Customer Reviews

Long for This World: The Strange Science of Immortality

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I was very disappointed in this book, and here's why: First the pros...Weiner gives a lot of pagetime to Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey. Great name, eh? He is a brilliant and colorful man who is an enthusiastic proponent of the idea that science can, and soon will, enable us to live virtually forever. Aubrey's optimism is refreshing. Whether it is realistic or not I am not qualified to say, as I don't have a background in biology. And with his elongated frame, gaunt countenance, slovenly dress, biblical beard and nonstop beer-swilling he is fun to read about. Another positive is the author's explanation of the basic problem: our cells are constantly mutating and malfunctioning, and as we get older the "mistakes" add up as the body loses the ability to make corrections. So far, so good...but here are the negatives: Perversely, the almost exclusive concentration on Aubrey de Grey makes this more of a colorful "New Yorker" type piece, or mini-biography, than a rigorous exploration of all the work going on in this field. There are snippets of what other people who are doing work in this area think, but these ideas and opinions are not examined or explained in any detail. The book basically comes down to this: Aubrey de Grey thinks that we will come up with a way to clean up the mistakes that occur in our genetic codes, and other people think it's too complicated or it's too soon to tell. But, again, we are not given enough of a rounded picture to come to our own conclusions. There is also a sort of half-hearted attempt to wax philosophical about whether it would be good to be immortal, but this is done in a rather cursory manner. For example, Mr. Weiner makes an assumption that if we lived almost indefinitely, we wouldn't want to have children...therefore, tremendously long lifespans wouldn't cause an overpopulation problem. He doesn't address the fact that we have evolved over millions of years a biological imperative to have children. Why would that suddenly disappear? Other seemingly important, related, issues such as diet (antioxidants), and why some nationalities live longer and have fewer instances of heart disease and cancer are likewise not examined at all or are mentioned in an offhand manner. Aubrey de Grey is a fascinating man and he does warrant a biography. But this book is supposed to be a rigorous examination of the science of immortality and, as such, it should thoroughly cover all the bases. It does not do so, and that's why I can't recommend it.

As a biochemist, I once did research on aging. I wanted to know why the several trillion cells in our body deteriorate in much the same way that our automobiles deteriorate with age. The answer was that the complex systems for repair and replacement of cell machinery slowly, and finally rapidly, stop repairing and replacing parts. As a result, the cells die, and so does the living creature, whether human or worm. I suspected that the cause of this might be damage to the many genes controlling the repair and replacement process. Now, it seems likely that something of this sort is the case, and it raises the question of how long we can live if we can get the repair and replacement process started again.
In this excellent and very readable book, Weiner presents a status report of research progress on extending life, and he faces the question of living forever. In his search for answers, he has the aid of Aubrey de Grey of Cambridge University, a scientist who bubbles with ideas. I was fortunate at one time to be in an online discussion group on aging that included Aubrey de Grey. The stimulation he brought was amazing. Now, you can read some of his thinking, as related by Weiner, along with the setting in which it occurred.
Aubrey de Grey suggests that unlimited life is certainly on the way. His arguments are good, and I note that a growing number of researchers have concluded that aging cells wear out much like the parts of our automobiles. We can combat some of this wear by replacing vital organs, but the real feat is to get those defective control genes replaced or working again. Researchers are finding and working on some of the genes. As a result, they have extended, and even doubled, the life spans of creatures in the laboratory. Thus, much longer life is possible. Unlimited life does not violate any physical law, so it is also possible. We simply have to figure out how to do it. I learned long ago of the danger of saying that something is impossible. This was the case with space travel, and this is the case with immortality. Weiner does a masterful job of explaining where we stand on extending life, and the problems we face.

Humanity's fear of death has yielded many odd things. It has given us expensive cosmetics and odd potions (current fascination with "ionized water" is just the latest in this endless thread). It has given us visions of an afterlife, well-stocked with trout and virgins. But it has also given us the Pyramids and Keats, vaccines and Brahms, sanitation and farming. As Jonathan Weiner's readable book demonstrates, we've been just a few years from a cure--for millennia.

As we've come to learn more about evolution and the processes of life, we have begun to gain some insight into the mechanisms of aging. It is deeply built into the way our biology works. Four billion years of evolution mean that there's a lot to untangle. Weiner takes us into the labs of many biologists and experimentalists, each working on one small key to the puzzle. He examines the bitter debate between the "skin-ins", those who study biology at the molecular level, and the "skin-outs", who study the emergent properties of complete ecosystems. All of this is written in an engaging style that will inform any reader with a modicum of scientific curiosity. Weiner knows his literature as well, often referring to relevant passages in ancient Chinese and Indian poetry or classical Western thought. I really AM going to have to get to Dante some day.

Most scientists are modest in characterizing their own knowledge and the impact it will have on human lifespans. A few more years might be a reasonable expectation. But there are those (as there always have been) who assume that we can achieve virtual immortality with just a few small steps. In Weiner's book, the stand-in for this point of view is a man named Aubrey de Grey.

De Grey is a genuine character, of a type that's somewhat familiar to me. An English software engineer, now in middle age, with an enormous beard and an endless thirst for beer, de Grey directs a society dedicated to immortality. He's an academic type with a lot of brains and very little true accomplishment. He's an autodidact in the field of biology, but without the patience or training to actually test his own ideas. This doesn't not stop him from spewing opinions, occasionally (remember the parable of the blind squirrel finding the nut) unearthing something of interest. Since he is an engineer, he displays the engineer's attitude: just the right line of code or the right-sized bolt and we're done. He's an interesting, if eventually tiresome, antagonist.

Jonathan Weiner has given us a book that's equal part science and philosophy. Our world would be vastly different without the stimulus of personal demise (for a companion reader I'd recommend Death & Sex by Tyler Volk). Perhaps the strongest example of this was given--unwittingly--by Aubrey de Grey. He speculated that once aging was eliminated, then death would come only by accidental cause. We'd be afraid to get in a car or to climb a mountain. With immortality, our fear of death would only increase. What kind of a life is that?

This book about "the strange science of immortality" feature a mix, or perhaps a mess, of various information on gerontology (science of aging), a somewhat fawning semi biography of a leading gerontologist (Aubrey de Grey), and musings and opinions on mortality and immortality. I felt that the book was not well organized and to some degree a waste of my time.

While reading this book I sometimes got the feeling that there is not that much interesting to say in the field of gerontology and that the author therefore worked in loads of filler material. I should say I do not believe that is the case. Even though the book contains some interesting information, the problem is that it is not well organized. In addition the sometimes idiotic and somewhat uninteresting musings, opinions, amateur philosophy, speculation, as well as the life stories of scientists (mostly Aubrey de Grey) often overshadowed the Science.

The author explains how single cell organisms in one sense live for ever and that some primitive multi-cell organisms, for example the Hydra, in theory can go on living for ever. There are a lot of possible reasons as to why our more complex bodies' age. In the wild animals (and presumably humans) don't live that long, due natural circumstances (accidents, disease, starvation, etc). For example, only 6% of the squirrels live beyond four years in the wild even though they can live to the age of 20 in the Zoo. Since Mother Nature would kill off most of us before we reach old age why would our bodies spend energy on keeping our cells in good repair for ever? Basically, there was no evolutionary pressure towards extending life.

The book gives the reader some explanation of the internal working of cells and how deterioration happens and is partially prevented by cell. In one chapter the author sets out to describe Aubrey de Grey's the Seven Deadly Things that causes our bodies' to age and die (intercellar aggregates, extra cellular aggregates, mitochondrial mutations, extracellular crosslinks, cell loss, cell senescence, and cancer). Unfortunately he only clearly identifies three of them in that chapter, and he later mentions that cancer is one of them. He essentially touches upon all of them at one point or another but not as one of the "deadly things". This is in my opinion an example of the disorganization of the book.

As mentioned another thing that annoyed me was the fawning semi-biography of Aubrey de Grey. Aubrey de Grey is an optimist and optimists often get all the attention of the media. However, in my experience unjustified optimism can ruin the reputation of a scientific field. This has happened many times already. The author questions Aubrey de Grey's optimism at the end of the book but a better approach would have been to include the opinions of many scientists without telling us their life stories or too much about their personalities.

I should say that I might still have considered this a decent book because it contains some interesting information, and except for the disorganization it is overall well written. However, what made this book not worth reading for me were the random musings on death and immortality by various people that the author included in the book. He presents quotes and opinions by ancient philosophers, religious leaders, scientists, movie producers, and discusses topics like the desirability of immortality at length. I found this stuff to be just tedious.

With some re-organization and the removal of most of the author's musings on immortality and the removal of at least some of the fawning semi-biography of Aubrey de Grey this could have been a good book. As it is written I cannot recommend it.

This book is an example of what might be called "personality-driven science writing." Jonathan Weiner seems to be terrified that, if he were to simply present readers with the science--the theories, the experiments, the facts, the figures--his readers would be passing out in droves from boredom. So instead he tries to keep things lively by talking about the people behind the science. And I don't just mean a bit of biographic background and a funny anecdote or two. I mean that roughly fifty percent of this book's content is stuff about the scientists, rather than the science: Their history, their personalities, their clothing, their jewelry, their drinking habits, what sound their beer glass makes when they set it down after taking a swig ("tap", in case you were wondering), how they slur their speech when they've had too much beer, their facial hair, etc., etc. (Though granted, the beard of gerontology researcher Aubrey de Gray is of such epic proportions that it would probably warrant some mention in any book on the subject of aging research.)

The corollary to this is the frequency with which the word "I" appears in the book. Weiner tells you in great detail about his personal interactions with this and that researcher, what he thought of them, his reaction to the place where he interviewed them, what he thought when they said this, what he felt when they said that, etc., etc.

Personally, when I read a science book, I want it to have science in it. Just the facts, ma'am. Maybe I'm out of date in that regard. Maybe the best way to sell a science book these days is to make it into a veritable video game of flashing blue eyes, dialog in slurred-speech dialect, tapping beer glasses and what-I-said-to-Aubrey-when-he-said-this-to-me.

Anyway.

When Weiner does get around to talking science, he does a good job of it. He describes the research and the sundry theories relating to the study of aging in neat and clear language. I remember his description of the mitochondrial free radical theory of aging as being particularly well done.

A long section of the book is given over to describing various thoughts around evolution as it relates to aging. The current majority view seems to be that, once a creature has reached maturity and reproduced, it has achieved "success" as far as evolution is concerned, so evolution can't play much of a role in improving longevity past the age of reproduction. As Weiner eloquently puts it, referring to the "blind watchmaker" that is the evolutionary process, "there is a place where the watchmaker cannot reach, a place where the watchmaker's fingers cannot touch. That is the desolate place we call old age." That's some nice writing there. I only wish there was more of that, and less tapping of beer glasses.

Death. Pair it with taxes, and you have a veritable axis of inevitability. Unless, of course, there is some way around it. Like the real people in Long For This World are trying to do, despite the existence of an extremely long track record of failed attempts to establish that ever-elusive goal as a reality: eternal life here on earth, for everyone. It's true that the human lifespan has been rising fast over the past few centuries, but Jonathan Weiner notes that this has much more to do with advances in public health, sanitation, and diet than with any sort of medical remedy.

Weiner's book is provocative and fascinating, and sometimes dazzling. There is a chapter where he runs down the different theories why we deteriorate as we age, which seems to alternate between the more pessimistic take that after we pass on our genes our body doesn't really need to keep itself up any more, while the more optimistic take is simply that evolution doesn't apply to the process since you can't really select for traits that manifest themselves after we pass on our genes. The book's central narrative centers around an amateur (but highly knowledgeable) scientist named Aubrey de Gray, whose approach to stopping aging involves cleaning out the (literal) gunk that accumulates in all our cells. Weiner proves a capable explicator of the very complicated science behind all this, and Gray is a fascinating figure whose goals are undoubtedly compelling and attractive, but whose personal vision of what would happen with eternal life (he sees a future where children are a rarity, for example) would probably leave most readers cold. Gray doesn't seem too worried about things like wars, plagues, and other existential horrors that could often cannot be foreseen. And while Gray suggests many actionable items that seem meritorious, his theories are far from uncontested.

All in all, though, the book gives a great overview of the history, context and science involved in one of humanity's longest-running ventures. Weiner's book ultimately takes the form of a meditation on life and death, which acknowledges the existential questions that are inevitable for all self-aware living things. It's fascinating, hopeful and a little scary, often at once. And it's worth your time.

This book is far, far beneath the talents of its author. I can think of multiple grounds on which to criticize it.

First, it's neither fish nor fowl. It's part a profile of Aubrey de Grey, in part a survey of the field of gerontology, and in part an examination of philosophical attitudes towards longevity. As such, it does neither well. In particular, the survey is so incomplete, and so skewed towards Weiner's choice of interview subjects over the years, as to be nearly useless.

Second, as a profiler of Aubrey de Grey, Weiner goes to almost comical lengths to emphasize how stupendously odd he finds his subject. Read the first chapter, where he expends a good deal of effort to replicate de Grey's speech patterns while intoxicated. So a person who has knocked back a few beers slurs his speech. In the words of Sir John Gielgud, "I'll alert the media."

(On a side note, I'm struck by how kind and generous de Grey was to Weiner, giving generously of his time, even traveling with him, and he's repaid by what feels like nothing less than a character assassination piece. Disclaimer: I have met and conversed with de Grey, though I wouldn't call him more than an acquaintance.)

Third, Weiner mixes in a healthy dose of philosophy, which gives a literary frisson to the book but ends up just being pedantic and dull. Seriously. I couldn't care less what people who lived centuries ago thought about the prospect of living longer, or even forever. For me, it has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Fourth, and finally, Weiner misses a key point that is right under his nose. His teenage children have no problem with de Grey's arguments -- for them, it seems almost a given that they will live far longer than their ancestors, and they seem perfectly comfortable with the notion. Yet Weiner persists in talking about how all of us are torn when we think about the prospect of immortality. No, we all are not. It's clear that Weiner is, though.

This was a true disappointment to me. I hoped for so much more. I suspect that less biased writers will come along and do this field the justice it deserves.

Jonathan Weiner's "Long for this World" is a disappointing read. If you are expecting a coherent analysis about the science of immortality, you will not find it here (instead, you might consider Chips, Clones, and Living Beyond 100: How Far Will the Biosciences Take Us?).

Mr. Weiner's rambling narrative revolves more or less around the exploits of the eccentric Aubrey de Gray, who is a brilliant scientist but whose frequently unconventional ideas are given far more weight than they deserve in a book that purports to assess the science of immortality as a whole. In fact, Mr. Weiner's obsession with de Gray makes one wonder if the book was not an attempt to write a biography that somehow got off track. On the other hand, the real scientific and medical breakthroughs that are proving successful in extending human life by treating age-related diseases such as cancer, heart disease and so on are given short shrift, as if such mundane work is not worthy of serious attention.

The author goes on to heap countless quotes from philosophers and writers such as Bacon, Dante and Marlowe about the angst of the human condition. While these passages might have some value as an appropriately reflective way to lead into the subject, once the reader passes into the third or fourth chapters of the book they simply become annoying. Worse, although the book is divided into three sections, there appears to be little reason for doing so. The philosophy frequently derails the narrative and the progression of ideas; for every attempt the author makes at explaining science to us, we often return to de Gray, whose alcoholic/philosophic reflections become the final say about the subject at hand. Ultimately, Mr. Weiner's unfocused book comes across as little more than a stream of consciousness that, in the end, offers no seeming purpose or benefit to the reader.

I regret to say that I do not recommend this book.

I was kinda hoping to get some practical pointers on the art and science of immortality but.... I got Aubrey de Grey instead. This is a very enjoyable read by a gifted writer, and does give some fascinating insights into the mechanisms of aging, and some of the nutritional and health discoveries that can help keep you going longer and stronger, but... I got mostly Aubrey de Grey, and quite frankly, some of his 'how to' ideas on immortality seem downright destructive, like pumping people full of psych drugs, turning them into cyborgs, etc. The book also documents de Grey's extensive drinking habit, poor diet, lack of fresh air, sunshine, and excercise, leaving one to wonder, how many years will the world's most famous immortality "scientist" will live himself? Like I said, it's an entertaining read!

Unlike his The Beak of the Finch, this book will never win the Pulitzer Prize.

But it does impart a serviceable introduction to the issues related to death and longevity.

For my part I was surprised that Weiner failed to include references to Nick Lane's Oxygen and Mitochondria anywhere in his bibliography. This is because both Lane books dealt mightily and thoroughly with the biological issues raised by Weiner.

In Oxygen, Lane discussed the basic processes of energy production and just how antioxidents figure in our demise. In Mitochondria, Lane took a mitochondria's eye view of evolution with an eye on explaining just why single cell organisms (viz: those without mitochondria) seem to be eternal whereas multicellular organisms (viz: those with mitochondria) seem to have exchanged eternity for sexual reproduction.

Had I had my dithers -- and being interested in learning more about this whole death and longevity issue -- I probably would have started with this book and then happily proceeded either to Oxygen or to Mitochondria. That's of course because this book is so much more cursory in its treatment of the underlying issues involved.

But that being said, this is still a good book and a serviceable introduction to what is a very fascinating field indeed. Depending on how successful these extension of life studies prove to be, we may have the opportunity to consider their findings for a long time to come.