A roadmap to end aging | Aubrey de Grey

Traducător: Corina Ciubotaru Corector: Maria Tancu

18 minutes is an absolutely brutal time limit,

18 minute e o limita de timp absolut neomeneasca,

so I'm going to dive straight in, right at the point

astfel incat voi trece direct la subiect, la partea

where I get this thing to work.

unde reusesc sa fac chestia asta sa mearga.

Here we go. I'm going to talk about five different things.

Sa incepem. Voi vorbi despre cinci lucruri diferite.

I'm going to talk about why defeating aging is desirable.

Voi vorbi despre motivul pentru care invingerea imbatranirii este de dorit.

I'm going to talk about why we have to get our shit together,

Voi vorbi despre motivul pentru care trebuie sa ne revenim

and actually talk about this a bit more than we do.

si sa dezbatem acest subiect ceva mai mult.

I'm going to talk about feasibility as well, of course.

Voi vorbi si despre fezabilitate, desigur.

I'm going to talk about why we are so fatalistic

Voi vorbi despre motivul pentru care suntem atat de fatalisti

about doing anything about aging.

cand vine vorba sa facem ceva in legatura cu imbatranirea.

And then I'm going spend perhaps the second half of the talk

Apoi probabil voi petrece a doua jumatate a conferintei

talking about, you know, how we might actually be able to prove that fatalism is wrong,

vorbind, stiti, despre cum am putea dovedi realmente ca fatalismul este gresit,

namely, by actually doing something about it.

si anume chiar facand ceva in legatura cu acest lucru.

I'm going to do that in two steps.

Voi face asta in doi pasi.

The first one I'm going to talk about is

Primul pas despre care voi vorbi este

how to get from a relatively modest amount of life extension --

cum sa ajungem de la o prelungire relativ modesta a duratei vietii,

which I'm going to define as 30 years, applied to people

pe care o voi defini ca fiind de 30 de ani, in cazul oamenilor

who are already in middle-age when you start --

care sunt deja de varsta mijlocie cand incep,

to a point which can genuinely be called defeating aging.

pana la ceea ce poate fi cu adevarat numit infrangerea imbatranirii.

Namely, essentially an elimination of the relationship between

Altfel spus, este vorba despre eliminarea relatiei dintre

how old you are and how likely you are to die in the next year --

cat de batran esti, si cat de probabil este sa mori in cursul anului viitor --

or indeed, to get sick in the first place.

sau doar sa te imbolnavesti.

And of course, the last thing I'm going to talk about

Si desigur, ultimul lucru despre care voi vorbi

is how to reach that intermediate step,

este despre cum sa ajungem la acel pas intermediar,

that point of maybe 30 years life extension.

acel punct de lungire a vietii chiar si cu 30 de ani.

So I'm going to start with why we should.

Deci voi incepe cu de ce ar trebui.

Now, I want to ask a question.

Vreau acum sa adresez o intrebare.

Hands up: anyone in the audience who is in favor of malaria?

Mana sus: este cineva din audienta in favoarea malariei?

That was easy. OK.

A fost usor. OK.

OK. Hands up: anyone in the audience

OK. Mana sus, cine din audienta

who's not sure whether malaria is a good thing or a bad thing?

nu este sigur daca malaria e un lucru bun sau un lucru rau?

OK. So we all think malaria is a bad thing.

OK. Deci cu totii credem ca malaria e un lucru rau.

That's very good news, because I thought that was what the answer would be.

Este foarte bine, pentru ca ma asteptam ca asta sa fie raspunsul.

Now the thing is, I would like to put it to you

Acum as vrea sa va spun

that the main reason why we think that malaria is a bad thing

ca motivul principal pentru care credem ca malaria e un lucru rau

is because of a characteristic of malaria that it shares with aging.

este pentru ca malaria are o caracteristica in comun cu imbatranirea.

And here is that characteristic.

Si acea caracteristica este urmatoarea.

The only real difference is that aging kills considerably more people than malaria does.

Singura diferenta adevarata este ca imbatranirea ucide considerabil mai multe persoane decat malaria.

Now, I like in an audience, in Britain especially,

Acum, mie imi place ca mai ales in fata unei audiente din Marea Britanie,

to talk about the comparison with foxhunting,

sa vorbesc despre comparatia cu vanatoarea de vulpi,

which is something that was banned after a long struggle,

activitate care a fost interzisa dupa o lupta de lunga durata,

by the government not very many months ago.

de catre guvern, nu cu multe luni in urma.

I mean, I know I'm with a sympathetic audience here,

Vreau sa spun, imi dau seama ca am o audienta intelegatoare acum,

but, as we know, a lot of people are not entirely persuaded by this logic.

dar, dupa cum stim, multi oameni nu sunt complet convinsi de aceasta logica.

And this is actually a rather good comparison, it seems to me.

Si mi se pare ca e o comparatie destul de buna.

You know, a lot of people said, "Well, you know,

Stiti, multi oameni au spus "Ei bine,

city boys have no business telling us rural types what to do with our time.

pe oraseni nu ii priveste ce facem noi, cei din mediul rural, cu timpul nostru.

It's a traditional part of the way of life,

Face parte din modul traditional de viata,

and we should be allowed to carry on doing it.

si ar trebui sa putem sa continuam in aceeasi maniera.

It's ecologically sound; it stops the population explosion of foxes."

E practic din punct de vedere ecologic; opreste explozia populatiei de vulpi."

But ultimately, the government prevailed in the end,

Dar in cele din urma, guvernul a triumfat,

because the majority of the British public,

deoarece majoritatea populatiei britanice,

and certainly the majority of members of Parliament,

si cu siguranta majoritatea membrilor din Parlament,

came to the conclusion that it was really something

au ajuns la concluzia ca era ceva

that should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

ce nu ar trebui tolerat intr-o societate civilizata.

And I think that human aging shares

Si cred ca imbatranirea umana are si ea

all of these characteristics in spades.

aceste caracteristici din belsug.

What part of this do people not understand?

Ce anume nu inteleg oamenii?

It's not just about life, of course --

Nu e vorba numai despre viata, desigur --

(Laughter) --

(Rasete)

it's about healthy life, you know --

e vorba despre o viata sanatoasa, stiti --

getting frail and miserable and dependent is no fun,

sa ajungi firav si mizerabil si dependent nu e distractiv,

whether or not dying may be fun.

indiferent daca moartea e sau nu distractiva.

So really, this is how I would like to describe it.

De fapt, asa imi place sa descriu acest lucru.

It's a global trance.

E o hipnoza globala.

These are the sorts of unbelievable excuses

Acestea sunt tipurile de scuze incredibile

that people give for aging.

pe care oamenii le dau pentru imbatranire.

And, I mean, OK, I'm not actually saying

Bine acum, nu vreau sa spun

that these excuses are completely valueless.

ca aceste scuze sunt fara nici o valoare.

There are some good points to be made here,

Sunt cateva chestiuni bune care pot fi punctate aici.

things that we ought to be thinking about, forward planning

Chestiuni la care ar trebui sa ne gandim, sa planificam

so that nothing goes too -- well, so that we minimize

asa incat sa nu mearga lucrurile prea... in fine, ca sa reducem la minim

the turbulence when we actually figure out how to fix aging.

turbulentele atunci cand gasim o rezolvare pentru problema imbatranirii.

But these are completely crazy, when you actually

Dar sunt totusi in totalitate nebunesti, daca

remember your sense of proportion.

pastrezi proportiile.

You know, these are arguments; these are things that

Stiti, acestea sunt argumente, chestiuni in legatura cu care

would be legitimate to be concerned about.

e normal sa ne ingrijoram.

But the question is, are they so dangerous --

Dar intrebarea e, sunt ele atat de periculoase --

these risks of doing something about aging --

aceste riscuri de a face ceva in legatura cu imbatranirea --

that they outweigh the downside of doing the opposite,

incat sa depaseasca dezavantajul de a face exact opusul,

namely, leaving aging as it is?

adica de a lasa imbatranirea asa cum este?

Are these so bad that they outweigh

Sunt ele mai grave decat

condemning 100,000 people a day to an unnecessarily early death?

condamnarea a 100,000 de oameni pe zi la o moarte prematura?

You know, if you haven't got an argument that's that strong,

Daca nu aveti un argument care e destul de bun,

then just don't waste my time, is what I say.

atunci eu zic sa nu-mi irositi timpul.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

Now, there is one argument

Exista totusi un argument

that some people do think really is that strong, and here it is.

pe care oamenii il cred ca fiind atat de bun.

People worry about overpopulation; they say,

Oamenii sunt ingrijorati in privinta suprapopularii, isi spun

"Well, if we fix aging, no one's going to die to speak of,

"Pai daca rezolvam imbatranirea, nimeni n-o sa mai moara

or at least the death toll is going to be much lower,

sau oricum numarul mortilor va fi mult mai mic,

only from crossing St. Giles carelessly.

vor fi doar cei care traverseaza St. Giles fara sa fie atenti.

And therefore, we're not going to be able to have many kids,

Asa ca nu vom mai putea avea multi copii

and kids are really important to most people."

si copiii sunt foarte importanti pentru cei mai multi dintre noi."

And that's true.

Si asta e adevarat.

And you know, a lot of people try to fudge this question,

Si stiti, multi oameni incearca sa ignore aceasta intrebare

and give answers like this.

si sa dea raspunsuri de felul acesta.

I don't agree with those answers. I think they basically don't work.

Nu sunt de acord cu aceste raspunsuri. Cred ca ele pur si simplu nu functioneaza.

I think it's true, that we will face a dilemma in this respect.

Cred ca intr-adevar vom avea o dilema in privinta asta.

We will have to decide whether to have a low birth rate,

O sa trebuiasca sa hotaram daca vrem natalitate scazuta

or a high death rate.

sau mortalitate ridicata.

A high death rate will, of course, arise from simply rejecting these therapies,

Mortalitatea ridicata va fi datorata, desigur, refuzului de a urma aceste terapii

in favor of carrying on having a lot of kids.

pentru continua sa avem multi copii.

And, I say that that's fine --

Iar eu spun ca asta e bine,

the future of humanity is entitled to make that choice.

viitorul umanitatii are dreptul de a face aceasta alegere.

What's not fine is for us to make that choice on behalf of the future.

Ce nu e in regula este ca noi sa facem alegerea in numele viitorului.

If we vacillate, hesitate,

Daca vom oscila, ezita,

and do not actually develop these therapies,

si nu vom dezvolta cu adevarat aceste terapii,

then we are condemning a whole cohort of people --

atunci vom condamna o intreaga cohorta de oameni,

who would have been young enough and healthy enough

care ar fi fost destul de tineri si de sanatosi

to benefit from those therapies, but will not be,

incat sa beneficieze de terapii dar nu vor putea

because we haven't developed them as quickly as we could --

pentru ca noi nu le-am dezvoltat atat de rapid pe cat am fi putut,

we'll be denying those people an indefinite life span,

le vom nega dreptul acestor oameni la o viata fara sfarsit,

and I consider that that is immoral.

iar eu consider ca asta este imoral.

That's my answer to the overpopulation question.

Acesta este raspunsul meu la problema suprapopularii.

Right. So the next thing is,

Asa. Urmatoarea chestiune este

now why should we get a little bit more active on this?

de ce ar trebui sa devenim mai activi in aceasta privinta?

And the fundamental answer is that

Iar raspunsul fundamental este ca

the pro-aging trance is not as dumb as it looks.

hipnoza pro-imbatranire nu este atat de prosteasca pe cat pare.

It's actually a sensible way of coping with the inevitability of aging.

De fapt, este o metoda de bun simt pentru a face fata iminentei imbatranirii.

Aging is ghastly, but it's inevitable, so, you know,

Imbatranirea este infricosatoare dar inevitabila, asa ca, stiti,

we've got to find some way to put it out of our minds,

trebuie sa gasim o cale prin care sa ne-o scoatem din minte

and it's rational to do anything that we might want to do, to do that.

si este rational sa facem orice ne trece prin cap ca sa reusim asta.

Like, for example, making up these ridiculous reasons

De exemplu, sa fabricam toate motivele alea ridicole

why aging is actually a good thing after all.

pentru care imbatranirea este pana la urma un lucru bun.

But of course, that only works when we have both of these components.

Dar desigur, asta functioneaza numai cand avem ambele componente.

And as soon as the inevitability bit becomes a little bit unclear --

Si imediat ce partea cu inevitabilul devine putin mai neclara

and we might be in range of doing something about aging --

si ne gasim in situatia de a face ceva in privinta imbatranirii,

this becomes part of the problem.

ea devine parte a problemei.

This pro-aging trance is what stops us from agitating about these things.

Aceasa hipnoza pro-imbatranire este ceea ce ne face sa nu ne agitam in legatura cu asemenea lucruri.

And that's why we have to really talk about this a lot --

Iar din acest motiv, vorbim foarte mult despre acest subiect,

evangelize, I will go so far as to say, quite a lot --

il propovaduim, as indrazni sa spun,

in order to get people's attention, and make people realize

in speranta ca vom atrage atentia oamenilor si ii vom face sa inteleaga

that they are in a trance in this regard.

ca sunt hipnotizati in aceasta privinta.

So that's all I'm going to say about that.

Asta este tot ce voi spune despre acest subiect.

I'm now going to talk about feasibility.

Acum voi vorbi despre fezabilitate.

And the fundamental reason, I think, why we feel that aging is inevitable

Si motivul fundamental, cred eu, pentru care consideram imbatranirea inevitabila

is summed up in a definition of aging that I'm giving here.

este rezumat intr-o definitie a imbatranirii pe care o voi da eu acum.

A very simple definition.

O definitie foarte simpla.

Aging is a side effect of being alive in the first place,

Imbatranirea este efectul secundar al vietii,

which is to say, metabolism.

mai precis al metabolismului.

This is not a completely tautological statement;

Aceasta nu este o afirmatie complet tautologica,

it's a reasonable statement.

este o afirmatie rationala.

Aging is basically a process that happens to inanimate objects like cars,

Imbatranirea este practic un proces care se petrece si cand vine vorba de obiecte, ca de exemplu masinile,

and it also happens to us,

si cand vine vorba de noi,

despite the fact that we have a lot of clever self-repair mechanisms,

cu toate ca avem o multime de mecanisme de auto-reparare

because those self-repair mechanisms are not perfect.

pentru ca aceste mecanisme nu sunt perfecte.

So basically, metabolism, which is defined as

De fapt, metabolismul, care este alcatuit din

basically everything that keeps us alive from one day to the next,

tot ce e necesar ca sa ramanem in viata de la o zi la alta,

has side effects.

are efecte secundare.

Those side effects accumulate and eventually cause pathology.

Aceste efecte secundare se acumuleaza si cauzeaza pana la urma patologii.

That's a fine definition. So we can put it this way:

Este o definitie buna. Asa ca o putem exprima astfel:

we can say that, you know, we have this chain of events.

putem spune ca, stiti, avem aceasta insiruire de evenimente.

And there are really two games in town,

Si nu exista decat doua variante,

according to most people, with regard to postponing aging.

in opinia majoritatii oamenilor, in ce priveste amanarea imbatranirii.

They're what I'm calling here the "gerontology approach" and the "geriatrics approach."

Ele sunt ceea ce eu voi numi aici abordarea gerontologica si abordarea geriatrica.

The geriatrician will intervene late in the day,

Geriatrul va interveni tarziu,

when pathology is becoming evident,

cand patologia devine deja evidenta,

and the geriatrician will try and hold back the sands of time,

iar el va incerca sa incetineasca scurgerea vietii

and stop the accumulation of side effects

si sa opreasca acumularea de efecte secundare

from causing the pathology quite so soon.

care cauzeaza patologia atat de repede.

Of course, it's a very short-term-ist strategy; it's a losing battle,

Desigur ca aceasta este o strategie pe termen scurt, este o batalie pierduta

because the things that are causing the pathology

pentru ca lucrurile care cauzeaza patologia

are becoming more abundant as time goes on.

se inmultesc pe masura ce trece timpul.

The gerontology approach looks much more promising on the surface,

Abordarea gerontologica pare mult mai promitatoare la suprafata

because, you know, prevention is better than cure.

pentru ca, stiti, e mai bine sa previi decat sa tratezi.

But unfortunately the thing is that we don't understand metabolism very well.

Dar, din nefericire, nu intelegem metabolismul prea bine.

In fact, we have a pitifully poor understanding of how organisms work --

La momentul actual intelegem chiar foarte putin din modul de functionare al organismelor,

even cells we're not really too good on yet.

chiar si din cel al celulelor.

We've discovered things like, for example,

Am descoperit de exemplu lucruri ca

RNA interference only a few years ago,

interferenta ARN-ului abia acum cativa ani,

and this is a really fundamental component of how cells work.

iar aceasta este un element absolut fundamental in functionarea celulelor.

Basically, gerontology is a fine approach in the end,

De fapt, gerontologia este o abordare buna pana la urma,

but it is not an approach whose time has come

dar nu una al carei timp a venit,

when we're talking about intervention.

daca vorbim despre interventii.

So then, what do we do about that?

Asa ca pana la urma ce facem in privinta asta?

I mean, that's a fine logic, that sounds pretty convincing,

Este o logica buna, nu neg, si care suna destul de convingator,

pretty ironclad, doesn't it?

e destul de solida, nu?

But it isn't.

Dar nu este asa.

Before I tell you why it isn't, I'm going to go a little bit

Inainte sa va spun de ce nu este, voi intra putin

into what I'm calling step two.

in ceea ce numesc pasul al doilea.

Just suppose, as I said, that we do acquire --

Presupuneti, cum am spus, ca am avea posibilitatea,

let's say we do it today for the sake of argument --

sa zicem chiar in ziua de azi, de dragul discutiei,

the ability to confer 30 extra years of healthy life

sa oferim inca 30 de ani de viata sanatoasa

on people who are already in middle age, let's say 55.

oamenilor care au ajuns deja la varsta mijlocie, sa zicem 55 de ani.

I'm going to call that "robust human rejuvenation." OK.

Voi numi asta intinerirea omului robust. OK.

What would that actually mean

Ce ar insemna acest lucru de fapt?

for how long people of various ages today --

Cat de mult ar reusi oamenii de varste diferite azi,

or equivalently, of various ages at the time that these therapies arrive --

si echivalent, de diferite varste in momentul in care ar aparea terapiile,

would actually live?

sa traiasca?

In order to answer that question -- you might think it's simple,

A raspunde acestei intrebari, ati putea crede ca e simplu,

but it's not simple.

dar nu este.

We can't just say, "Well, if they're young enough to benefit from these therapies,

Nu putem spune pur si simplu "Pai daca sunt destul de tineri incat sa beneficieze de aceste terapii,

then they'll live 30 years longer."

atunci vor trai cu 30 de ani mai mult."

That's the wrong answer.

Acesta este raspunsul gresit.

And the reason it's the wrong answer is because of progress.

Iar motivul pentru care este gresit este progresul.

There are two sorts of technological progress really,

Exista doar doua forme de progres tehnologic

for this purpose.

pentru acest scop.

There are fundamental, major breakthroughs,

Exista descoperiri fundamentale, majore,

and there are incremental refinements of those breakthroughs.

si exista finisaje incrementale ale acestor descoperiri.

Now, they differ a great deal

Acum, ele difera foarte mult

in terms of the predictability of time frames.

in termeni de previzionare a intervalelor de timp.

Fundamental breakthroughs:

Descoperiri fundamentale:

very hard to predict how long it's going to take

foarte greu de prevazut cat va dura

to make a fundamental breakthrough.

sa apara o descoperire fundamentala.

It was a very long time ago that we decided that flying would be fun,

Acum foarte mult timp ne-am hotarat ca ar fi amuzant sa zburam,

and it took us until 1903 to actually work out how to do it.

dar abia in 1903 am inteles cum se poate face asta.

But after that, things were pretty steady and pretty uniform.

Insa mai apoi lucrurile au evoluat destul de stabil si de uniform.

I think this is a reasonable sequence of events that happened

Cred ca aceasta este o secventa rezonabila de evenimente care s-au petrecut

in the progression of the technology of powered flight.

in progresul tehnologiei de zbor cu propulsie.

We can think, really, that each one is sort of

Putem considera chiar ca fiecare dintre ele este oarecum

beyond the imagination of the inventor of the previous one, if you like.

dincolo de imaginatia inventatorilor celei precedente, daca vreti.

The incremental advances have added up to something

Avansurile incrementale au dus la ceva

which is not incremental anymore.

care nu mai este incremental.

This is the sort of thing you see after a fundamental breakthrough.

Este genul de lucru care se vede dupa o descoperire fundamentala.

And you see it in all sorts of technologies.

Si se vede in tot felul de tehnologii.

Computers: you can look at a more or less parallel time line,

Computerele, putem urmari o axa temporala oarecum paralela,

happening of course a bit later.

care, desigur, a inceput ceva mai tarziu.

You can look at medical care. I mean, hygiene, vaccines, antibiotics --

Putem privi ingrijirea medicala. Ma refer la igiena, vaccinuri, antibiotice,

you know, the same sort of time frame.

stiti, acelasi fel de interval temporar.

So I think that actually step two, that I called a step a moment ago,

Deci eu cred ca de fapt pasul doi, pe care l-am numit pas acum cateva clipe,

isn't a step at all.

nu este deloc un pas.

That in fact, the people who are young enough

Cred ca de fapt oamenii care sunt destul de tineri

to benefit from these first therapies

incat sa beneficieze de pe urma acestor terapii initiale

that give this moderate amount of life extension,

care dau o prelungire moderata a vietii,

even though those people are already middle-aged when the therapies arrive,

chiar daca vor fi la varsta de mijloc cand apar terapiile,

will be at some sort of cusp.

se vor gasi la un fel de cotitura.

They will mostly survive long enough to receive improved treatments

In mare parte vor supravietui destul incat sa primeasca tratamente imbunatatite

that will give them a further 30 or maybe 50 years.

care le vor oferi 30 sau 50 de ani in plus.

In other words, they will be staying ahead of the game.

Cu alte cuvinte, vor fi pionieri.

The therapies will be improving faster than

Terapiile se vor imbunatati mai repede decat

the remaining imperfections in the therapies are catching up with us.

vor veni din urma imperfectiunile lor.

This is a very important point for me to get across.

Aceasta este o idee pe care mi se pare important s-o transmit.

Because, you know, most people, when they hear

Pentru ca, stiti, cei mai multi oameni care aud

that I predict that a lot of people alive today are going to live to 1,000 or more,

ca prezic durate ale vietii de 1000 de ani sau mai mult pentru multi dintre oamenii in viata astazi,

they think that I'm saying that we're going to invent therapies in the next few decades

cred ca eu sustin ca vom crea terapii in urmatorii zeci de ani

that are so thoroughly eliminating aging

care vor elimina definitiv imbatranirea

that those therapies will let us live to 1,000 or more.

si ne vor permite sa traim pana la varsta de 1000 de ani si peste.

I'm not saying that at all.

Nu spun asta deloc.

I'm saying that the rate of improvement of those therapies

Ceea ce spun este ca imbunatatirea acelor terapii

will be enough.

va fi de ajuns.

They'll never be perfect, but we'll be able to fix the things

Nu vor fi niciodata perfecte, dar vom fi capabili sa inlaturam motivele

that 200-year-olds die of, before we have any 200-year-olds.

pentru care ar muri oamenii de 200 de ani, inainte sa existe oameni de 200 de ani.

And the same for 300 and 400 and so on.

La fel pentru cei de 300, 400 de ani si asa mai departe.

I decided to give this a little name,

M-am decis sa dau acestui lucru un mic nume

which is "longevity escape velocity."

asa ca i-am spus "viteza de evadare a longevitatii".

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

Well, it seems to get the point across.

Pare sa transmita bine ideea de baza.

So, these trajectories here are basically how we would expect people to live,

Asa, aceste traiectorii sunt, de fapt, modul in care ne asteptam sa traiasca oamenii

in terms of remaining life expectancy,

in termeni de speranta de viata ramasa,

as measured by their health,

masurata prin sanatatea lor,

for given ages that they were at the time that these therapies arrive.

in functie de varsta pe care o aveau in momentul aparitiei acestor terapii.

If you're already 100, or even if you're 80 --

Daca ai deja 100 de ani, sau chiar daca ai 80,

and an average 80-year-old,

si un om obisnuit de 80 de ani,

we probably can't do a lot for you with these therapies,

probabil nu vom putea face prea multe pentru tine prin aceste terapii

because you're too close to death's door

pentru ca esti prea aproape de usa mortii

for the really initial, experimental therapies to be good enough for you.

pentru ca terapiile cu adevarat initiale, experimentale, sa fie destul pentru tine.

You won't be able to withstand them.

Nu le-ai putea suporta.

But if you're only 50, then there's a chance

Dar daca ai doar 50 de ani, exista o sansa

that you might be able to pull out of the dive and, you know --

ca tu sa fii capabil sa iti revii din cadere si sa...stii...

(Laughter) --

(Rasete)

eventually get through this

sa treci pana la urma peste asta.

and start becoming biologically younger in a meaningful sense,

Si sa incepi sa devii cu adevarat mai tanar din punct de vedere biologic,

in terms of your youthfulness, both physical and mental,

in termeni de intinerire fizica si mentala,

and in terms of your risk of death from age-related causes.

dar si in ce priveste riscul mortii tale din cauze legate de imbatranire.

And of course, if you're a bit younger than that,

Bineinteles, daca vei fi ceva mai tanar de atat,

then you're never really even going

nici macar nu vei ajunge

to get near to being fragile enough to die of age-related causes.

sa fii atat de fragil incat sa mori din cauze legate de imbatranire.

So this is a genuine conclusion that I come to, that the first 150-year-old --

Asa ca la concluzia aceasta am ajuns eu, ca primul om de 150 de ani,

we don't know how old that person is today,

nu stim ce varsta are acel om astazi

because we don't know how long it's going to take

pentru ca nu stim cat va dura

to get these first-generation therapies.

pana vor exista aceste terapii de prima-generatie.

But irrespective of that age,

Dar fara a avea legatura cu varsta respectivului ,

I'm claiming that the first person to live to 1,000 --

eu sustin ca prima persoana care va trai pana la varsta de 1000 de ani

subject of course, to, you know, global catastrophes --

influentat, stiti, si de catastrofele naturale,

is actually, probably, only about 10 years younger than the first 150-year-old.

are acum, probabil, doar cu vreo 10 ani mai putin decat primul om de 150 de ani.

And that's quite a thought.

Iar asta e chiar un gand interesant.

Alright, so finally I'm going to spend the rest of the talk,

Asa, in sfarsit am sa dedic restul acestei discutii,

my last seven-and-a-half minutes, on step one;

ultimele mele 7 minute si jumatate, primului pas,

namely, how do we actually get to this moderate amount of life extension

cu alte cuvinte: cum obtinem de fapt aceasta extindere moderata a duratei de viata

that will allow us to get to escape velocity?

care ne va permite sa evadam?

And in order to do that, I need to talk about mice a little bit.

Iar ca sa facem asta, trebuie sa vorbesc putin despre soareci.

I have a corresponding milestone to robust human rejuvenation.

Am un reper corespondent intineririi omului robust.

I'm calling it "robust mouse rejuvenation," not very imaginatively.

Il numesc intinerirea soarecelui robust, fara prea multa imaginatie.

And this is what it is.

El suna asa.

I say we're going to take a long-lived strain of mouse,

Eu zic sa luam o generatie de soareci care traiesc mult,

which basically means mice that live about three years on average.

adica unii care supravietuiesc in medie pana la trei ani.

We do exactly nothing to them until they're already two years old.

Nu le facem absolut nimic pana la varsta de doi ani.

And then we do a whole bunch of stuff to them,

Apoi le facem o multime de chestii,

and with those therapies, we get them to live,

si prin aceste terapii, ii facem sa traiasca,

on average, to their fifth birthday.

in medie, pana implinesc cinci ani.

So, in other words, we add two years --

Cu alte cuvinte, adaugam doi ani

we treble their remaining lifespan,

le triplam anii de viata ramasi

starting from the point that we started the therapies.

din momentul in care incepem terapiile.

The question then is, what would that actually mean for the time frame

Apoi vine intrebarea: ce ar insemna asta pentru intervalul de timp

until we get to the milestone I talked about earlier for humans?

pana ajungem la punctul de reper despre care am vorbit mai devreme, in cazul oamenilor?

Which we can now, as I've explained,

Acela pe care il putem numi acum, asa cum am explicat,

equivalently call either robust human rejuvenation or longevity escape velocity.

in mod echivalent, fie intinerirea omului robust, fie viteza de evadare a longevitatii.

Secondly, what does it mean for the public's perception

Pe de alta parte, ce importanta are asta in ce priveste perceptia publicului

of how long it's going to take for us to get to those things,

asupra timpului care o sa treaca pana vom obtine aceste lucruri,

starting from the time we get the mice?

incepand din momentul in care avem soarecii?

And thirdly, the question is, what will it do

Si in al treilea rand, se pune mai intrebarea: cat de mult

to actually how much people want it?

va face asta oamenii sa si le doreasca?

And it seems to me that the first question

Si mi se pare ca prima intrebare

is entirely a biology question,

este una pur biologica

and it's extremely hard to answer.

si cu un raspuns foarte greu de dat.

One has to be very speculative,

Trebuie sa speculezi mult

and many of my colleagues would say that we should not do this speculation,

si multi dintre colegii mei ar spune ca nu trebuie sa facem aceste speculatii,

that we should simply keep our counsel until we know more.

ci ar trebui sa le tinem pentru noi pana stim mai multe.

I say that's nonsense.

Eu zic ca n-are niciun rost.

I say we absolutely are irresponsible if we stay silent on this.

Eu zic ca suntem absolut iresponsabili daca trecem asa ceva sub tacere.

We need to give our best guess as to the time frame,

Trebuie sa estimam cat mai exact intervalul de timp

in order to give people a sense of proportion

pentru a da oamenilor proportii

so that they can assess their priorities.

in functie de care sa isi evalueze prioritatile.

So, I say that we have a 50/50 chance

Deci, eu cred ca avem 50% sanse

of reaching this RHR milestone,

sa atingem reperul IOR,

robust human rejuvenation, within 15 years from the point

intinerirea omului robust, in 15 ani de la momentul

that we get to robust mouse rejuvenation.

in care obtinem intinerirea la soareci.

15 years from the robust mouse.

15 ani de la soarecele robust.

The public's perception will probably be somewhat better than that.

Perceptia publicului va fi oarecum mai favorabila decat atat.

The public tends to underestimate how difficult scientific things are.

Publicul are tendinta sa subestimeze dificultatea actelor stiintifice.

So they'll probably think it's five years away.

Asa ca probabil va considera ca mai sunt doar 5 ani.

They'll be wrong, but that actually won't matter too much.

Se vor insela, dar nu va conta prea mult.

And finally, of course, I think it's fair to say

Iar in final, desigur, cred ca e corect sa spun

that a large part of the reason why the public is so ambivalent about aging now

ca motivul principal pentru care publicul este atat de nehotarat in ce priveste imbatranirea acum

is the global trance I spoke about earlier, the coping strategy.

il reprezinta hipnoza globala despre care am vorbit mai devreme, strategia de adaptare.

That will be history at this point,

Ea va fi uitata in acel moment,

because it will no longer be possible to believe that aging is inevitable in humans,

pentru ca va fi imposibil sa mai credem ca imbatranirea este inevitabila pentru oameni,

since it's been postponed so very effectively in mice.

avand in vedere ca deja a fost amanata pentru soareci.

So we're likely to end up with a very strong change in people's attitudes,

Asa ca ne vom alege cel mai probabil cu o provocare pentru atitudinea oamenilor,

and of course that has enormous implications.

iar acest lucru are implicatii enorme, desigur.

So in order to tell you now how we're going to get these mice,

Ca sa va explic mai clar cum vom obtine acesti soareci,

I'm going to add a little bit to my description of aging.

o sa mai adaug ceva descrierii fenomenului de imbatranire.

I'm going to use this word "damage"

Voi folosi cuvantul "daune"

to denote these intermediate things that are caused by metabolism

ca sa denumesc aceste evenimente intermediare cauzate de metabolism

and that eventually cause pathology.

si care pana la urma cauzeaza patologii.

Because the critical thing about this

Ce trebuie sa retinem este ca

is that even though the damage only eventually causes pathology,

desi daunele cauzeaza patologii doar spre sfarsit,

the damage itself is caused ongoing-ly throughout life, starting before we're born.

daunele insele se petrec pe tot parcursul vietii, incepand dinainte de nastere.

But it is not part of metabolism itself.

Dar ele nu fac parte din metabolism.

And this turns out to be useful.

Ceea ce se dovedeste un lucru folositor.

Because we can re-draw our original diagram this way.

Pentru ca astfel ne putem redesena diagrama.

We can say that, fundamentally, the difference between gerontology and geriatrics

Putem spune ca diferenta fundamentala intre gerontologie si geriatrie

is that gerontology tries to inhibit the rate

este ca gerontologia incearca sa incetineasca ritmul

at which metabolism lays down this damage.

cu care metabolismul face aceste daune.

And I'm going to explain exactly what damage is

Si voi explica imediat ce anume sunt daunele

in concrete biological terms in a moment.

din punct de vedere biologic.

And geriatricians try to hold back the sands of time

Iar geriatrii incearca sa incetineasca scurgerea vietii

by stopping the damage converting into pathology.

impiedicand daunele sa se transforme in patologie.

And the reason it's a losing battle

Motivul pentru care aceasta este o lupta pierduta

is because the damage is continuing to accumulate.

este ca daunele continua sa se adune.

So there's a third approach, if we look at it this way.

Asa ca exista si o a treia abordare, daca privim din acest punct de vedere.

We can call it the "engineering approach,"

O putem numi abordarea inginereasca,

and I claim that the engineering approach is within range.

si eu sustin ca ne este accesibila.

The engineering approach does not intervene in any processes.

Abordarea inginereasca nu intervine in nici un proces.

It does not intervene in this process or this one.

Nu intervine nici in acesta, nici in acesta.

And that's good because it means that it's not a losing battle,

Iar asta e un lucru bun pentru ca inseamna ca nu e o lupta pierduta,

and it's something that we are within range of being able to do,

este ceva ce suntem capabili sa realizam

because it doesn't involve improving on evolution.

pentru ca nu implica o imbunatatire a evolutiei.

The engineering approach simply says,

Abordarea inginereasca spune doar

"Let's go and periodically repair all of these various types of damage --

"Hai sa reparam periodic toate aceste tipuri de daune,

not necessarily repair them completely, but repair them quite a lot,

nu neaparat sa le reparam de tot, dar intr-o proportie destul de mare,

so that we keep the level of damage down below the threshold

asa incat sa mentinem nivelul daunelor sub cel normal,

that must exist, that causes it to be pathogenic."

care trebuie sa existe si care le face sa fie patogene."

We know that this threshold exists,

Stim ca acest prag exista,

because we don't get age-related diseases until we're in middle age,

pentru ca nu dezvoltam afectiuni ale batranetii pana nu ajungem la varsta mijlocie,

even though the damage has been accumulating since before we were born.

cu toate ca daunele s-au tot acumulat inca dinainte sa ne nastem.

Why do I say that we're in range? Well, this is basically it.

De ce spun ca este realizabil? Pai, motivul ar fi urmatorul.

The point about this slide is actually the bottom.

Partea importanta a acestui slide este de fapt cea de jos.

If we try to say which bits of metabolism are important for aging,

Daca incercam sa spunem care parti ale metabolismului sunt importante in procesul de imbatranire,

we will be here all night, because basically all of metabolism

stam aici toata noaptea, pentru ca practic tot metabolismul

is important for aging in one way or another.

este important in procesul de imbatranire intr-un fel sau altul.

This list is just for illustration; it is incomplete.

Aceasta lista este doar demonstrativa, este incompleta.

The list on the right is also incomplete.

Lista din dreapta este de asemenea incompleta.

It's a list of types of pathology that are age-related,

Este o lista a tipurilor de patologii legate de imbatranire

and it's just an incomplete list.

dar este una incompleta.

But I would like to claim to you that this list in the middle is actually complete --

Insa eu sustin in fata voastra ca lista din mijloc este chiar una completa,

this is the list of types of thing that qualify as damage,

este lista tipurilor de lucruri care alcatuiesc daunele,

side effects of metabolism that cause pathology in the end,

efectele secundare ale metabolismului care duc la patologii

or that might cause pathology.

sau care ar putea duce la patologii.

And there are only seven of them.

Si sunt doar sapte.

They're categories of things, of course, but there's only seven of them.

Sunt categorii, bineinteles, dar sunt doar sapte.

Cell loss, mutations in chromosomes, mutations in the mitochondria and so on.

Pierderea celulelor, mutatii in cromozomi, mutatii in mitocondrii si asa mai departe.

First of all, I'd like to give you an argument for why that list is complete.

In primul rand, as vrea sa va dau un argument pentru care aceasta lista este una completa.

Of course one can make a biological argument.

Sigur ca am putea aduce argumentul biologic.

One can say, "OK, what are we made of?"

Am putea spune "Bine, dar noi din ce suntem facuti?"

We're made of cells and stuff between cells.

Suntem facuti din celule si materia dintre celule.

What can damage accumulate in?

In ce se pot acumula daunele?

The answer is: long-lived molecules,

Raspunsul este "In moleculele care traiesc mult"

because if a short-lived molecule undergoes damage, but then the molecule is destroyed --

pentru ca daca o molecula care traieste putin este afectata, dar apoi este distrusa,

like by a protein being destroyed by proteolysis -- then the damage is gone, too.

asa cum o proteina este distrusa de proteoliza, atunci si daunele asupra ei sunt distruse.

It's got to be long-lived molecules.

Trebuie sa fie vorba de molecule care traiesc mult.

So, these seven things were all under discussion in gerontology a long time ago

Toate aceste sapte lucruri erau discutate in gerontologie acum multa vreme,

and that is pretty good news, because it means that,

ceea ce reprezinta vesti destul de bune, pentru ca inseamna ca,

you know, we've come a long way in biology in these 20 years,

stiti, am evoluat mult in biologie in acesti 20 de ani,

so the fact that we haven't extended this list

deci faptul ca n-am extins aceasta lista

is a pretty good indication that there's no extension to be done.

ne arata destul de clar ca nu se pot face extensii.

However, it's better than that; we actually know how to fix them all,

Totusi, e mai bine decat atat; stim cum sa le rezolvam pe toate

in mice, in principle -- and what I mean by in principle is,

la soareci, in principiu, si ce vreau sa spun prin "in principiu"

we probably can actually implement these fixes within a decade.

este ca probabil putem implementa aceste solutii in decursul a zece ani.

Some of them are partially implemented already, the ones at the top.

Unele dintre ele sunt deja partial implementate, cele de sus.

I haven't got time to go through them at all, but

Nu am timp sa trec prin toate, dar

my conclusion is that, if we can actually get suitable funding for this,

concluzia mea este ca, daca vom reusi sa gasim destule fonduri,

then we can probably develop robust mouse rejuvenation in only 10 years,

vom putea implementa intinerirea masei robuste in doar zece ani,

but we do need to get serious about it.

dar trebuie sa incepem sa o facem in mod serios.

We do need to really start trying.

Trebuie sa incercam cu adevarat.

So of course, there are some biologists in the audience,

Cu siguranta ca exista biologi in auditoriu

and I want to give some answers to some of the questions that you may have.

si vreau sa raspund unora din intrebarile pe care le-ati putea avea.

You may have been dissatisfied with this talk,

Se poate sa nu fi fost satisfacuti de aceasta prelegere,

but fundamentally you have to go and read this stuff.

dar trebuie neaparat sa mergeti sa cititi lucrurile astea.

I've published a great deal on this;

Am publicat un volum mare de lucrari pe aceasta tema.

I cite the experimental work on which my optimism is based,

Am citat experimentele pe care imi bazez optimismul

and there's quite a lot of detail there.

asa ca veti gasi acolo multe detalii.

The detail is what makes me confident

Ceea ce ma face increzator

of my rather aggressive time frames that I'm predicting here.

in intervalele de timp destul de agresive pe care le-am enuntat aici.

So if you think that I'm wrong,

Asa ca daca va inchipuiti ca gresesc,

you'd better damn well go and find out why you think I'm wrong.

ar trebui sa incercati serios sa vedeti de ce credeti ca gresesc.

And of course the main thing is that you shouldn't trust people

Si desigur ca este vital sa nu aveti incredere in oamenii

who call themselves gerontologists because,

care se auto-intituleaza gerontologi pentru ca,

as with any radical departure from previous thinking within a particular field,

asa cum se intampla de fiecare data cand ne indepartam de sistemul de gandire anterior dintr-un domeniu,

you know, you expect people in the mainstream to be a bit resistant

stiti, ne asteptam ca oamenii care apartin de curent sa fie ceva mai potrivnici

and not really to take it seriously.

si sa nu ne ia in serios.

So, you know, you've got to actually do your homework,

Asa ca trebuie sa va faceti temele in mod serios

in order to understand whether this is true.

ca sa puteti intelege daca toate astea sunt adevarate.

And we'll just end with a few things.

Si vom incheia cu cateva lucruri.

One thing is, you know, you'll be hearing from a guy in the next session

Primul este ca veti auzi un tip in urmatoarea sesiune

who said some time ago that he could sequence the human genome in half no time,

care spunea acum ceva vreme ca vom putea reproduce secventa genomului uman in scurt timp

and everyone said, "Well, it's obviously impossible."

si toata lumea a crezut ca asa ceva este, evident, imposibil.

And you know what happened.

Si stiti ce s-a intamplat.

So, you know, this does happen.

Deci, stiti, lucrurile astea se intampla.

We have various strategies -- there's the Methuselah Mouse Prize,

Avem diverse strategii, printre care Premiul Methuselah Mouse,

which is basically an incentive to innovate,

de fapt un stimulent al inovarii

and to do what you think is going to work,

si al dorintei de a face ceea ce crezi ca ar functiona,

and you get money for it if you win.

si apoi primesti bani cand castigi.

There's a proposal to actually put together an institute.

S-a propus chiar deschiderea unui institut.

This is what's going to take a bit of money.

O sa fie nevoie de ceva bani.

But, I mean, look -- how long does it take to spend that on the war in Iraq?

Dar ganditi-va, cat dureaza sa cheltuim suma respectiva pe razboiul din Irak?

Not very long. OK.

Nu prea mult. OK.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

It's got to be philanthropic, because profits distract biotech,

Trebuie sa fie un act filantropic, pentru ca profiturile distrag atentia biotehnologilor,

but it's basically got a 90 percent chance, I think, of succeeding in this.

dar eu cred ca sunt sanse de 90% sa reusim.

And I think we know how to do it. And I'll stop there.

Si mai cred ca stiu cum s-o facem. Si ma voi opri aici.

Thank you.

Va multumesc.

(Applause)

(Aplauze)

Chris Anderson: OK. I don't know if there's going to be any questions

OK. Nu stiu daca vor fi intrebari,

but I thought I would give people the chance.

dar m-am gandit sa ofer ocazia.

Audience: Since you've been talking about aging and trying to defeat it,

Daca ati vorbit despre imbatranire si incercarea de a o combate,

why is it that you make yourself appear like an old man?

de ce aratati ca un om batran?

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

AG: Because I am an old man. I am actually 158.

Pentru ca sunt un batran. Am 158 de ani.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

(Applause)

(Aplauze)

Audience: Species on this planet have evolved with immune systems

Speciile acestei planete au evoluat cu sisteme imunitare

to fight off all the diseases so that individuals live long enough to procreate.

care sa indeparteze toate bolile in asa fel incat indivizii sa traiasca destul incat sa procreeze.

However, as far as I know, all the species have evolved to actually die,

Totusi, din cate stiu, toate speciile au evoluat astfel incat sa moara

so when cells divide, the telomerase get shorter, and eventually species die.

asa incat, cand celulele se divizeaza, telomerazele devin mai scurte si in final speciile mor.

So, why does -- evolution has -- seems to have selected against immortality,

Deci, de ce evolutia pare sa fi selectat impotriva imortalitatii

when it is so advantageous, or is evolution just incomplete?

cand ea este atat de avantajoasa, sau cumva este evolutia incompleta?

AG: Brilliant. Thank you for asking a question

Genial. Multumesc pentru aceasta intrebare

that I can answer with an uncontroversial answer.

la care pot sa dau un raspuns care nu naste controverse.

I'm going to tell you the genuine mainstream answer to your question,

Iti voi da raspunsul general acceptat

which I happen to agree with,

cu care, intamplator, sunt si eu de acord.

which is that, no, aging is not a product of selection, evolution;

Si anume ca nu, imbatranirea nu este rezultatul unei selectii,

[aging] is simply a product of evolutionary neglect.

ci este un act de neglijenta evolutionara.

In other words, we have aging because it's hard work not to have aging;

Cu alte cuvinte, imbatranim pentru ca este foarte greu sa facem altfel,

you need more genetic pathways, more sophistication in your genes

ai nevoie de mai multe conexiuni genetice, de gene mai sofisticate

in order to age more slowly,

ca sa poti imbatrani mai greu,

and that carries on being true the longer you push it out.

si nevoia creste pe masura ce imbatranesti.

So, to the extent that evolution doesn't matter,

Altfel spus, evolutia nu conteaza

doesn't care whether genes are passed on by individuals,

si nu are importanta daca genele sunt transmise de invidizi

living a long time or by procreation,

care traiesc mult, sau prin procreere

there's a certain amount of modulation of that,

acest fenomen este modular,

which is why different species have different lifespans,

si din acest motiv diferitele specii au durate de viata diferite

but that's why there are no immortal species.

si nu exista nici una care sa traiasca infinit.

CA: The genes don't care but we do?

Genelor nu le pasa, doar noua?

AG: That's right.

Exact.

Audience: Hello. I read somewhere that in the last 20 years,

Buna. Am citit undeva ca in ultimii 20 de ani,

the average lifespan of basically anyone on the planet has grown by 10 years.

durata medie de viata a oamenilor a crescut cu zece ani.

If I project that, that would make me think

Daca extrapolez, ajung la concluzia ca

that I would live until 120 if I don't crash on my motorbike.

as trai pana la 120 de ani daca nu fac vreun accident cu motocicleta.

That means that I'm one of your subjects to become a 1,000-year-old?

Asta inseamna ca sunt unul din subiectii care vor putea trai 1000 de ani?

AG: If you lose a bit of weight.

Daca pierzi putin din greutate.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

Your numbers are a bit out.

Cifrele nu prea se potrivesc.

The standard numbers are that lifespans

Cifrele standard spun ca durata de viata

have been growing at between one and two years per decade.

a crescut cu intre unul si doi ani per decada.

So, it's not quite as good as you might think, you might hope.

Deci nu e atat de bine pe cat ai crede, pe cat ai putea spera.

But I intend to move it up to one year per year as soon as possible.

Dar intentionez sa transform cresterea intr-una de un an in fiecare an.

Audience: I was told that many of the brain cells we have as adults

Mi s-a spus ca multe celule ale creierului unui adult

are actually in the human embryo,

exista inca din embrion

and that the brain cells last 80 years or so.

si ca celulele cerebrale traiesc cam 80 de ani.

If that is indeed true,

Daca e adevarat,

biologically are there implications in the world of rejuvenation?

exista implicatii biologice in lumea intineririi?

If there are cells in my body that live all 80 years,

Daca exista celule in corpul meu care traiesc 80 de ani,

as opposed to a typical, you know, couple of months?

comparativ cu unele tipice, care traiesc, stiti, cateva luni?

AG: There are technical implications certainly.

Exista implicatii tehnice, desigur.

Basically what we need to do is replace cells

Practic ce trebuie sa facem este sa inlocuim celule

in those few areas of the brain that lose cells at a respectable rate,

in cele cateva zone ale creierului care le pierd intr-un ritm respectabil,

especially neurons, but we don't want to replace them

in special in neuroni, dar fara sa le inlocuim

any faster than that -- or not much faster anyway,

mai rapid decat atat, sau nu cu mult mai rapid

because replacing them too fast would degrade cognitive function.

pentru ca daca le inlocuim prea rapid se degradeaza functiile cognitive.

What I said about there being no non-aging species earlier on

Ceea ce am zis mai devreme despre faptul ca nu exista specii care nu imbatranesc

was a little bit of an oversimplification.

era oarecum prea simplificat.

There are species that have no aging -- Hydra for example --

Exista specii care nu imbatranesc, cum este Hydra,

but they do it by not having a nervous system --

dar secretul lor este ca nu au sistem nervos

and not having any tissues in fact that rely for their function

si nici vreun fel de tesut care sa se bazeze pentru a-si indeplini functiile

on very long-lived cells.

pe celule care traiesc mult.