“Living to 200 is like trying to fly to Pluto without having landed on the Moon.” That’s what fellow writer, John Lauerman, says of claims for dramatically increased life spans made by the recent public television program “Stealing Time: The New Science of Aging.”
This three-hour special, to my mind, shows science at its dazzling best and also, in its presumption, at its disconcerting worst.
The presentation is full of bright promises for improving the human experience of old age; it also wildly exaggerates the potential for solving the main problems in controlling aging in the near future. The program ignores large areas connected with values and neglects crucial issues that increased longevity would bring with it.
The main message here is that “the forces that control aging will soon be in human hands.” Science is bringing us “if not immortality, at least the possibility of prolonging life by slowing down aging.” And again: “We are within range of being able to regulate the rate of aging.”
In three one-hour segments, the production focuses first on the natural history of aging; then on the way scientists are learning to take control of the forces that cause aging; and finally on the aging mind and brain and what can be done to keep them sharp.
Throughout, viewers see scientists at work with fascinating experiments. Fruit flies, mice, and monkeys, among other organisms are used brilliantly in the effort to show how life spans can be increased.
Innovative individual scientists are introduced: one meets Roy Walford, a UCLA-based physician who believes that calorie restriction is the way to go toward longer and healthier life.
Another researcher, Dr. Raj Sohal of Southern Methodist University, identifies “free radicals” (the by-product of oxygen metabolism in cells) as the enemy. By injecting genes into fruit flies he has multiplied their life span by a factor of two or three.
Dr. Miriam Nelson, Director of the Tufts Center for Physical Activity Programs and Policies, has discovered that you can build muscle at any age. She herself is shown exercising and advocating such activity for others. To its credit, the program makes a point of boosting the benefits of exercise as well as eating fruits and vegetables.
Exercise and nutrition, however, are described as “two low-tech ways of retarding aging.” As critic John Lauerman points out, this may be unfortunate because the viewer is left thinking. “Why should I exercise when there’s going to be an anti-aging pill in a couple of years?”
If you, the reader, detect some bias against the program on my part, you are undoubtedly right. I felt much put off by the gee-whiz triumphalism that pervaded much of the show. At certain points the narrator would adopt a reverential tone and hymn-like music could be heard in the background. The words “Today, we are learning to take control of our destiny,” were intoned with all the solemnity of a high priest.
In my experience, most modern scientists are much more modest in their claims than is indicated here. Typically, they do not forecast sweeping breakthroughs until these achievements are actually in sight. And at their best, contemporary scientists also recognize their limits and acknowledge that much eludes their grasp.
As presented here, however, scientists are master magicians. “The forces that control aging will soon be in our hands,” we hear the narrator say. And “Today, we are learning to take control of our destiny.”
The same narrator assures us, “On the horizon is one of our oldest dreams: to stay young and healthy and to enjoy this life for as long as we possibly can.”
But happiness, basic satisfaction with life, and human destiny depend upon much more than science can ever provide. Only feeding the soul can satisfy some human needs. However, despite evidence that religion and spirituality enhance one’s health and even extend life, the program makes no mention of these forces.
Other issues cry out for attention. If the human life span were to be greatly lengthened over the next few decades, think of the pressures that would exert on society. A health care system that now leaves some forty million Americans uncovered by insurance and provides poor care to many older people would be left reeling.
Even now, some elders do not wish to live to their hundredth birthday; how many would wish to reach 150 or 200? Under the conditions that currently prevail even in the United States, the richest of world societies, quite a few would not.
“To a large extent, how we age is up to us,” the program asserts. Tell that to people who have done all the right things and yet have been stricken with Alzheimer’s or other devastating diseases. The statement rests on a gross simplification of human life: how we age is frequently up to factors outside our own control. Is not that part of what it means to be human?
Richard Griffin