Matt Ridley (a columnist in the Times) raised a very interesting question.
He had just read the World Health Organisation's report (Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health) which he thinks is based on a set of dismal fatalistic assumptions about physiological ageing and age related illnesses. Bottom line, the physical effects of ageing are inevitable so best find a way of living with them or possibly delay them for as long as possible.
In parallel he had just read a new book, The Telomerase Revolution, by the he doctor and medical researcher Michael Fossel who argues that we now understand enough about the fundamental cause of ageing to be confident that we will eventually be able to reverse it. I have just bought the book and will let you know what I think. That assumes I understand the science.
So we have a dilemma - should we spend our time and money trying to stop ageing or make the best of it? Now I am sure the question is not as black and white as this but it is an issue I have never considered before.
There is a similar question to be posed about climate change (whatever that is). We spend our time and effort in the assumption that it can be stopped/reversed. Would we do better coming to terms with the affects? Dick Stroud