Arguments against funding longevity science - and why they are all wrong

On Wednesday 8th of April, public rallies and other events are taking place around the world in support of greater funding for research into longer healthy lifespans.

The Fund Longevity website makes the case as follows:

Aging Is a Problem: Aging kills around 110,000 people every day. It is the primary risk factor behind nearly all major non-infectious diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and dementia. Beyond statistics, aging causes decades of frailty, pain, and loss of independence. It is the greatest source of human suffering that is being accepted as "normal".

This Is Personal: Everyone you love will age, suffer, and die because of it. So will you. If we had the ability to prevent this, choosing not to would be deeply unethical. If we can stop aging, we should.

Stopping Aging Is Possible: Aging is not a mystery or a force of nature. It is a biological process — and biological processes can be studied, modified, and treated. Over the past decades, scientists have identified many of the core mechanisms that drive aging at the cellular and molecular level. While our understanding is incomplete, it is already sufficient to begin developing real therapies.

What Do We Mean by "Stopping Aging"? We mean treating aging as a medical condition. The goal is to restore and maintain youthful biological function — roughly equivalent to being in your twenties — for as long as you choose. This would prevent or reverse age-related diseases instead of treating them one by one.

Is This Really Realistic? Yes. Thousands of scientists have publicly stated that aging is a solvable problem in the Dublin Longevity Declaration. Research already shows that aging can be slowed, paused, or reversed in laboratory organisms. Some animals exhibit negligible aging or extreme longevity. Nature has already demonstrated that aging is avoidable — humans simply haven't applied the