A roadmap to end aging | Aubrey de Grey

譯者: Rosa Lin 審譯者: Yujian Li

18 minutes is an absolutely brutal time limit,

18分鐘的時間限制真是苛刻，

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

那麼我將直切入核心主題，

where I get this thing to work.

等我把這機器弄好。

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

好了。我會分別談到五個話題。

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

我會講為什麼戰勝衰老是可取的。

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

我會講為什麼我們得"痛改前非"

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

在這方面得要比現在討論更多一點。

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

當然，我也會講可行性。

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

我會談談為何我們會認為對於衰老

about doing anything about aging.

做任何努力都是徒勞的宿命論。

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

接下來我會用演講後半段

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

來談談如何證明這宿命主義是錯誤的，

namely, by actually doing something about it.

即，我們可以通過行動來改變它。

I'm going to do that in two steps.

我會分兩步來談。

The first one I'm going to talk about is

第一部份要講的是，

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

如何從一個較保守的壽命延長年數 ---

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

我定義為30年，並針對於

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

已步入中年才開始抗老化的人 ----

to a point which can genuinely be called defeating aging.

讓他們達到一個真正可稱為戰勝衰老的境界。

Namely, essentially an elimination of the relationship between

本質上來說，即是徹底地消除

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

你的年齡與接下來一年內死亡機率 --

or indeed, to get sick in the first place.

或在那之前得病的機率，這兩者之間的關係。

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

當然，最後我會講的題目

is how to reach that intermediate step,

是如何達到這個中間階段,

that point of maybe 30 years life extension.

即延長壽命大約三十年。

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

那麼，我從為什麼應該抗衰老開始。

Now, I want to ask a question.

現在，我想問你們一個問題。

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

請舉手： 現場觀眾誰贊同瘧疾？

That was easy. OK.

這個簡單。好。

OK. Hands up: anyone in the audience

好。請舉手，現場觀眾

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

誰不確定瘧疾是件好事還是件壞事?

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

好。那麼我們都認為瘧疾是件壞事。

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

那太好了，因為我也想這應該是你們會回答的答案。

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

現在我想向你們提出

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

使我們認定瘧疾是件壞事的主要原因，

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

是因為瘧疾和衰老共有的一個特徵。

And here is that characteristic.

那就是… (問：為何我們要治癒衰老？答：因為衰老是殺人狂！)

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

唯一真正不同的地方是衰老所弒殺人數遠超於瘧疾。

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

那麼，我想向觀眾，尤其是英國觀眾，

to talk about the comparison with foxhunting,

講下衰老與獵殺狐狸的對比，

which is something that was banned after a long struggle,

獵狐在英國是經過了長期鬥爭

by the government not very many months ago.

才終於在近幾個月前被政府正式禁止的。

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

雖然我知道這裡的觀眾是有同情心的，

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

但，大家都知道，有許多人對此邏輯不盡認同。

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

而就這點讓我覺得這是個不錯的比喻。

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

有許多人表示， "那些

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

城裡人憑什麼對我們郊區鄉民指點怎麼用我們的時間?

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

這是生活傳統的一部份，

and we should be allowed to carry on doing it.

我們不該被禁止繼續做這件事 （對比表：獵狐vs.人類老化）

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

這對自然生態有益；這是在防止狐狸繁殖氾濫。”

But ultimately, the government prevailed in the end,

但最終政府還是佔了上風，

because the majority of the British public,

因為大多數的英國民眾

and certainly the majority of members of Parliament,

尤其是大多數的國會議員，

came to the conclusion that it was really something

達到的共識是，這真的

that should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

不該為一個文明社會所容許。

And I think that human aging shares

而我認為人類的衰老與獵狐

all of these characteristics in spades.

在所有這些共同特質上都極為契合。

What part of this do people not understand?

哪方面是令人無法理解的呢？

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

當然，不僅是為了生命----

(Laughter) --

(笑聲) (為什麼不確定? 左：有趣 右：不好玩)

it's about healthy life, you know --

這更是為了健康的生命 ---- 我們都知道

getting frail and miserable and dependent is no fun,

變得悴弱，愁苦，依賴，都不好玩，

whether or not dying may be fun.

無論死亡是否好玩。

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

講真的，這就是我想表達的。

It's a global trance.

對衰老的看法是一種全球性麻木 (會很無聊；我們沒法付養老金；)

These are the sorts of unbelievable excuses

這些就是各種滑稽的藉口 (非洲飢荒怎辦；獨裁暴君會活太久)

that people give for aging.

人們用這些藉口給衰老做辦解。

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

我的意思是，好吧，我並不是說

that these excuses are completely valueless.

這些藉口是完全沒有價值的。

There are some good points to be made here,

這裡的確是有幾點不錯。

things that we ought to be thinking about, forward planning

譬如一些我們本該思量和預備的事，

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

以免… 我是說，當我們解決了抗衰老問題之後，

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

可以讓我們把因此而造成的動盪最小化。

But these are completely crazy, when you actually

但這些真的很瞎掰 --- 一旦你

remember your sense of proportion.

記起尺長寸短的話。

You know, these are arguments; these are things that

你知道的，這些是議論辯詞，這些是

would be legitimate to be concerned about.

理應關心的事情。

But the question is, are they so dangerous --

但問題是，這些真有那麼危險嗎? ---

these risks of doing something about aging --

這些對抗老化的風險 ---

that they outweigh the downside of doing the opposite,

會比不對抗老化——即對老化不聞不問帶來的

namely, leaving aging as it is?

缺點更嚴重嗎？

Are these so bad that they outweigh

這些風險比

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

每天對十萬人判決無謂的早死更嚴重嗎？

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

要知道，若是沒比這更有力的理由，

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

那麼就別浪費我的時間了。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now, there is one argument

好，那麼現在是有這麼一個觀點

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

有些人的確覺得它非常有理，那就是

People worry about overpopulation; they say,

"我們擔心人口氾濫," 他們說。

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

"我們治好衰老的話，就沒有人會死了，

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

死亡人數至少會大幅減少，

only from crossing St. Giles carelessly.

除了那些過馬路不小心的。

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

這樣一來，我們就不能多生小孩，

and kids are really important to most people."

而小孩對大部分人來說又很重要。”

And that's true.

說的對。

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

要知道，很多人都想把這個問題蒙混過去，

and give answers like this.

給些這樣的答覆。

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

我不同意這些說法。我覺得這些說法基本上是不通的。

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

我想，我們是得面對這方面的兩難問題。

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

我們將必須決定，是要選擇生育率低，

or a high death rate.

還是死亡率高。

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

死亡率高，可以簡單地由拒絕接受這些治療來達成，

in favor of carrying on having a lot of kids.

要偏好繼續多生小孩的話。

And, I say that that's fine --

我說那也可以 ----

the future of humanity is entitled to make that choice.

未來的人類是有權做這個選擇的。

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

但，不應該的是由我們來代替未來人作此決定。

If we vacillate, hesitate,

我們要是舉棋不定，優柔寡斷，

and do not actually develop these therapies,

然後不好好著手研發這些治療技術的話，

then we are condemning a whole cohort of people --

那我們即是判了一大幫人的死刑 --

who would have been young enough and healthy enough

他們原可在夠年輕夠健康的時候

to benefit from those therapies, but will not be,

得益于接受治療，但沒機會了，

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

就因我們沒盡責儘速研究開發這些治療技術 ---

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

我們等於是剝奪了那些人的無限壽命，

and I consider that that is immoral.

我認為那是不道德的。

That's my answer to the overpopulation question.

這就是我對於人口氾濫這個問題的答案。

Right. So the next thing is,

好，那下一個題目是，

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

我們為什麼得在這方面更積極呢？

And the fundamental answer is that

而我的主要答案是

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

麻木接受衰老並非如其表面看來那麼傻。

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

這其實是一種合理方法，用來應付衰老的必然性。

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

衰老是恐怖的，但又是必然的，那，只好

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

得找個方法來讓我們別去想它，

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

而且不論用什麼方式來不想它都合理。

Like, for example, making up these ridiculous reasons

就像，舉例，編出這麼些無稽的理由，

why aging is actually a good thing after all.

要辯解說衰老退化最終還是件好事。

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

不過，那也當然是只有在這兩項因素都成立的前提下才行得通。

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

一旦必然性方面不再那麼清楚，變得有點模糊，

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

那我們也許就在對衰老問題能有所行動了，

this becomes part of the problem.

這又成為問題的一部份。

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

接受衰老為宿命的麻木認同正是阻止我們對此些事著急的原因。

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

而那也正是為什麼我們需要多提此事 ---

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

像傳福音一樣，我會甚至這樣比喻 ---

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

為了讓人關注，讓人醒悟

that they are in a trance in this regard.

原來在這方面他們一直逃避於麻木中。

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

那麼這些就是我對這方面所有要講的內容了。

I'm now going to talk about feasibility.

現在我要講可行性。

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

我想基本上，我們為何感到老化是無法避免的

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

可以綜述於我下面要解說的，對老化的定義。

A very simple definition.

一個非常簡單的定義。

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

老化，是從生命一開始就有的副作用。

which is to say, metabolism.

也就是說，新陳代謝。

This is not a completely tautological statement;

這不是全然同義重覆的說詞；

it's a reasonable statement.

而是合理的說法。

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

老化基本上是一個發生在沒有生命的物件如汽車上的過程，

and it also happens to us,

也在我們身上發生，

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

雖然我們有很多精巧的自我修復機制，

because those self-repair mechanisms are not perfect.

但還是因為那些自我修復機制不完美。

So basically, metabolism, which is defined as

所以簡單講，新陳代謝，即定義為

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

基本上所有維持我們日復一日活命的每件事，

has side effects.

都有副作用。

Those side effects accumulate and eventually cause pathology.

那些副作用經年累月累積成病變。

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

那是個不錯的定義。所以我們可以這樣說：

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

我們可以說，這是一串互連的作用。

And there are really two games in town,

在延緩老化這個領域，

according to most people, with regard to postponing aging.

大多數人所知，有兩種方式。

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

在這裡我分別稱他們為：老年學方式和老人醫學方式。

The geriatrician will intervene late in the day,

老人醫學家在時日為晚之際才做干涉介入性治療，

when pathology is becoming evident,

在病變情況趨於明顯時，

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

老人醫學家會試圖阻撓病魔拖延時間漏沙，

and stop the accumulation of side effects

並致力阻止副作用的持續累積

from causing the pathology quite so soon.

來阻止過早引發病變。

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

當然這是一種非常短期主義的策略，在打敗仗，

because the things that are causing the pathology

因為那些致病因素

are becoming more abundant as time goes on.

會不斷的隨時間氾濫為患。

The gerontology approach looks much more promising on the surface,

老年學方式表面上看來前景似乎樂觀許多，

because, you know, prevention is better than cure.

因為，大家都知道預防勝於治療。

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

但很遺憾的我們對新陳代謝瞭解不多。

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

甚至可以說，我們對生物體如何工作所知少得可憐 ---

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

我們連細胞都還沒能算是真正的弄懂。

We've discovered things like, for example,

我們所發現的東西，例如，

RNA interference only a few years ago,

RNA核糖核酸干擾現象，僅僅是近幾年來的事，

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

而且這是一個細胞如何運行的非常基礎的部分。

Basically, gerontology is a fine approach in the end,

本質上，老年學方式還算是個不錯的途徑，

but it is not an approach whose time has come

不過它不適用於那些時日已至的人，

when we're talking about intervention.

若我們講的是介入性的醫療手法。

So then, what do we do about that?

那麼，我們對這個要怎麼辦？

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

我是說，這邏輯不錯，聽起來是足以令人信服地，

pretty ironclad, doesn't it?

穩紮鐵定，是不是?

But it isn't.

但並非也。

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

我在告訴你為什麼它不是之前，要首先進入

into what I'm calling step two.

我稱之為第二步驟的話題。

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

假設，如我所說過的，我們真能得到 ---

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

今天這麼做就算是為了方便討論吧 ----

the ability to confer 30 extra years of healthy life

有能力將額外三十年的健康生命附加予

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

已入中年的人，我們說55歲好了。

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

我將稱之為人類健康回春 。好的。

What would that actually mean

這有什麼實質上的意義呢

for how long people of various ages today --

對於現今各種不同歲數的人們來說 ---

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

或相當於，在這些療法來臨之際的各個年齡層的人們---

would actually live?

真正可以活多久？

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

為了要回答這個問題… 也許你覺得這很簡單，

but it's not simple.

但其實它不簡單。

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

我們不能就說： “那麼，若他們在足夠年輕的時候從這些療法中受益，

then they'll live 30 years longer."

那他們就會再活多個三十年。”

That's the wrong answer.

這是錯的答案。

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

答錯的原因呢，是因為技術的進步。

There are two sorts of technological progress really,

科技進展可以分為兩種

for this purpose.

以此話題來講。

There are fundamental, major breakthroughs,

有基礎級的重要突破，

and there are incremental refinements of those breakthroughs.

另有在那些突破基礎上逐步的精修改良。

Now, they differ a great deal

那麼，在對時間框架的預估上，

in terms of the predictability of time frames.

這兩種科技進步區別很大。

Fundamental breakthroughs:

基礎性突破：

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

非常難預測需要多久時間

to make a fundamental breakthrough.

才能達成一個基礎性突破

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

我們從很久以前，就已經認定飛翔會很有趣，

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

然後我們拖到1903年才發明出實踐方法。

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

但在那之後，一切就滿穩定滿按部就班的了。

I think this is a reasonable sequence of events that happened

我想在動力飛行技術發展過程中，

in the progression of the technology of powered flight.

這個是合理的事件發生順序。

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

我們可以把這想成是，每一步都似乎是

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

超越前項發明者的想像力

The incremental advances have added up to something

這漸階式進步是在

which is not incremental anymore.

某樣非漸階式即突破性發展的基礎上產生的。

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

那是在基礎性大突破之後才會看見的發展。

And you see it in all sorts of technologies.

而且你會在各種各樣的科學技術裡發現這樣的情況。

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

電腦發展的時間線和飛機差不多，

happening of course a bit later.

當然發生時間是稍晚些。

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

你可以看醫療保健，如個人衛生，疫苗，抗生素 --

you know, the same sort of time frame.

你看，其發展過程是同類型的時間結構。

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

所以我想事實上第二步驟，我剛剛稱之為步驟的

isn't a step at all.

根本不是個步驟。

That in fact, the people who are young enough

這些人，若他夠年輕還來得及

to benefit from these first therapies

從第一代治療技術中獲益，

that give this moderate amount of life extension,

得到這適量的延壽年數，

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

即使那些人在治療技術來臨時已屆中年

will be at some sort of cusp.

他們會處於某種先鋒期優勢。

They will mostly survive long enough to receive improved treatments

他們大多會活得足夠久以接受更進步的治療

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

而可額外延續30或也許50年的壽命。

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

也就是說，他們會一直保持領先。

The therapies will be improving faster than

那些治療技術的進步會快於

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

治療技術殘留缺點追趕上我們壽命的速度。

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

這是我要特別強調的重點。

Because, you know, most people, when they hear

因為，大部分人一聽到

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

我預估說有很多今天活著的人將活到一千歲以上

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

他們就以為我講的是，我們會在幾十年內發明

that are so thoroughly eliminating aging

能徹底消除老化現象的治療技術，

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

以使我們活到一千歲以上。

I'm not saying that at all.

我根本不是這麼說。

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

我說的是速率，光靠這些技術進步的速度

will be enough.

就夠了。

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

它們永遠不會完美，但我們能在還沒有人活到兩百歲之前，

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

先解決那些導致兩百歲人的死亡原因。

And the same for 300 and 400 and so on.

依此類推，到三百，四百... 等等。

I decided to give this a little name,

我給這起了個小名

which is "longevity escape velocity."

叫做 "延壽用逃逸速度"

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Well, it seems to get the point across.

反正，大概就是這個意思。

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

那麼，這幾曲綫基本代表我們期望人們活多久，

in terms of remaining life expectancy,

以剩餘壽命期望值而計，

as measured by their health,

照他們健康狀況來衡量，

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

以這些技術問世時他們當時的年齡為準。

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

若你已經一百歲了，或甚至你是八十歲 ----

and an average 80-year-old,

那麼，一個平常的八十歲的人

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

用這些治療技術大概幫不了你什麼

because you're too close to death's door

因為你已經離死亡的大門太近了

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

這種剛萌芽的實驗期療法對你而言效果會不夠好。

You won't be able to withstand them.

你會無法承受它們。

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

但若你只有五十歲，那就有一線希望

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

你也許能從生命的俯衝線抽脫，然後 ---

(Laughter) --

(笑聲)

eventually get through this

終究熬過這關。

and start becoming biologically younger in a meaningful sense,

然後開始在生理上真正地變得更加年輕，

in terms of your youthfulness, both physical and mental,

在身體和心理兩方面都變得更加年輕，

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

還有因年老相關的死亡風險也會降低。

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

若你比這還年輕一點，

then you're never really even going

那你甚至永遠不會

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

衰弱到會死於老年相關的死因。

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

所以，我得出的這個結論是真實可靠的：第一位150歲的人 ----

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

我們不知道那個人現今是幾歲，

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

因為我們不知道要多久

to get these first-generation therapies.

才會有這些第一代治療技術。

But irrespective of that age,

但無關於他是幾歲

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

我斷言第一位活到一千歲的人 ---

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

當然這會受像世界大浩劫等影響 ---

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

是極有可能只比第一位150歲的人年輕個十歲左右。

And that's quite a thought.

這是值得好好思索的。

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

好，那我接下來終於要用

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

我最後的這七分半鐘，講第一步驟：

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

就是，我們要怎麼來適度增長壽命

that will allow us to get to escape velocity?

使我們可抵達逃逸速度?

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

為此我必須講一點點白鼠。

I have a corresponding milestone to robust human rejuvenation.

我對人類強健回春設立了相應的里程碑。

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

我叫它老鼠強健回春，沒什麼想像力。

And this is what it is.

那就是這樣。

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

我說，我們用一隻長壽品種的老鼠，

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

通常平均壽命是大約三年。

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

我們完全不碰牠們，直到他們已兩歲後。

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

屆時我們就對牠們做許多實驗，

and with those therapies, we get them to live,

且經由這些治療技術讓牠們活到

on average, to their fifth birthday.

平均來說，第五歲生日時。

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

也就是說，我們加了兩年 ---

we treble their remaining lifespan,

將牠們餘壽增至三倍

starting from the point that we started the therapies.

從我們開始治療的時間點算起。

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

問題是，這對我之前談到關於人類的里程碑而言，

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

在我們到達它之前，意味著什麽？

Which we can now, as I've explained,

如我已經解釋過的，現在我們可同樣稱其為

equivalently call either robust human rejuvenation or longevity escape velocity.

人類強健回春或延壽用逃逸速度。

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

第二，這會如何影響大眾觀念，就是

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

由測試白鼠時開始算起，

starting from the time we get the mice?

我們還要多久才能達到這些目標呢？

And thirdly, the question is, what will it do

第三，問題是，這能夠怎樣影響

to actually how much people want it?

人們對此渴求的程度?

And it seems to me that the first question

在我看來第一個問題

is entirely a biology question,

純粹是生物學上的問題，

and it's extremely hard to answer.

而且極難回答。

One has to be very speculative,

要做許多不切實的理論性猜測，

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

那我很多同事會警告我們別做這種推論，

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

要我們最好是別出聲，知道得多點再說。

I say that's nonsense.

我說那是無稽之談。

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

我認為對此避口不提才絕對是不負責任。

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

我們應盡所能做最佳猜測，提出一個理論性的時間範圍，

in order to give people a sense of proportion

讓人們至少能對此大體衡量下，

so that they can assess their priorities.

好讓他們可以自己做評估。

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

我說，我們有50:50的機率

of reaching this RHR milestone,

從達到老鼠強健回春算起

robust human rejuvenation, within 15 years from the point

在十五年以內，

that we get to robust mouse rejuvenation.

達到這個RHR (人類強健回春) 的里程碑。

15 years from the robust mouse.

在那隻健全不朽老鼠成功後十五年即可。

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

大眾觀點可能比這還要樂觀一些。

The public tends to underestimate how difficult scientific things are.

民眾通常傾向于低估科學研究的艱難程度。

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

所以他們可能會想成是五年後。

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

雖然他們會錯，但是那其實不太重要。

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

當然，最後我想可以這麼說，

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

導致目前民眾們對於衰老意見矛盾的一大原因

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

是我先前提到的對衰老的全球性麻木狀態，那種應付策略。

That will be history at this point,

屆時將成為歷史，

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

因為人們不再可能繼續相信人類的老化是必然的，

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

因為屆時在白鼠上會已取得非常有效地延遲作用。

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

這樣一來民眾的觀點應該會有極大的轉變，

and of course that has enormous implications.

這當然有極重要的含意。

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

為了說明我們要如何在這些白鼠上實驗，

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

我對衰退老化現象加了一個形容用詞。

I'm going to use this word "damage"

我要使用 "損害" 這個詞

to denote these intermediate things that are caused by metabolism

來代表新陳代謝所引起的這些過渡性的東西，

and that eventually cause pathology.

其最終引起病變。

Because the critical thing about this

因為這個關鍵的地方是

is that even though the damage only eventually causes pathology,

就算這些損害只是最終才造成病變，

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

這個損害本身是持續性地發生，在我們出生前就已開始。

But it is not part of metabolism itself.

但它並不是新陳代謝過程的一部份。

And this turns out to be useful.

那麼，這點變得很有用。

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

因為這樣一來我們就可以將原來的機理重新設計。

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

可以說，基本上，老年學和老年醫學的差別

is that gerontology tries to inhibit the rate

是老年學試圖抑制

at which metabolism lays down this damage.

新陳代謝造成損害的速度。

And I'm going to explain exactly what damage is

我稍後會清楚說明 "損害"

in concrete biological terms in a moment.

在具體生物學來講到底是什麼。

And geriatricians try to hold back the sands of time

那麼，老人醫學家試圖通過阻止損害轉成病變

by stopping the damage converting into pathology.

來抵抗時間的漏沙。

And the reason it's a losing battle

這將會失敗的原因

is because the damage is continuing to accumulate.

是因為損害持續累積增加。

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

那還另有第三種途徑，我們來這樣看。

We can call it the "engineering approach,"

我們可以稱之為工程途徑，

and I claim that the engineering approach is within range.

我先聲明這工程途徑是在可實現範圍之內的。

The engineering approach does not intervene in any processes.

工程途徑不介入任何過程中。

It does not intervene in this process or this one.

它不介入這個過程，或這個

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

而那也不錯，因為這樣就表示沒在打敗仗，

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

且它是在我們所能做到的範圍之內，

because it doesn't involve improving on evolution.

因為它不牽涉對生物進化過程作出改進。

The engineering approach simply says,

工程途徑就是很簡單地說，

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

“我們來定期的修補這些不同類型的損害 ---

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

並不一定全要修到好，但修補了算滿多，

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

讓我們將損害的程度維持在臨界值以下，

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

這個臨界值是必然存在的，即能剛好引起病變的損害。“

We know that this threshold exists,

我們知道這個臨界值是存在的，

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

因為我們在未到中年以前，不會得與年老相關的疾病，

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

就算是這些損害從我們在胎中就已經開始累積。

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

我為什麼說我們在可實現範圍之內呢? 這個…基本上就是這樣。

The point about this slide is actually the bottom.

這張幻燈片的要點其實是下面這個。

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

我們若試圖分辨新陳代謝的哪些是對老化有影響的，

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

那會要花整個晚上，因為基本上整個新陳代謝

is important for aging in one way or another.

都對衰老現象起這樣或那樣的作用。

This list is just for illustration; it is incomplete.

這個列單僅是用來做個展示，它還不完整。

The list on the right is also incomplete.

右邊的這列單也還不完整。

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

這個列單列出幾種與年老相關的疾病，

and it's just an incomplete list.

而且它不是完整的。

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

但我要指出，這個中間的列單確是完整的，

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

它列出那些可以算作是損害的種類的東西，

side effects of metabolism that cause pathology in the end,

即新陳代謝的副作用，其最終將導致病變，

or that might cause pathology.

或可能導致病變。

And there are only seven of them.

一共只有七個。

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

當然，它們是按類別分的，但是僅有七個而已。

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

細胞損失、染色體突變、線粒體內突變等等。

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

首先呢，我要告訴你們為何這列清單是完整的理由。

Of course one can make a biological argument.

當然我們可以從生物學角度來討論。

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

我們可以問，好，那我們是什麼組成的?

We're made of cells and stuff between cells.

我們是細胞和細胞之間的東西組成的。

What can damage accumulate in?

損害可以在什麼地方累積?

The answer is: long-lived molecules,

答案是，壽命久的分子，

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

因為若要是一個短壽的分子受到損害，但隨後這個分子很快就消亡了 ---

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

就像一個蛋白質受到水解作用而分解 --- 那麼這個損害也沒了。

It's got to be long-lived molecules.

這麼來就一定是長壽分子。

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

其實，這七項很久前都曾在老年學中討論過，

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

這是個好消息，因為這表示，

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

你想，我們這二十年來在生物學上進步了很多，

so the fact that we haven't extended this list

而我們並未在這清單增加項目，

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

這一事實是個很好的跡象，意味著沒有需要增加的項目了。

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

不過，更好的消息是，我們甚至知道，理論上，在白鼠身上怎麼修復

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

所有這些項目 --- 而我所說的理論上的意思是，

we probably can actually implement these fixes within a decade.

我們可能在十年內能夠實踐這些補修措施。

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

這其中有些已經部分實施了，上面這些

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

我不夠時間每項講完，但

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

我的結論是，如果我們真的可以為此得著適當的資金，

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

那我們很可能在僅僅十年內就研發出全民大眾強健回春，

but we do need to get serious about it.

但我們是需要對此事認真了。

We do need to really start trying.

我們是需要真的開始著手嘗試。

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

當然，觀眾之間有一些生物學家

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

讓我要回答一些你們可能會有的問題。

You may have been dissatisfied with this talk,

你也許對這演說不滿意，

but fundamentally you have to go and read this stuff.

但基本上這些是需要你去研讀的。

I've published a great deal on this;

我在這方面有發表很多的文刊；

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

我舉引出那些實驗研究為我樂觀的依據基礎，

and there's quite a lot of detail there.

那裡面有滿多細節的。

The detail is what makes me confident

這些細節正是讓我有信心做出

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

我這些算是滿激進的時間範圍預言。

So if you think that I'm wrong,

所以要是你認為我錯了，

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

你最好好好找出為什麼你認為我是錯的。

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

當然主要是你不應相信那些

who call themselves gerontologists because,

稱自己作老年學家的人因為

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

猶如在任何一個領域中徹底地脫離舊有思想的情況一樣，

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

你自然預期主流學派的那些人會有點排斥，

and not really to take it seriously.

而並不把它當回事。

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

那麼，其實，你是必須得做該做的功課，

in order to understand whether this is true.

才能瞭解這個是不是真的。

And we'll just end with a few things.

再下來我們即將以幾點做完結。

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

其中一點是，你下場會聽的是，一個之前曾聲稱

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

自己可以排列出人類基因組合的傢伙，

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

那時每個人都說，“那很明顯的是不可能的呀。”

And you know what happened.

你知道接下來發生了什麼。

So, you know, this does happen.

所以這是會發生的。

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

我們有不同的策略 --- 有瑪士撒拉鼠標獎

which is basically an incentive to innovate,

就是基本上一個給創新發展的獎勵，

and to do what you think is going to work,

做你認為可行的項目，

and you get money for it if you win.

若成功的話，你就會得獎金。

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

還有個提案是要正式的成立一間研究所。

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

這才是要花不少錢的地方。

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

但說真的 --- 同樣的錢花在伊拉克戰爭上夠用幾天?

Not very long. OK.

沒幾天。好。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

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

那這必須是慈善性地，因為追求利潤會干擾生物科技的發展，

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

但我想，在這方面成功的機率，大致上有90%。

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

還有，我認為我們知道如何做到。那麼，我就在這裡結束。

Thank you.

謝謝你們。

(Applause)

(鼓掌)

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

克立斯‧安德生：好，我不曉得會不會有任何問題

but I thought I would give people the chance.

但我想應該給大家一個機會發問

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

觀眾：既然你談到衰老還有嘗試擊敗它

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

為什麼你把自己弄成老頭子的模樣？

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

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

AG：因為我是個老頭。我實際上已經158歲了

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

(Applause)

(掌聲)

Audience: Species on this planet have evolved with immune systems

觀眾：這顆行星上的生物的免疫系統，在他們進化過程中，

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

幫助他們抵抗所有疾病，使個體能活得足夠久，以便繁衍後代。

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

不過，據我所知，所有的生物種類都是以死亡為目地衍變進化，

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

當細胞分裂時，端粒酶會縮短，最終生物滅亡。

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

那麼，為何自然進化看來是選擇反對永生不朽呢?

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

既然那麼有利的話。還是自然進化還未完善?

AG: Brilliant. Thank you for asking a question

AG: 太棒了。謝謝你提問的這個問題，

that I can answer with an uncontroversial answer.

我可以用一個無爭議性的答案來回覆。

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

我對你的問題有個正統的主流答案，

which I happen to agree with,

恰是與我意見相同的。

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

那就是，不，老化不是自然選擇的產物；

[aging] is simply a product of evolutionary neglect.

進化簡單說是一個進化時疏忽的產物。

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

也就是說，我們會有老化是因為不老是件困難的事；

you need more genetic pathways, more sophistication in your genes

你需要更多遺傳途徑，更精密的基因，

in order to age more slowly,

才能老化得慢些，

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

而你想活得越久，上述的條件要求就越高。

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

在某種程度上可以這麼說，進化不介意，

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

也不管基因通過什麽方式被個體傳遞下去，

living a long time or by procreation,

不管是通過長壽的方式還是生殖的方式，

there's a certain amount of modulation of that,

進化在一定程度上對此有所調節，

which is why different species have different lifespans,

這也是為什麼不同生物種類有不同的壽命，

but that's why there are no immortal species.

但上述這些就是沒有長生不死的生物種類的緣故。

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

CA:基因不管，但我們管？

AG: That's right.

AG: 是的。

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

觀眾：你好，我在某處讀到在過去20年

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

在地球上基本上任何人的平均壽命都已經增加10年

If I project that, that would make me think

若我以這個做比例，那我會想說

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

如果我騎車摩托車不撞車的話，則我可以活到120歲。

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

那是不是意味著我成為你千歲人的研究對象之一嘍？

AG: If you lose a bit of weight.

AG:要是你減一點體重的話。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Your numbers are a bit out.

你的數字有點過時了。

The standard numbers are that lifespans

標準數據是，每十年

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

人的壽命延長一到兩年。

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

所以，沒有你想得那麼好，也許你會這麼期望。

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

但我的意願是，要儘快將這個數據每年增加一年。

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

觀眾：有人告訴我說，我們成年人的許多腦細胞

are actually in the human embryo,

早在胚胎期就存在了，

and that the brain cells last 80 years or so.

而這些腦細胞能維持80年左右。

If that is indeed true,

若這是真的話，

biologically are there implications in the world of rejuvenation?

從生物學的角度講，會否對新生抗老領域造成影響?

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

是否在我身體內也有細胞會活整整80年，

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

而非通常情況下，只活幾個月?

AG: There are technical implications certainly.

AG: 那是確實有技術上的影響。

Basically what we need to do is replace cells

基本上我們需要做的是在大腦的少數部位

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

將一些消亡速度較快的細胞換成新的，

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

尤其是神經元細胞，但我們不想讓更換速度

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

超過消亡速度--- 或至少不能超過太快，

because replacing them too fast would degrade cognitive function.

因為換新的速度太快會降低認知功能。

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

我之前說到有關沒有不老化的生物種類，

was a little bit of an oversimplification.

這個說法有點太簡單化了。

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

其實是有生物是不會老化的 --- 例如水螅

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

但它們做到這點是因為它們沒有神經系統，

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

並且沒有任何需要仰賴

on very long-lived cells.

長壽細胞才能夠運作的生物組織。