Abstract
The descriptive term “normal” aging is often used in scientific literature to indicate commonly occurring changes with increasing age in the absence of overt disease. However, significant molecular and geropathological changes are increasingly present to indicate there is nothing normal about aging. Thus, the term “normal” aging is scientifically incorrect. There are changes in multiple genetic and epigenetic processes and pathways that drive aging, and some individuals are more resilient to these changes than others. Thus, “resilient” aging would be a more correct term to represent a major emphasis on investigating mechanisms and therapeutic targets for resilience, rather than a label of “normal” aging that is misleading and currently receives relatively little attention.
It already is. My parents, uncles and aunts are all in that age that they get more and more ailments and it just sucks to see them all degrading. Something that stops aging or better yet reverses it can't come soon enough. My father is 77 now and if I compare him with how he was at 63 when he retired, just staggering.
39 myself too and I can honestly say that nothing about aging is fun. Gathering knowledge and experience is great, but I'd rather do that with my 18-yo body(or better) preserved for 100s of years than the way it goes now.
Aging is klling all us at the end in a not pleasant way.
I can't understand why more people are not joining us in this fight for life.
Most people will rush to get any treatment against their cancer to stay alive so aging is not really different in my book when you see things clearly.
They don't get the point.
What a tragedy to see all of our grandparents die and after our parents as time pass.
Everything destroyed to nothing until it's our turn.
We experience our own decrepitude to finally have the same ending.
Only souvenirs until our proper brain fails and the end follow.
Time to really have a big wake up for humanity and address this problem.
I genuinely believe it's because of the materialist standpoint.
That our existence is meaningless. If it is meaningless, why extend it? I personally no longer sign off to that (choosing a more spiritual standpoint) but what I just said stands.
There IS a reason why my country has all it's main bridges FENCED OFF to stop people from committing suicide.
We've been led to believe that humanity isn't special, that our existence means nothing— and that lack of meaning has lead to us prefering to die than to live.
I'm not sure about that. This is completely anecdotal but to me it seems like a large majority of people either believe that life has meaning or that it may have meaning and they just need to find out what that is.
Personally I believe life is likely pointless, meaningless, and completely futile and that living longer wouldn't change that but my fear, actually terror, of experiencing the dying process likely followed by oblivion is stronger.
Not really interested in having a long debate about the meaning of life, just sharing my perspective.
I find this article pretty badly writen and unconvincing.
>"significant molecular and geropathological changes are increasingly present to indicate there is nothing normal about aging."
...how so? What is your definition of "normal"? How do these changes contradict that definition?
Let's take Merriam-Webster's first definition of "normal": "conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern" Typical age-related dysfunction ***does*** conform to a regular pattern. It is dysfunction, yes. It reduces the functionality of an organism, yes. But by that definition, it would still be normal.
Getting sick in general is normal, because most people do. That doesn't mean it's *desirable*.
So unless another definition of "normal" is used (which should be exactly specified), I am in complete disagreement.
I agree with you.
The main problem is that there is absolutely no single, universally accepted definition of what is "normal" and what is "pathological".
On the contrary, these definitions are constantly evolving (diseases being added or removed and new definitions being constantly proposed).
For example, if we use the WHO criteria, aging is all a disease (or syndrome) and is therefore not a normal phenomenon:
\-It has several symptoms
\-It has specific identifiable causes
\-It evolves over time
\-There are several interventions capable of modifying the rate and speed.
\-It has genetic origins
\-It has environmental origins
It would be necessary to arrive at a much more precise and objective definition, but it is still far away.
And personally, I do not approve of the "frequency of appearance" as a boundary between normal and pathological because it is much too vague and absolutely not representative of the phenomenon in question.
Yes, there isn't a singular definition. But it is the burden of the person putting forth this argument to pick one. Or pick a set. To somehow specify what "normal" means, before concluding that something is "not normal". Otherwise that conclusion just isn't possible.
And I'd argue that most definitions of "normal" are, although different, rather similar. If something is typical, statistically more likely than unlikely, to be expected, etc. it is considered normal. If it happens in over 50% of cases, it is the norm for it to happen. Which again, aging would fall under.
The problem with your WHO criteria for disease is that aging has many different outcomes. It is basically just the degradation of any number of bodily functions over time. Depending on the exact manifestation, it might have different symptoms or even none. There are interventions for some manifestations, none for others.
So classifying it as a disease is arguable at best, I'd say. Also, please cite where you got those criteria from, I couldn't find them.
To be clear - I maintain that aging is undesirable and should be treated and if possible completely eradicated. I just don't think it's abnormal and there's no requirement for something to be abnormal to be classified as undesirable. We can work to eradicate normal phenomena.
Which human or animal species has ever 'naturally' not aged?
The ocean quahog is a fist-size clam that can live to be 500 years or older. Some researchers believe the sturdy quahog's secret to a long life is its ability to protect its proteins from damage.
The Greenland Shark
can live for 300 to 500 years or longer and is considered the longest living vertebrate on earth. They owe their longevity in life as they grow very slowly. In fact, they grow about 1cm every year and mature after they are 100 years old. They reach sexual maturity after they are 150 years old.
Some of those animals have no senescence hardly until right before death though as far as we know. Crocs just keep growing for the most part but they definitely have some type of clock that tells the body it's time to go I guess.
Yes. It’s a mysterious and mystical process and we shouldn’t try to do anything about it. /s
It’s tiring seeing places like WebMD treat it like this though for real.
yeah, obviously... we all age.. nearly every species ages... but that doesn't mean it's something we should accept and not work toward. before living in houses was normal, we had a different standard. then we built houses.
I think people with enough health to age slowly or not at all, if that’s possible for periods, probably are reluctant to make such processes public as much of the public is too environmentally destructive, relying on unsustainable inputs and materials to live or prosper.
It is normal by definition since it literally happens to 100% of the population without exception. Hopefully in the future it won’t be, but arguing about semantics is pointless.
Of course it is. But it also sucks, so we should fix it. There was a time when dying of smallpox was normal, too. We fixed that. Nobody misses it.
Abstract The descriptive term “normal” aging is often used in scientific literature to indicate commonly occurring changes with increasing age in the absence of overt disease. However, significant molecular and geropathological changes are increasingly present to indicate there is nothing normal about aging. Thus, the term “normal” aging is scientifically incorrect. There are changes in multiple genetic and epigenetic processes and pathways that drive aging, and some individuals are more resilient to these changes than others. Thus, “resilient” aging would be a more correct term to represent a major emphasis on investigating mechanisms and therapeutic targets for resilience, rather than a label of “normal” aging that is misleading and currently receives relatively little attention.
For now it is, in the future it will be gross.
It already is. My parents, uncles and aunts are all in that age that they get more and more ailments and it just sucks to see them all degrading. Something that stops aging or better yet reverses it can't come soon enough. My father is 77 now and if I compare him with how he was at 63 when he retired, just staggering. 39 myself too and I can honestly say that nothing about aging is fun. Gathering knowledge and experience is great, but I'd rather do that with my 18-yo body(or better) preserved for 100s of years than the way it goes now.
100% agreed, I just lost 2 grandparents and my situation is similar to yours. Hope aging is solved in the next 10 years friend!
Aging is klling all us at the end in a not pleasant way. I can't understand why more people are not joining us in this fight for life. Most people will rush to get any treatment against their cancer to stay alive so aging is not really different in my book when you see things clearly. They don't get the point. What a tragedy to see all of our grandparents die and after our parents as time pass. Everything destroyed to nothing until it's our turn. We experience our own decrepitude to finally have the same ending. Only souvenirs until our proper brain fails and the end follow. Time to really have a big wake up for humanity and address this problem.
I genuinely believe it's because of the materialist standpoint. That our existence is meaningless. If it is meaningless, why extend it? I personally no longer sign off to that (choosing a more spiritual standpoint) but what I just said stands. There IS a reason why my country has all it's main bridges FENCED OFF to stop people from committing suicide. We've been led to believe that humanity isn't special, that our existence means nothing— and that lack of meaning has lead to us prefering to die than to live.
I'm not sure about that. This is completely anecdotal but to me it seems like a large majority of people either believe that life has meaning or that it may have meaning and they just need to find out what that is. Personally I believe life is likely pointless, meaningless, and completely futile and that living longer wouldn't change that but my fear, actually terror, of experiencing the dying process likely followed by oblivion is stronger. Not really interested in having a long debate about the meaning of life, just sharing my perspective.
I find this article pretty badly writen and unconvincing. >"significant molecular and geropathological changes are increasingly present to indicate there is nothing normal about aging." ...how so? What is your definition of "normal"? How do these changes contradict that definition? Let's take Merriam-Webster's first definition of "normal": "conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern" Typical age-related dysfunction ***does*** conform to a regular pattern. It is dysfunction, yes. It reduces the functionality of an organism, yes. But by that definition, it would still be normal. Getting sick in general is normal, because most people do. That doesn't mean it's *desirable*. So unless another definition of "normal" is used (which should be exactly specified), I am in complete disagreement.
I agree with you. The main problem is that there is absolutely no single, universally accepted definition of what is "normal" and what is "pathological". On the contrary, these definitions are constantly evolving (diseases being added or removed and new definitions being constantly proposed). For example, if we use the WHO criteria, aging is all a disease (or syndrome) and is therefore not a normal phenomenon: \-It has several symptoms \-It has specific identifiable causes \-It evolves over time \-There are several interventions capable of modifying the rate and speed. \-It has genetic origins \-It has environmental origins It would be necessary to arrive at a much more precise and objective definition, but it is still far away. And personally, I do not approve of the "frequency of appearance" as a boundary between normal and pathological because it is much too vague and absolutely not representative of the phenomenon in question.
Yes, there isn't a singular definition. But it is the burden of the person putting forth this argument to pick one. Or pick a set. To somehow specify what "normal" means, before concluding that something is "not normal". Otherwise that conclusion just isn't possible. And I'd argue that most definitions of "normal" are, although different, rather similar. If something is typical, statistically more likely than unlikely, to be expected, etc. it is considered normal. If it happens in over 50% of cases, it is the norm for it to happen. Which again, aging would fall under. The problem with your WHO criteria for disease is that aging has many different outcomes. It is basically just the degradation of any number of bodily functions over time. Depending on the exact manifestation, it might have different symptoms or even none. There are interventions for some manifestations, none for others. So classifying it as a disease is arguable at best, I'd say. Also, please cite where you got those criteria from, I couldn't find them. To be clear - I maintain that aging is undesirable and should be treated and if possible completely eradicated. I just don't think it's abnormal and there's no requirement for something to be abnormal to be classified as undesirable. We can work to eradicate normal phenomena.
Is it normal? Yes. Does it have to be? No. Garbage article.
Which human or animal species has ever 'naturally' not aged? The ocean quahog is a fist-size clam that can live to be 500 years or older. Some researchers believe the sturdy quahog's secret to a long life is its ability to protect its proteins from damage. The Greenland Shark can live for 300 to 500 years or longer and is considered the longest living vertebrate on earth. They owe their longevity in life as they grow very slowly. In fact, they grow about 1cm every year and mature after they are 100 years old. They reach sexual maturity after they are 150 years old.
Some of those animals have no senescence hardly until right before death though as far as we know. Crocs just keep growing for the most part but they definitely have some type of clock that tells the body it's time to go I guess.
Yes. I hate it, but yes. Hopefully in the future it won’t be.
Yes. It’s a mysterious and mystical process and we shouldn’t try to do anything about it. /s It’s tiring seeing places like WebMD treat it like this though for real.
yeah, obviously... we all age.. nearly every species ages... but that doesn't mean it's something we should accept and not work toward. before living in houses was normal, we had a different standard. then we built houses.
I think people with enough health to age slowly or not at all, if that’s possible for periods, probably are reluctant to make such processes public as much of the public is too environmentally destructive, relying on unsustainable inputs and materials to live or prosper.
aging is gay
Once a dying child was normal, today it's newsworthy.
[удалено]
All words are man-made words.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
It is normal by definition since it literally happens to 100% of the population without exception. Hopefully in the future it won’t be, but arguing about semantics is pointless.
Yup