Is Aging Itself A "Disease"?

Nowadays, there are a lot of people (perhaps even a majority!) interested in mitigating common age-related health problems. Very few people would answer "Yes!" if asked, "Are you looking forward to experiencing heart problems, increased susceptibility to infections and cancer, and eventual death?" However, most people also accept certain things as inevitable or at least highly probable, and may strongly object to the characterization of the aging process as a "disease" in and of itself.

I'm going to get into what might be considered "nit-picky semantics" here, but considering how many arguments occur over terminology and its implications, I'd much rather err on the nit-picky side than on the side which assumes everyone uses particular terms the same way and attaches the same associations to them. So hopefully you can bear with me as I hash through some definitional complexities and controversies. My intent here is not to "play word games", but rather to attempt to synthesize some of what I've learned as a result of participating in longevity advocacy with some of what I've learned through engaging with disability rights and advocacy.

In one sense, I understand what is meant when referring to aging as a "disease" -- basically, the term aging is sometimes invoked as shorthand for the set of bodily processes that eventually result in greater vulnerability to actual illness (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.) and consequent death.

However, I now recognize as well why the rhetorical device of "aging as disease" bothers some people. To some, calling aging a "disease" implies that there is something "wrong" with old people as they exist today, and that us younger folks all ought to feel sorry for these poor, sick individuals. I know that not everyone has this interpretation, but that interpretation does exist, and I believe it to be a rather problematic one. I guess I've just gotten sensitized to the problems that can stem from purposely framing something as wholly pathological in order to prompt a sense of urgency.

I mean, yes, I'm all for looking for ways to protect people from (and treat) things like heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. I don't think anyone is against research in those areas, except perhaps for people who advocate human extinction (or at least a drastic drop in population) for ostensibly environmental reasons. But I don't think trying to re-define all older people as "sick" simply because they are old is going to actually help older people. I've learned through autistic advocacy and disability rights discourse that "pity campaigns" actually tend more to create a worse world for the folks they claim to want to help -- pity is very close to disgust, fear, and resentment on the emotional palette, making the very idea of trying to create more pity seem terribly wrongheaded and potentially damaging.

When I think of people like, say, my paternal grandparents, I do not see how pity would be of any use to them -- and in fact, I'd be personally insulted if anyone tried to pathologize them on mere account of their age. Do I want them to have access to top-of-the-line medical care? Of course! Do I want them to live the longest, healthiest lives possible? Absolutely, and I'm sure they'd agree! But neither of these things necessitates the re-framing of their entire demographic as "diseased".

Now, you might say, "But Anne! What about all that militant anti-aging stuff you used to write? What about your comparisons of aging to other diseases that kill people? Have you morphed into an apologist for ill health and (gasp) death? Have you given up on fighting the good fight, or what?"

And the answer to that is, in a word, no. My underlying opinions haven't really changed at all over the past two years or so.

Two years ago, I thought that longevity medicine was important on the basis that people don't stop being valuable and worthy of life once they become senior citizens -- and I still believe this wholeheartedly.

Two years ago, I thought it was odd that so many people were upset at the deaths of their beloved grandparents, yet perfectly willing to say, "Well, you know, the older generation has a responsibility to stop using up so many resources at a certain point!" -- and I still find positions like that to be rife with cognitive dissonance.

What has changed is my preferred approach to the subject of longevity and longevity medicine. No, I haven't gone all wishy-washy and "politically correct for political correctness's sake" -- I've just seen (over and over and over again) via engagement with disability rights that even when it comes to things that are often (or always) fatal, and which cause people massive amounts of actual pain and suffering, pity campaigns are a distraction at best and downright dangerous at worst.

I realize that not everyone has the kind of experience, reading background, etc., such that they'll "get" what I'm saying here. It's kind of a tough concept, and I am absolutely not saying this whilst looking down my nose at the "plebes" -- I am saying this from the standpoint of someone who quite naively started out thinking it was perfectly fine to speak of "defeating aging" and "battling aging", but who has since reconsidered following observation of where that kind of thinking tends to lead.

And where it tends to lead is a place where a whole slew of people who might have been perfectly happy going about their lives are suddenly put into a public category of People To Feel Sorry For. And the world is definitely a less welcoming, more ominious place when you're walking around knowing that people feel sorry for you on account of the demographic you belong to.