>>13978193>Is ending aging an achievable goal in our lifetime?absolutely not, and it depends on what you mean by "aging"
Do you mean all related diseases? Dementia and Alzheimer's only? Or is cancer part of that, a whole other problem (obviously related to aging).
The problem is that most people these days end up killing themselves through sedentary lifestyles. I believe in 100 years will will have the "cure" to aging in its limited scope; that is, cellular senescence and basic DNA damage repair possible, assuming those are the basic reasonings for the phenotype of aging (telomeres are complicated, and not the answer. Not only is telomere length *inversely related to lifespan* in some species, in humans, telomere length has a U-shaped relationship with longetivity). Maybe not cure, but at least slow down/protect against aging greatly.
The problem is that aging is probably not single-cause, single-fix, but a whole host of many diseases with different causes that build up over the lifespan. A lot of other diseases and signs of aging may not necessarily be related to DNA damage or cellular senescence, but the general biological workings. Repairing DNA may not be sufficient to prevent Alzheimer's or dementia. That may require a whole other set of corrections.
Cancer will always be a problem to some extent, especially because lifestyle entirely influences it. I can't imagine a scenario where you can protect every vulnerable cell from DNA damage, but what do I know.
The other things to note is that new diseases of aging, not related to DNA damage, will absolutely build up. There is obviously a limit to our brain capacity; it was not build to continuously process and store information for hundreds of years. If we cure aging, the first set of people to be "immortal" will most likely find themselves in some dementia ridden state at 170 years old which we've never encountered before, and thus they will perish and a new generation can work on solving *those* issues.
