At a time when “anti-aging” and “longevity” have become lifestyle brands and the market for rejuvenation solutions is booming, structural biologist and Nobel Prize winner Venki Ramakrishnan brings a pleasantly sober, scientifically based perspective to the debate: We are not programmed to die — but aging is a natural, evolutionary trade-off.

‍

Ramakrishnan, who won the Nobel Prize in 2009 for his work on the structure of the ribosome, is not only a leading researcher but also a prolific author. In his latest book “Why We Die” It is — as the name suggests — about illustrating the dynamics that govern aging and which gradually and inexorably lead to death.

‍

‍

In an interview with WIRED He explains why aging is not the result of a genetic “death program,” but rather a by-product of evolution — and why simple lifestyle measures are often more effective than many experimental interventions.

‍

1. Aging as an evolutionary side effect

Ramakrishnan considers the idea that our bodies “switch off” after a certain age is misleading. Nature selects traits that are beneficial up to reproduction. What happens afterwards — such as how efficiently our organism repairs cells — plays a subordinate role from an evolutionary perspective. This is why biological systems invest in growth rather than long-term maintenance.

‍

“There is no fixed death program in our genes — it is rather a failure of natural selection to remain active beyond reproductive age. ”
— Venki Ramakrishnan

‍

2. The limits of model research

Many findings about aging come from studies with model organisms such as C. elegans (roundworm). While certain gene mutations drastically extend the lifespan there, the same mutations would often be harmful or fatal in humans. Ramakrishnan therefore urges caution: Not every molecular discovery can be transferred to humans. Such results provide important clues, but not ready-made solutions.

‍

This difference is central for correctly classifying scientific results — and for distinguishing between basic research and actually applicable intervention.

‍

3. Warning against pseudo-science — and excessive promises

Ramakrishnan sees with concern how the fear of aging is being exploited commercially. From NAD+ boosters to telomere lengthening to questionable hormone therapies — many offers sound scientific but lack reliable evidence.

‍

At the same time, there are increasing voices within research that not only slow down the aging process, but even reversing want — for example through epigenetic reprogramming, senolytics or cell therapies. Even though initial experiments appear promising, many of these approaches have so far been limited to animal models or cell cultures.

‍

“The science of aging is exciting — but it must not become a stage for exaggerated promises of salvation. ”
— Venki Ramakrishnan

‍

Distinguishing between genuine innovation and speculative visions remains a key challenge when dealing with the issue of longevity.

‍

4. What really helps: lifestyle

The good news is that we're not powerless. Ramakrishnan stresses that there is robust scientific evidence for simple but effective measures:

‍

• Balanced, plant-rich sustenance

• Regular physical activity

• Healthier sleep

• Social connectedness

‍

These measures not only have a preventive effect against age-related diseases, but also support cellular repair processes — completely without genetic intervention.

‍

5. The desire for longevity requires measure and responsibility

Finally, Ramakrishnan warns against an unreflected quest for maximum life extension. A society in which people live to be 120 or 150 years old poses huge social, ethical and economic challenges — from pension systems to innovation to equitable access to health services.

‍

Conclusion: Science instead of wishful thinking

The conversation with Venki Ramakrishnan provides valuable impetus for a critical examination of the issue of longevity. Ageing is not a natural mistake — but an opportunity to live more consciously. Not to live forever — but better.

‍

Wired articles: “We Are Not Programmed to Die”