Is it so far-fetched to consider the idea that aging could be the next disease we cure?

It’s no secret that I’m on a journey to improve myself and live longer. When I revealed a couple of weeks ago that I want to be put into cryostasis if I’m 60 and technology hasn’t advanced enough to prolong my life, the feedback was mixed (you can find the post here).

Some suggested I wanted to extend my life “out of ego,” others suggested that it was because I “fear death.”

The truth is, it’s neither: We’ve been led to believe that dying of old age, living between 70-100 years (absolute max 120 years) is “acceptable.” We’ve been conditioned to accept that our bodies and brains deteriorating, and suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's, is inevitable… that death is an inescapable part of our lives. 

It’s never easy to challenge people on a preconceived notion. The inevitability of death can be a horrifying thought, and we’ve come to accept it, what some like molecular biologist and longevity expert Aubrey de Grey consider a psychological coping mechanism, the “pro-aging trance.” So to then to come and say that “wait, we can actually live longer and possibly forever in the future,” you’re shaking people’s core belief systems. 

Remember that In the 1900’s, average life expectancy was 37 years. People used to die  from tooth cavities and the common flu, but now a quick trip to the doctor or local pharmacy helps treat these easily. 

Aubrey, and many transhumanists, see aging as a disease, and he believes that our focus should be on rejuvenation, not reversing aging. Basically, we will extend our lifespans faster than we age. We will rejuvenate for a decade, for example, and in that decade we will find new ways to rejuvenate ourselves. If we keep this up, we will start to live to 200, 300, or even to 1000.

So, is it so far-fetched to consider the idea that aging could be the next disease we cure?