Why do we age? I never actually asked myself that question until it became the entire premise of a book on my reading list, quietly judging me for assuming aging was just something that happens, like weather or bad luck.
A Question We Never Bother Asking
Most of us treat aging the way we treat gravity. It’s just there, it’s just true, and asking "why" feels a little pointless, like questioning why water is wet. We shrug, accept it, and move on with our lives, wrinkles and all.
That’s exactly the assumption that Lifespan: Why We Age – and Why We Don't Have To by David Sinclair is trying to pry open. It's central to the whole book, and now it's stuck in my head in a way I didn't expect. He argues that aging isn't necessarily some untouchable law of the universe. It might actually be closer to a disease process, one we've simply gotten used to and stopped questioning.
So far, he's walked through a lot of the science behind his theories, and I'll be honest, some of it goes a bit over my head. That's genuinely fine. You don't need a biology degree to follow the bigger idea, and I'd still tell anyone curious about why do we age to go read the book themselves rather than trust my secondhand summary of it.
Why This Idea Makes People Uncomfortable
Here's the part that really got me. Sinclair has talked about how much pushback he gets from parts of the scientific community, just for seriously exploring why do we age and whether it can be slowed or changed.
That reaction feels a little wild to me. Not because I think he's automatically right about everything, science should absolutely stay skeptical and demand evidence, but because dismissing the question itself seems like a strange place to land. There's a difference between "we don't have proof yet" and "how dare you even ask."
I think part of it comes down to timing and perspective. I was born after the moon landing, so flying to the moon has never felt like some impossible fantasy to me. It's just a thing humans obviously figured out how to do. But for more than 99% of human history, that idea would have sounded completely delusional. People would have laughed you out of the room, possibly while gesturing at the sky as though that settled the argument.
Big shifts in what's "obviously possible" tend to look ridiculous right up until they don't.
Maybe It's Time For A New Assumption
So here's where I've landed, at least for now. Why do we age might not have a fixed, unchangeable answer. It might just have an answer we haven't found yet, or one we've been too culturally attached to challenging.
Sinclair isn't claiming we're on the verge of immortality. But treating aging as fully settled science, when serious researchers are still actively debating the mechanics of it, seems less like caution and more like a habit of thought we inherited without checking it.
A few reframes that stuck with me:
- "Aging is natural" doesn't automatically mean "aging is fixed."
- Being uncomfortable with a question isn't the same as that question being wrong.
- Plenty of "impossible" things were just unsolved things wearing a scarier costume.
I don't know exactly where the science on why do we age will end up. Nobody fully does yet, which is sort of the point. But I'd rather spend some energy asking the question and seeing how long we can reasonably extend this party, instead of assuming the lights have to go out on some fixed, unquestionable schedule.