extend your life to
a thousand years or a million years, would you do
you want to live a super crazy long life?
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Umm? Al right, So one, okay, So selfishly, I would
need to know about the quality of that life, and
if the quality of my life was going to be
as good it is now, for all of that time,
I would think about it. But to be honest, the
only reason I'm thinking that I might want to say
yes is that I want to live at least as
long as my son lives, because he's going to need
(02:55):
care his whole life, and I don't want him to
ever be alone. And so if I could live as
long as he lives, one hundred percent, So what about.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
You, No, I see, life is like a hike. You know,
hikes are wonderful. There's oneful moments you're glad you went
on them. You're also glad when they're over. Nobody wants
to be in a hike that lasts until the end
of the universe. And maybe sometimes the best part of
a hike is when you get to sit down at
the end, you're like, oh wow, what a nice walk done.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
Especially at the end of a good hike, Yeah, you're like, ah,
all right, I'm ready to be done.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Exact.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
And my grandpa passed away recently, and I think he
had that kind of life. He hiked it was a
good trip, and at the end he told everyone, he's like,
I'm ready, and then he passed away into sleep, and
I was like, man, I really hope that's in the
genes somewhere, because that's pretty solid.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
And I hope that listening to this podcast has improved
that everybody's quality of life out there were making your
hike through life more pleasant.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Maybe it will improve their quality of sleep, which at
the end of the episode will discover is an important
part of being healthy. So we're doing our part.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
You're saying that listening to the podcast could technically scientifically
extend your lifespan.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Maybe maybe listen to our prior episodes about how you
evaluate scientific statements and see what you think, dear listeners,
and whether.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
You should believe people who have skin in the game exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Yes, all right, Well, so we get loads and loads
of questions about aging from the extraordinaries, and so I
pulled them all together. We found an amazing expert to
answer the question. Amazing, amazing, he does such a great job.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
How do you know this Nobel Prize?
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Kelly Oh, thanks for pitching myte We both were on
the short list for the Royal Society Book Prize. Yep,
Why We Die is thank you Rama Christnan's book, and
A City on Mars was my book, and we both
made the short list for the Royal Society Prize.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
And you're just gonna omit those crucial piece of information
that you won the prize. So Kelly is the author
of a book which edged out a Nobel Prize winning
nonfiction science book.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
I was not gonna mention that. Thank you for ult
over the years.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
I appreciate it, all right, Well, this is a wonderful
conversation with a deep expert who also has the unusual
quality of being able to explain things clearly yes.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
And being so nice, so nice.
Speaker 5 (05:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Anyway, So I had so much fun. I feel so
lucky we got to do.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
This interview before we bring on our expert, who want
to know abel prize in this area. We asked you
guys what you thought was the reason for aging. Here's
what people had to say.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I underested it to be oxidative pressures where new copies
of things just aren't quite as good as they used
to be and there are errors throughout. Short answer telemeres
real answer, so that there's someone to say I wouldn't
do that if I were you to the younger generations,
it's not like the clouds are going to yell at themselves.
Speaker 6 (05:50):
Certain proteins that mark ourselves or do something along the
lines of maintaining how are unique gets repeated or transcripted deggregate.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Over time, the.
Speaker 6 (06:04):
Body forgets how to make a new body the way
that it once did.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
We age as a consequence of too many gas station burritos,
ninety nine cent big gulps and betrayal by Teilomeir.
Speaker 7 (06:15):
At a molecular point of view, it's really hard to
maintain consistency in the gazillion times molecules and the cells
needs to produce these error skips that canap until the
whole body the case, my.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Short answer is we age due to the passage of time.
Speaker 8 (06:31):
I think we age because we need to die ultimately.
I think it's conducive, if not crucial, to the evolution
of life itself, for organisms to have a finite lifespan.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Every beginning as an end.
Speaker 9 (06:46):
So I believe I've read somewhere that the reason why
we age is because there is a shortening of some
kind of a protein or molecule within our cells.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
And so for DNA current to fray and just gets
left up to entropy.
Speaker 8 (07:05):
Aging and death are just part of the evolutionary.
Speaker 7 (07:08):
Process and processes that have brought us to where we
are today.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It's just a fact.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Thanks everybody for your speculation on this concept. Now let's
talk to the expert and find out what we know
and what we don't know.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Doctor. Thank you. Rama Krishnan was initially interested in physics,
but I'm going to go ahead and give a point
to biology because he transitioned to focusing more on this
field and the biology stuff worked out well for him
because in two thousand and nine he received a Nobel
Prize for his work on ribosomes. He was President of
the Royal Society from twenty fifteen to twenty twenty and
recently wrote the book Why We Die, The New Science
(07:44):
of Aging and the Quest for Immortality. And today we'll
be talking about the science of aging. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Thank you, and thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, we're super excited to have you. We get so
many questions from our audience about aging, and every time
I'm like, look, I know when you look at me,
I look like the right person to ask about.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Well, they should look at me then, and there's so
much discussion out there about aging and how to prevent
it and if it's possible, and so much snake oil
being sold out there. It's so important to cut to
the chase.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
It's certainly having a moment, and I'm a little bit cynical.
I think it has to do with my generation, the
boomer generation, that's used to having everything it wanted in life,
suddenly coming to terms with getting old, and so, you know,
there's a lot of anxiety in the air. Although having
(08:38):
said that, you know, this fear of death and fear
of aging is simply as old as humans, you know,
because ever since we learned about mortality, we've fretted and
worried about it. And I like to say we may
be the only species that's aware of mortality. Other animal
(09:00):
maybe are aware of death, but they're not aware that
they all have a finite lifespan and everybody is going
to die. I'm not sure that other species have that
understanding that we do. And when we somehow obtain that understanding,
perhaps as a result of cognitive development, language and so on,
(09:25):
ever since then, it has become it became a theme
and if you look at most religions. They're all about,
you know, how to deal with death and what happens
after we die.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
I don't know if it's a blessing or a curse
that our species is aware of that.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yeah, I mean many species aren't even aware of death,
you know, it just simply happens.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Well, can I start us off with a very broad
sort of philosophical question, which is, how do you define
aging biologically? Because as a physicist, I might think, well,
you have a clock and it starts and it stops,
and that's your age. But we're interested in more than that, right,
It's some sort of like decrease in the quality of life.
You're gradually moving towards death. It's this fact that you
(10:08):
don't just like live for sixty two years and then poof,
you're done. Your body degrades. How do we define aging
in a crisp way scientifically?
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Yeah, so it's not. It's definitely related to the chronological
clock to time, but the rate is very different, not
only for species, it's vastly different for species, but it's
also different for individuals within a species. If you go
to your high school reunion, you will immediately be aware
(10:37):
of that the fact that people don't age at the
same rate, and I think aging molecular biologists would define
it as the gradual accumulation of changes and damage to
us over time that can happen different rates in different individuals.
(10:59):
And it's not just damage. Some of it has changes
that occur with time. It may occur at different rates
in different individuals, and these changes may have a purpose
early in life, for example, modifications of our DNA, but
they cause us or at least they're strongly correlated with
(11:21):
aging later in life. So that's how I define it.
And this accumulation of changes in damage leads to a
gradual loss of function, and when that loss of function
reaches some point where some critical system fails, then you
(11:45):
have death. And so a death is a result of aging,
but its exact moment can't be predicted because in a
complex system, you can't predict exactly when a critical component
will fail.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Aging and changes, but that must mean very different things
to different parts of your body. You're talking about your
nerves or your skin or your eyes. Are there ways
we have to measure it?
Speaker 2 (12:10):
It happens at every level. It happens at every level.
But I would say fundamentally it happens at the molecular level,
and that then manifests itself and each increasing level of complexity.
So you can go from molecules to collection of molecules
in our cell, to components of the cell, to cells themselves,
(12:34):
and then entire tissues, and you know the way cells
communicate with each other, like our immune system. So you
can see that, you know, it happens at the molecular level,
but it starts manifesting itself at increasingly higher levels, you know,
until the point that you know, we see aging as
(12:57):
various forms of frailty, you know. So in fact, a
very good measure of aging is actually something called the
frailty index. They'll measure things like can you get out
of bed? How fast can you walk you know, fifty yards?
What's your grip strength? How good is your eyesight? How
good is your cognition? You know, how good is your memory?
(13:19):
So all of those things are indications of frailty at
a macroscopic level, at a level that you and I experience.
But ultimately the underlying causes are molecular.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Okay, and is aging universal. So we're getting to one
of our first listener questions right now. One of our
listeners noted that they had heard stories about immortal organisms
and they wanted to know are they actually immortal.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Yeah, I had to say, there's a lot of hype.
What happens is people will study an organism that ages
very slowly, and suddenly they'll say, oh, this has no
sign of biological mortality. Let me back up and explain
what I mean by that. So, in normal species, the
(14:06):
likelihood of that we are going to die at any
given time keeps increasing exponentially. So for example, that chances
that you'll die when you're ten are very small, but
the chances you'll die in the next year when say
you're ninety five or one hundred or almost fifty percent, okay,
so the chances keep going up. Now, in some organisms,
(14:32):
it appears that that likelihood of dying you know, of
aging events, not of being eaten by a predator or
starving or anything else. Those are called external causes. But
you know aging, just dying of aging, that probability doesn't
seem to go up with time. And so there are
(14:55):
some species, like a freshwater species called the hydra. There's
another species called the immortal jellyfish, and these tend not
to show any signs of biological aging. That is, the
likelihood it's going to die just doesn't seem to change
with time. But in fact what is happening is it's
(15:17):
probably aging very very slowly. So if you looked, if
you simply followed a hydra in the wild, it'll die
of some other cause, not of old age. But if
you kept it safe and followed it long enough, you
will find that it too, gradually ages because no regeneration
is perfect. You know, the reason hydra and jellyfish appear
(15:41):
not to age is they constantly regenerate their tissue using
specialized cells called stem cells. In a way, they're like plants.
You know, plants have stem cells all over themselves, and
that's why you can take a cutting from a plant
and you know, grow an entirely new tree with it. Right,
we can't do that, but you know, some animals regenerate,
(16:03):
like starfish. You know, it cut off an arm and
it'll regenerate an arm. And you know, some of these
species can regenerate, you know, any tissue, and but it's
not perfect. And so I would say to your listener
that yes, everything will die, but they die at different rates.
I mean, they age at different rates.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
And so everything ages. It's universal across organisms. Do we
understand why we age? Like, is it an inevitability of
like thermodynamics or molecular copying or something, or is it
an evolutionary advantage?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Well, there there are two ways of looking at it.
One is, you know, the physicist way would be that
you know, second law wins and there's always increase in
entropy and disorder and eventually things sort of degrade. And
you know, life is not a you know, equilibrium system.
The problem with that is that life is not a
(17:00):
closed system, and if you apply enough energy and enough
resources you can reverse damage. And in fact that's what
we do. So why is it then that we age
and die? Well, I'll tell you the evolutionary argument. The
evolutionary argument is resources are limited and throughout our history
(17:23):
and in fact, until recently, resources were limited for humans
as well. You know, we had to struggle to have
enough food to live and so on. When resources are limiting,
the organism has a choice to make. Does it put
more of the resources into maintenance and repair, which requires energy,
(17:44):
requires food, et cetera. Or should those resources be put
in too rapid growth and development? Now, if you take
a mouse. For example, a mouse lives about two years,
whereas a blue whale lives a few hundred years. So
why is it that there's this vast difference. Well, the
(18:06):
evolutionary argument is that evolution doesn't actually care how long
you live. Evolution simply cares about how successful are you
going to be at passing on your genes because it's
selecting for those genes, it's not really selecting for you
as an individual. And so in the case of a mouse,
(18:28):
there's no point in spending a lot of resources getting
a mouse to live to be forty years. And the
reason is that long before that it'll be eaten, or
it'll die of starvation or in a drought, or all
of a zillion external causes. And so in the case
of a mouse, it's more advantageous from an evolutionary point
(18:51):
of view for a mouse to grow very rapidly, produce
lots of offspring, and then you know, it doesn't matter
whether it dies, Whereas with larger animals, their metabolism is
also slower, so they take longer to mature, their offspring
take longer to produce and grow up and mature, and
(19:11):
so in there it does make sense for evolution to
have selected for longer lifespan in order to ensure fitness. Okay,
because otherwise it may men not actually have the chance
to reproduce, or not to reproduce enough. And it gets
worse than that. It's not even that evolution doesn't care
(19:34):
what happens to you after you've produced your offspring. Evolution
also will select for traits that are advantageous early in
life that will get you to maturity and reproduction, even
if those exact same traits will cause you to age
later in life. And there are many examples of that
(19:55):
in my book. For example, certain mechanisms that cause us
to age may have evolved as anti cancer mechanisms. Now,
of course you want to prevent cancer early in life,
but later in life they may cause aging, and ironically,
cancer itself increases as we age the likelihood of getting cancer.
But that's a different story.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
Can you give us an example of an anti cancer
strategy that causes aging?
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Leader Yeah, sure so. One very classic example is that
most of the cells in our body can only divide
a certain number of times, and then they reach a
state called sinesence. Senessen cells are these dysfunctional cells that
can't divide and they actually secrete inflammatory compounds. And as
(20:42):
we age, we accumulate more sinescent cells and that becomes
a problem and inflammation becomes a problem. Now, why do
cell stop dividing? Well, it turns out that our chromosomes
are linear DNA molecules and their ends are specialized struck.
It is called telomeres. Now, the copying mechanism for DNA,
(21:04):
every time it cell divides, that DNA has to be copied.
The copying mechanism is such that our chromosomes get slightly
shorter every time the cell divides. Okay, and these ends
have a special structure. Now, when they become too short,
that structure unravels. When it unravels, the end of our
(21:27):
chromosomes looks to the cell like a broken piece of DNA.
That the cell has evolved mechanisms that if there's a
DNA break, it will either try to repair it, or
if it can't repair it, it will send the cell
into Sinessence. Why, because a cell with a defective genome
(21:50):
is at cancer risk because it's about you know, it
could do all kinds of you know, abnormal things, and
it's much better to send that cell off to sinessence
and have it be removed by the immune system, then
have it continue with a DNA defect or a chromosome defect. Right,
So the cell has evolved as DNA response damage response
(22:14):
in order to get rid of cells that are problematic
in this way. But of course that same thing is
causing senessens and increase in senescent cells as we get
older and causing us to age. So that's a very
you know, clear example of how something that may have
(22:34):
evolved as an anti cancer mechanism early in life really
is a cause of aging later in life.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
All Right, I want to hear a lot more about that,
but first we have to take a break. Okay, we're
(23:06):
back and we're talking about aging.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
So you mentioned that as cells go on and replicate
the telomeres, you get shorter. But we and this is
another listener question, but we're able to, you know, combine
our gam meets with somebody else and make a fetus
that has all new cells. And you also mentioned that starfish,
can you regenerate an entire arm using stem cells? So
why is it inevitable that our cells will break down
(23:31):
when we seem able to set the clock back if
we want to so we.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Have evolved so that most of our cells have lost
that ability to regenerate, probably because you don't want all
of the trillions of cells in our body to be
able to keep dividing at will, because that is also
a cancer risk, okay, because they could acquire mutation and
then they could become cancerous. So we have specialized cells
(24:00):
called stem cells, which can keep regenerating. They don't go
into senescence, and these specialized cells their role is to
regenerate tissue. Now where do these stem cells come from, Well,
they came from the fertilized egg. The fertilized egg is
(24:21):
the ultimate stem cell because it's what is called a
toty potent stem cell. That means it can make everything
in the body, including the placenta. Okay, then that separates
off into placental cells and the cells that actually form
the fetus and the body, you know, and the organism.
(24:43):
Early in development, those cells are called pluripotent because they
can make any kind of tissue. They could make kidneys,
they can make lungs, they could make brain cells, they
can make anything. But as the fetus, as the embryo
I should say, develops, the stem cells become more and
more specialized. And then you have amatopoetic stem cells, which
(25:05):
can make anything in the blood system, and that includes
all of our immune system and our red blood cells,
et cetera. Another kind can make anything in the nervous system,
you know, neurons, glia, all of those cells. Others can
make skin and hair and so on. So you get
the picture. The stem cells are becoming more specialized, but
(25:26):
those stem cells have a balancing act. They have to
reproduce so that they maintain the stem cell population, but
they also have to differentiate and produces more of the tissue.
So there's always this switch going on. Do they reproduce
more of themselves so you have more stem cells, or
(25:47):
do they make the tissue keep regenerating the tissue they are,
and there's always this balance. But as we get older,
our stem cells get depleted because they also get defective.
They also age, they also become sinescent, and so you
get this depletion of stem cells. You also get the
remaining stem cells are not optimal. They become what are
(26:11):
called clones. Instead of having a diverse population of stem
cells as when we're young, you get these clonal stem
cells which are suboptimal. They're selected for being able to
reproduce rather than being effective at generating tissue. So these
stem cells also decline. So that's why we can't keep
(26:33):
going forever, you know, by regenerating tissue. Now, the other
question your listener had was, you know what about our
germ cells. You know we can you know, we keep
producing babies that are age zero. They're not. You know,
in my book, I point out that a forty year
old woman doesn't give birth to a baby that's twenty
(26:53):
years older than a twenty year old woman. They're both
zero right, born at a time zero. So that's a
combination of two things. One is our germline cells are
highly protected against damage. They have better repair mechanisms for
repairing DNA damage. They're shielded against DNA damage, et cetera.
(27:15):
So that's one aspect. The others there's a brutal selection process.
You know, a female is born, a female human is
born with about a million or so eggs. But you know,
if you look at the number of menstrual cycles and
a woman over a lifetime, it's only maybe a few hundred.
So why do you need a million eggs? You know,
(27:37):
when you're really only going to use at the most
a few hundred, right, So that's because there's a lot
of selection in the process of going from the germline's
precursor cells to the egg that's actually eventually selected for ovulation.
There's a lot of selection. Sperm, of course, you know,
(27:57):
is highly selected. I mean, you know, each fertilization event
there you know, I don't know how many I would
had to guess and take a guess, but maybe it's
a million sperm cells or something, and out of that
is only one is selected, you know, So they have
to raise and they have to you know, win the competition.
So they are also selected for fitness for health. And
(28:21):
then after the fertilized egg is formed, you know, it
is also checked. So if the developing embryo is at
all defective, there'll be spontaneous abortion. Often a woman won't
even know it, you know, the very early spontaneous abortion.
Later abortions are what we call miscarriages, and that's another selection.
(28:44):
And even within the growing embryo, cells are selected against
if they're defective. The embryo keeps growing, but it kills
off cells that are defector, which I found remarkable. So
it's this combination of selection and protection that ensures that,
(29:04):
you know, the child that is born is has its
aging clock soon reset, okay, at each generation.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
But is it technically possible for us to reset our
own clock? Is it just like a bad idea evolutionarily,
or is there something that prevents us from just like
constantly being at teko zero.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
I don't see how you would reset your entire clock.
You know, in the whole organism there are people. So
if I were to back up just a little bit,
there is an example of taking a fully grown adult
cell and making a whole new animal from it, Okay,
(29:48):
And the first time that was done was by John
Gordon who received the Nobel Prize for it when he
cloned a frog from a skin cell. So he took
a skin cell from an adult frog and implanted the
nucleus of that cell into the egg of another frog
and then just grew it up and it resembled the
(30:09):
frog from which the skin cell had been taken, you know,
so it was essentially a clone. And then people asked
could they do it to mammals? And that made big
headlines when Dolly the Sheep was cloned. Now Dolly the
Sheep turned out to be very sickly sheep and died
at about half the age of a normal sheep. So
everybody said, ah, this is because Dolly the Sheep was
(30:32):
cloned from a fully grown adult cell which was already
kind of old and damaged and didn't go you know,
wasn't a normally produced sheep. It was done by this
weird cloning procedure. But it turns out that there are
many other cloned animals, and in fact, with Dolly, the
other cohorts like Daisy and Debbie, they're all females that
(30:54):
had d names and these sheep though by and large,
had normal lifespans. And so that means that you could actually,
you know, reset the clock to substantial degree by erasing
all the marks on the DNA. Okay, it's not perfect,
(31:14):
because the cloning itself involved lots of selection. You know,
it is very very inefficient. It only works small fraction
of the time, and most of them end up in
miscarriages or or they don't take and so on. So
at least in theory it's possible. Now, could we do
to cells in a more systematic way what Dolly the
(31:37):
sheep or John Gerdon did with his frog, Because they
just treated it in various ways, but they didn't have
a clear idea of what was what was it? What
were they doing to make that adult cell go back
to resembling a fertilized egg and start growing a new animal.
You know, it's like going backwards in time, right, And
so a Japanese scientist named Shinya Yamanaka asked, could you
(32:03):
take these stem cells that are in the final stage,
or even the final cells like a skin cell or
you know, lung cell or whatever, and have them go
all the way back to pluripotent stem cells so that
they could then, you know, become any kind of cell.
And remarkably, he found that if you take four genes
(32:27):
and introduce them into one of these adult cells and
turn them on, you could change the genetic program of
the cell and have it go backwards all the way
back to pluripotence. Now, this has created a big industry
in the stem cells because stem cells are going to
be useful for all kinds of things. For example, if
(32:48):
you want to replace damaged tissue, you know, let's say
you want to replace pancreas in diabetics so that they
can produce insulin. There are all kinds of things being
talked about, and they're you know, cartilage and a guy
like me with very bad joints. So or for a
guy like me with you know, very little hair, you
(33:09):
could imagine stem cells stimulating new hair growth, Okay, and
that would be a billion dollar industry.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yeah, if you could develop some like gun you pointed
a part of your body and you're like, make this younger.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Exactly, So people asked, now, the problem with going all
the way back is that you have the risk of cancer,
you know, because it's you're taking these cells. They're not
quite exactly the same as a normal embryonic development is
it's the somewhat artificial process that you're using to go
(33:44):
backwards in development. And when they try to grow those
plur iportent stem cells, they often would get these tumor
like growths called teratomas, and so there is definitely a
cancer risk. But what a number of scientists asked was
supposing you turn on these Yamanaka factors transiently, you know,
(34:06):
just turn them on and then figure out a way
to turn them off after a while, then what would happen. Well, astonishingly,
they tried this in mice and they found that the mice,
you know, resembled younger animals. They suddenly had better fur
and muscles, and you know, by various markers they seemed younger.
(34:31):
So this idea of cellular reprogramming is a big area
in the longevity field, but it's still in early stages.
Even though there's a lot of excitement the idea that
tomorrow you're going to go and get a treatment that
will suddenly make all yourselves younger, it's really not going
(34:52):
to happen anytime soon, and it's because there are lots
of problems. One is, you know, you have to get
the right dose, you have to make or it's safe.
You have to make sure it goes to the tissues
and just the right amounts. These are all big challenging problems.
And you know, of course a long term cancer risk
is another problem. So I think it's very exciting and promising,
(35:16):
but it's not something that's around the corner as it's
often hyped. I mean that's my opinion. Of course, you know,
people will disagree with me those but remember a lot
of these people have quite a lot of skin in
the game. They have financial interests, they've founded companies and
so on. So you have to slightly take what they
(35:39):
say with a pinch of salt.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
So you've mentioned that one of the reasons that we
age and die is because it has something to do
with resources.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
And with evolutionary choice. Basically. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
So now many humans like me live in an environment
where there are too many resources maybe, and we should
take in fewer resources, and we live in an environment
where we're better and better at being able to treat cancer,
because it seems like we keep coming up across you know,
cancer is the thing that's holding us back. So if
we were in a high resource environment and we could
figure out how to cure cancer, do you think we
(36:13):
might be able to get our life spans up one
hundred years or something.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
Well, somebody did a calculation. Demographer named Jay Olshansky from Chicago,
who's a leading expert in this area, did a calculation
a number of years ago, maybe twenty five thirty years ago,
which suggested that if there are four major causes of
(36:37):
major diseases of old age that caused death, one you
mentioned cancer, the other one is diabetes, a third one
is heart disease, and the fourth one is dementia. Neuer
degenerative diseases and of course the newer degenerative diseases are
among the hardest to treat. But let's say you could
(36:58):
eliminate all four of them. The suggestion is you're only
gain about fifteen years of lifespan if you eliminated all
of these four causes. And the reason is that they
will not affect the normal process of aging, you know,
which leads to frailty of you know, system wide frailty.
(37:20):
And there's always this argument, is aging a disease And
people say, well, you know, all of these major things
like diabetes, cancer, etc. The risk goes up with age.
In fact, the biggest risk factor is age. The older
you are, the more likely you are to get one
of these things, or more or several of them. But
(37:40):
the other argument is that, well, these diseases don't happen
to everybody. Not everybody dies of cancer, not everybody has
heart disease, and also young people get cancer, so it's
not directly related. And aging, on the other hand, is
something that happens to every single person and it's inevitable.
So how can you call something that's both ubiquitous and
(38:03):
inevitable a disease. It's simply a process of life. And
I tend to agree with that. But the reason they
want to call it a disease is because then it's
easier to get approval for clinical trials. Well, I think
they ought to try some other thing. For example, they
can choose a target, a disease target that's strongly correlated
(38:28):
with aging, for example ostere arthritis or loss of various
functions and so on, and then they could use that
as the measure of success of their drug. So there
are ways to get around it. But I don't think
that just eliminating these diseases will increase lifespend that much.
(38:49):
And in fact, even people who in the aging field
who have bet so. Olshansky was on one side of
a bet with another gerontal just named Stephen Ostad. Stephen
Ostad made a bet with him that the person who
lives to be one hundred and fifty has already been born, okay,
And that bet was made some time ago, and they
(39:11):
bet it so that in one hundred and fifty years,
you know, the amount would be worth that a billion
dollars or something. Of course, you know, maybe it'll cost
a billion dollars to buy a sandwich, but by that time.
But anyway, but they made this bet. Now. Stephen Ostad
also doesn't believe that it's just going to be because
(39:32):
of eliminating disease. Rather, what he thinks is that we're
making progress in slowing down or arresting aging itself, and
that's the reason why we may end up living longer.
And for example, you know, there's a drug called wrappamicin
which is somewhat is related to caloric restriction, which also
(39:56):
allows animals to live longer. That, for example, can increase
lifespan in mice by you know, twenty or thirty percent. Well,
if we live you know, ninety years, you know, thirty
percent of that would already get us to one hundred
and twenty or so. You see, So maybe he's counting
on on things like that. I tend to be on
(40:19):
the Olshansky side. I think that I'm really fundamentally increasing lifespan,
and especially healthy lifespan. Is not going to be as
easy as they say, because it's highly multi factorial. There's
so many things going on.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
Well, how do we know you're not just a shell
for big death?
Speaker 2 (40:40):
You know?
Speaker 3 (40:40):
Are you being paid by the death industry?
Speaker 1 (40:45):
All right, well, take a break, and when we get
back we'll talk.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
More about aging, and we're back.
Speaker 1 (41:08):
So we have another question from a listener, and here
it is, I'm curious why immune systems seem to decline
with age. Shouldn't they get supercharged because by then, when
you're old, you've basically seen everything.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
It is true that immune systems are exposed to more
things as we age, but immune systems are essentially a
collection of cells, and the cells themselves age, and so
they don't respond as well as they do when we're
younger or when we're in our prime. And this has
(41:44):
to do with molecular damage affecting higher levels like the
cell and communication between cells, and so for all kinds
of reasons, our immune system as a result of this
accumulated damage doesn't function optimally.
Speaker 3 (42:03):
So it's got a lot more wisdom, but like less
energy and effectivity.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Yeah, and actually it doesn't function as well. For example,
it responds in an aberrant way. It's not as well regulated.
You know, the immune system always has to be very
finely regulated because you don't want to react against yourself
or against harmless things. You only want to react against
truly dangerous entities. So that fine balance is disrupted, and
(42:33):
so you get essentially a dysfunctional immune system, and you
also get a lot of inflammation as a result. So,
for example, I mentioned those sinescence cells. The reason those
sinessn cells secrete inflammatory compounds is as a signal to
the immune system that hey, there's something wrong here, come
and clear it up. And so the immune system will
(42:55):
come there. It may be the side of a wound,
or an infection or or some other stress, and it
will deal with it. But as we get older, not
only do the number of sines and cells increase, but
the immune system doesn't respond as well to the signals,
and so you get this sort of auto catalytic or
(43:15):
you know, you get this essentially, this explosion in the
growth of sines and cells and inflammation.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
And is this something that's understood across species. One of
the listeners asked why cats and dogs have the same
age related diseases that we do, but they appear at
a younger age, maybe smaller number of years.
Speaker 2 (43:37):
That's simply the fact that this allocation of repair to
maintenance and repair to growth and reproduction, that balance is
different for different species. You know, you could ask why
do whales live so long? Well, one reason is they
have a slower metabolism than say animal like a mouse.
(43:58):
But the other reason also is but they have a
large number of repair enzymes. You know, if you look
at just DNA repair enzymes, they have many different repair
enzymes when they sequence the genome of some of these species,
and elephants, for example, have many more copies of a
DNA repair enzyme than mice.
Speaker 3 (44:20):
Do because they live longer, so they need more repairs.
Speaker 2 (44:23):
Yeah, and they have to they have to maintain that. Also,
there is a paradox They have many more cells, and
so the chance that one of their cells could become
cancerous and kill the whole animal is much higher in
a larger animal than in a small animal. But paradoxically
it's mice get cancer more often than elephants, and that's
(44:44):
because the elephants do have this additional capacity to repair.
So it's all evolution really just optimizing for fitness. Remember,
evolution does not optimize for long life. It doesn't care
about long life. It cares about survival of genes because
(45:04):
that's what it selects for.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
This might be a little too far off topic, but
I've seen articles that say, like green sharks never get cancer.
Are there actually species that never get cancer or it
just takes them away and we don't see it often.
Speaker 2 (45:17):
It is almost entirely that we don't observe them long enough.
So for example, I'll give you an example of Glapicus tortoises, right,
you know, they live to be two hundred years old.
And I like to joke that there's probably a Galapicus
tortoise wandering around now that might have actually met Darwin.
Oh you know, that's a cool thought, right, But anyway.
Speaker 3 (45:37):
Let's have them on the podcast so exactly, so.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
You know, if they could talk, they might be able
to tell you quite a bit. But anyway, No, it
was thought for a while that these things, these tortoises
don't age. Well, actually they do age. If you look
at old tortoises, they have terrible eyesight, and you know,
there's slow moving, there's skins, you know, old you know
(46:02):
they have all these.
Speaker 3 (46:03):
They don't know how to use the VC exactly.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
They have all of the same problems, and it's just
that it happens more slowly, Okay.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
And I gotta say, Daniel, I think the VCR joke
aged you more than anything.
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Well, the fact that you laughed at it aged you.
Speaker 1 (46:18):
Oh, you got me. That's true. That's true. So let's
jump back, if that's okay, to another example of folks
trying to extend lifespan. So I've heard of examples of
like taking blood from young mice and giving it to
old mice, and then I think there's a guy, Brian
Johnson who's trying to limit aging by using his son's blood.
(46:38):
Is there any evidence that that's anything other than nuts.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
That's an excellent question. And it is true that when
they connected an old rat to a young rat, the
old rat benefited by the exchange of blood and the
young rat actually suffered. And then they were wondering whether
it was really due to the blood itself, or maybe
the young rat had better liver and kidneys to detoxify
(47:04):
the blood, and so it wasn't just the blood, but
it was just that it had better organs to clean
up blood. So they separated them and simply give them transfusions,
and they found that, in fact, the effect was still there,
but it was more that the old rat had things
in it that were harmful to the young rat. That
(47:26):
was more the case than that the young blood was
beneficial to the old rat. But it did. But there
was some effect both ways. Now this is true, and
when the people discovered it, they caught all sorts of
creepy phone calls from rich people asking, you know, whether
they could get young blood and so on, and in fact, companies.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
Where do babies? It's kind of exactly.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
And in fact companies sprouted up, and as you can imagine,
mostly in California. I think.
Speaker 3 (48:01):
That's what I would get, you mean, the center of
innovation and forward thinking and creativity.
Speaker 5 (48:06):
That's why you said, ye, anyway, that's somehow obsessed with youth.
But but anyway, some of these companies would would get
blood from young donors and sell them at a huge
markup to rich people wanted them. And in one case,
the FDA actually tried to shut one a company down
(48:28):
and then it opened up under a different name. And
in one case the CEO said, well, look, our people
simply don't have the time to wait for clinical trials,
you know, Oh my goodness. It was really bizarre coming from,
you know, a CEO of you know, a health based company.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
But you're saying that there are real benefits to having
transfusions of blood from young people.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Well, there's certainly seemed to be in animals, and so
there's a big bar of research to find out what
is changing in blood as we get older, and what
do these factors do. You know, if they're harmful in
old age, what do they do? Maybe we can inhibit them,
or if they're beneficial in early life, maybe we can
(49:16):
take advantage of that and introduce them into older people.
So I think that's a very legitimate and broad area
of research and lots of very you know, top scientists
from very well known universities are actually working on that.
But you know, this idea that you should just take transfusions,
(49:39):
you know, it's not really going to help that much
at this point. And Brian Johnson whom you mentioned, actually
did this experiment of keeping it all in the family.
He took blood from his son and gave his blood
to his dad. But he's also, I mean to give
him some credit, he's obsessed with a you know, or
(50:01):
not aging to be more precise. He spends like a
couple of million dollars a year on all kinds of
longevity treatments and measurements, and you know probably has you know,
fitness programs and all sorts of things.
Speaker 3 (50:16):
Okay, Well, the thing that fascinates me about Brian Johnson
is that he does take a lot of data, right,
he is.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
Exactly focused data on metrics, right, He's focused on metrics.
Speaker 3 (50:26):
But he doesn't look young, Like even though he says
he has all these metrics which are equivalent to an
eighteen year old, he still looks like a vampire. So
he sort of captures this like, well.
Speaker 2 (50:36):
I would say, no, I'll give him credit. He's his
late forties. He looks pretty good for late forties. But
I'll tell you my son is in his late forties.
Yeah he does none of this stuff. Yeah, okay, but
he runs regularly and eats well, and he looks just
as good as Brian Johnson. And I'm not just being biased.
You could look him up on online. He's a cellist.
Speaker 3 (50:56):
So well, you're definitely biased, but I don't don't not
believe you, But you know, I think it raises a
deeper question, which is, like, is it possible to be
young biologically by all of these metrics, as you say,
you know, you're measuring the damage to whatever molecular mechanisms,
but still somehow not be young in the sort of
social sense.
Speaker 2 (51:17):
That's that's a very good question. You know. So you
know I mentioned the high school reunion and how we
all look different. Yeah, so that's led to this quest
for biological markers of age. Okay, yeah, because you want
to know. You know, your birthday may have been, you know,
forty years ago, but how old are you really in
(51:37):
biological terms? Right, So the people have come up with
different clocks, you know. So one clock is this so
called DNA methylation clock. So these are little tags that
get attached to our DNA from the time we're conceived. Okay,
it happens even in utero. We're aging even in utero, okay,
And that's apparently better correlated with with mortality than chronological age.
(52:05):
You know, So chances that you're going to die are
more correlated with your data infilation than they are with
your date of birth. So so that's you know, used
as a clock.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
But does that suggest that if you could somehow adjust
that you would extend your life? I mean, is it
causal or is it correlated?
Speaker 2 (52:22):
That's the real question. You know, we don't know the
extent of causality. The other case is that as we age,
extra sugar groups get added to our proteins. It's called lication.
And so you can measure this, you know, addition of
sugar groups to our proteins, and when that happens to
(52:45):
our proteins of our immune system, it also doesn't work
as well. So people think that it has some connection
with this, you know, decay of the immune system. But anyway,
that's another clock. Now people will sell you kits. They'll
tell your denim infylation kit or a glacation kit or
a full blood you know library. You know, they'll just
(53:08):
analyze a bunch of stuff in your blood to give
you a sort of biological age, and each one will
say this is our thing, is the most accurate? Okay. Now,
I think these are all very useful research tools because
if you have a longevity intervention, like an anti aging intervention,
(53:29):
you can see are these markers changing more slowly or
are they changing at the same rate? Okay, and they'll
give you a good idea of you know, are you
aging faster or not. But people need to come together
and agree on a panel. You know, I don't think
a single clock is going to tell you the whole story. Yeah, okay,
(53:51):
I think they need to agree on a panel and
then say okay, here's a panel and this is what
it represents, and it might be a complex thing. There's
no point in talking about your biological age because your
liver may not be the same age as your kidney
or your lung. You know, you can imagine if you're
an alcoholic, your liver might be older than other parts
(54:14):
of your bodies. So I think people need to have
a more complex view of aging, of biological age.
Speaker 3 (54:21):
But don't we also need to unravel this question of causality.
I mean, if you identify a marker, even or even
a complex panel that indicates biological age, adjusting those results
doesn't necessarily make you younger. It's like I can turn
back the clock literally and it will read a different number.
Doesn't make me younger. And if this is just a comment,
one more thing which is one of my favorite mechanisms
(54:43):
that Brian Johnson keeps track of is that, and I
love that he's totally transparent about his data, is that
he measures his erection quality during the night and he
posts this data online, which I think is hilarious. But
you know, just as an easy example, if the guy
took a viagara every night when he went to you
probably would have like glorious erections all night long. It
wouldn't make him any younger, right.
Speaker 2 (55:05):
That's true. But you know, let's take dinner methylation. You know,
so one of the things about those reprogrammed cells is
that they have changed the methylation pattern as well, you know.
So I mean that one of the distinct things about
going back to an early embryonic state is that the
(55:26):
methylation pattern is different. So there may be some element
of causality, because methylation does change the program of our
gene expression. So if you're going back to an earlier state,
you maybe you're going back to an earlier program. But
I agree that, you know, causality, you know, needs to
(55:49):
be established by careful experiments. You know, is is it
sufficient to reverse methylation and without cause on automatic cause
something to look younger. There are some scientists who claim
that they have reversed aging just by this process, but
it's highly controversial.
Speaker 1 (56:08):
So I imagine our listener is going to want to know,
as an expert in aging who doesn't believe, you know,
that there's a magic pill out there that's going to
give us an extra fifty to one hundred years, what
do you do to slow the aging process?
Speaker 2 (56:21):
Yeah, yeah, I should say, you know, there's no theoretical
reason why we couldn't all start living to be one
hundred and fifty eventually. Okay. The thing that I'm what
I'm saying is that we don't know how to do
that at this point, and more importantly, we don't know
(56:43):
how long it's going to take. And that's where I
differ with some of the more extreme optimists that the
field is full off. Okay, but what we can do
right now before then? I want to address one question.
If you ask most aging research, they would say, oh,
we're not interested in extending lifespan. We're really interested in
(57:06):
extending health span. Okay. And this whole thing is based
on an idea called compression of morbidity. So as we
get older, we start accumulating various morbidities. You know, you
could say diabetes is one, or heart disease or dementia, accounts,
et cetera. You know, frailty of various kinds or morbidities,
(57:27):
and the ideal life would be that you're extremely healthy
and then suddenly we have undergo a rapid decline. Okay.
This is called compression of that morbidity into a very
short space of time. You have a span of time.
So that's the goal. The question is is that even possible. Well,
(57:49):
in the last few decades we are all living healthier
as a result of improvements in health, but it's also
extended our lives, so that our period of morbidity has
not changed. Okay, so it's just postponed. And in fact,
you know, we're living more years and it's sort of
(58:11):
decline than you know veras before, we might have died
brutally quickly, okay, as soon as something went wrong, you know,
would collapse and die, and now we're sort of prolonging
it and have a long period of morbidity. So it's
not clear that as we improve things, we're going to
(58:33):
somehow keep healthy and reach some fixed limit and then collapse.
It may simply be that we'll live a bit longer
and still have that inevitable period of decline. That's an
unsolved question, no matter what people will actually say. The
one exception to this are super centenarians. These are people
(58:55):
who live to be over one hundred and ten and
even over one hundred and five. They tend to be
extremely healthy. Many of them have never seen a doctor
until they're one hundred or so, and then they suddenly
go into a decline and die. Now you could ask
why is that, Well, it could be that they're selected
(59:16):
and they're just there's a selection bias there. First of all,
they may be lucky in the combination of genes that
they have, but they each combination, there's no fixed combination.
They may be different than each individual, but somehow these
combinations give them that edge. Another is that they may
(59:36):
simply have been lucky in avoiding various diseases and cancer
and accidents and so on. And you're looking at the survivors, okay,
and so it's not something that's translatable to the rest
of the population necessarily. So that's still debating. And people
are studying centenarians, which I think is a great idea,
(59:58):
and trying to find out more or about their lifestyle
and their genome and also their methylation patterns and so on.
Now you asked, what could WeDo, Well, I advocate the
trio of diet, exercise, and sleep. It's been known in
(01:00:19):
many species that caloric restriction improves lifespan and improves health
in old age. And of course caloric restriction is extreme.
It means you're consuming just the bare minimum number of
calories required to have a steady state. In other words,
you're not losing weight and starving, but you're just steady.
(01:00:40):
But that will leave you hungry and cold, and your
loss of libido and all sorts of side effects which
maybe not worth it. Yeah, you know, it reminds me
of that joke about the doctor who said, you know,
if you do these things, you'll live live longer, and
the patient said really, he said, well, I'm not sure,
(01:01:00):
but it will feel like it so anyway. So, but
but you could have a moderate diet, you know. And
it is true that a healthy and moderate diet will help.
And exercise has all kinds of things, including, by the way,
those regenerative abilities, regenerating muscle, and even regenerating mitochondria, which
(01:01:22):
are these organelles in our cells. So exercise has huge
benefits that are only now becoming clear. And then the
third which I think Americans need to take more note off.
And by the way, I am an American who lives
in Britain, although I'm now also a British citizen. So
Americans particularly ignore sleep. Okay, and sleep is really important
(01:01:49):
because that is when a lot of the repair and
maintenance mechanism of the cell, the clear, clearing out garbage,
you know, repairing damage, et cetera. Much of that occurs
when we sleep. And there's actually a very nice book
called Why We Sleep by Matthew Walker, which talks about
(01:02:10):
all of the things about sleep. So though that trio
is extremely healthful. Now, things like stress, cause you know,
accelerate aging. But you know, if you exercise and sleep,
you will also be less stressed. And if you exercise
you'll sleep better, sleep better, you're less likely to overeat
and you know, snack and so on. So there's it's
(01:02:31):
like a three legged stool that help you know, each
one helps the other two.
Speaker 3 (01:02:36):
But then let me ask you about that specifically, because
it feels like as we get older, it's harder to
sleep longer it is well. And yet you're telling me
that sleep is crucial for old age, and so it
seems like a death spiral there exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
And that's why if you exercise and eat well, you're
more likely to sleep well. And and then it's a
it's a kind of virtuous cycle. They help each other,
each each leg help the other two. And then there
are social things. For example, again, Daniel, you mentioned causation
versus correlation. But there's strong evidence that people who are
(01:03:11):
socially well networked in old age, for example, they have
circles of friends, family, they're socially involved, tend to have
lower mortality rates. And people with a sense of purpose
in life, independently of the social network they have a
sense of purpose in life also tend to live longer.
(01:03:32):
And so this would argue for being socially involved and
perhaps you know, contributing, you know, maybe volunteering and having
some sort of purpose just beyond watching your Netflix Q,
although that some people would argue that's a purpose too,
but anyway, but having a real purpose in life might help.
(01:03:54):
Now again you might say, well, people who are healthier
and you know, not as fast may be more inclined
to do these things. So there is this correlation causation issue,
but I think it's it's well worth considering.
Speaker 1 (01:04:09):
Is it time for the alien question, Daniel?
Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
I think it is. So we often wonder on this
podcast not just about the scientific mysteries here on Earth,
but scientific mysteries more broadly in the galaxy. And so
since we're in this moment where we you know, maybe
on the cusp of discovering aliens on the other planets
in the next decade or whatever. Do you think that.
Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
I'm very agnostic about that, by.
Speaker 3 (01:04:32):
The way, as Ama, I sure, though enthusiastic. But say
that we're there, you're an astrobiologist, you're on a mission,
you're landing on the planet. Do you expect that life
cycles on alien planets will also have the same sort
of aging patterns that we see here on Earth.
Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
I think so, because I think natural selection is a
universal process. You know, if you think of life as
essentially the ability to reproduce, self, replicate, and evolve are
two essential characteristics of life. So if you have that,
you will have natural selection, and so it will if
(01:05:09):
inevitably have these trade offs of resource versus maintenance and repair,
and and of course if it's carbon based, then you
know it's more likely even to have that. And and ultimately,
ultimately the laws of physics, which you know are result
in chemistry, which results in damage that's not going to change,
(01:05:33):
you know, somewhere else.
Speaker 3 (01:05:35):
So everywhere across the galaxy there are grumpy old aliens
telling those young kids to get off their lawn.
Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
That that that I would I would bet on that
if I had to. But I'm I'm somewhat skeptical about
I think we don't know what the probability of life
here is, and until we know that, we have no
idea whether life elsewhere is very likely or whether we're
alone or somewhere in between. We just don't know. I
(01:06:05):
should say some of the enthusiasm for extending lifespan to
very very long lifespan is by people who want to
do extra galactic travel. You know, there are people who
feel that we may be the only intelligent species and
we should go off and colonize not just Mars, which
you guys have pointed out as extremely hard anyway, but
(01:06:30):
you know, even other galaxies, and so they figure, well,
if we have to do that, then we have to
be able to survive the voyage, you know, and so
we should you know, we need to start working on longevity.
So it seems like a crazy idea, but anyway, that's
how it is.
Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
I think for a lot of people, it's like, you know,
they'll say, oh, I want humanity to do it, but
what they mean is that I want to be the
one who does it in particular.
Speaker 2 (01:06:52):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely, yes, all.
Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
Right, Well, thank you so much for being on the show.
This was fascinating. I'm sure our listeners are going to
be thrilled with all of the answers, and thank you
for your time.
Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
Thank you, it's been a real pleasure chatting with both
of you. And by the way, I really enjoyed your book.
Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
Oh thanks, I loved your book. Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary
Universe is produced by iHeartRadio. We would love to hear
from you.
Speaker 3 (01:07:21):
We really would. We want to know what questions you
have about this Extraordinary Universe.
Speaker 1 (01:07:27):
We want to know your thoughts on recent shows, suggestions
for future shows. If you contact us, we will get
back to you.
Speaker 3 (01:07:33):
We really mean it. We answer every message. Email us
at Questions at Danielankelly.
Speaker 1 (01:07:39):
Dot org, or you can find us on social media.
We have accounts on x, Instagram, Blue Sky and on
all of those platforms. You can find us at D
and K Universe.
Speaker 3 (01:07:49):
Don't be shy write to us.
Hosts And Creators
Daniel Whiteson
Kelly Weinersmith
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.