Sorry, imma hafta resist that temptation, cause it’s one of those you can’t eat only one potato chip thing 
. I’m focused on researching other things and don’t want to go back to digging up all that stuff… my apologies, the limitations of time and concentration in this 67 yo:nerd_face:.
But hey, if you wanna go down that rabbit hole, it’s a rich vein, you can easily spend years down there 
.
The question is what is upstream of what. I think the hallmarks are mainly driven by mitochondrial efficiency. There is a secondary effect from SASP and telomere length is a guide to mitochondrial efficiency. (in part because hTERT improves mitochondria and in part because higher acetylation drives hTERT)
So there are diseases of aging driven by this. Some are failures of homeostasis such as osteoporosis. CVD is IMO a failure of homeostasis with endothelial cells not differentiating correctly. Reducing apoB does not fix the problem, but it slows the deterioration.
Fixing the problem is I think the best thing to do, but does not mean ignoring lipids. OTOH I cannot at this point predict how effectively the problem can be fixed or what the precise outcome will be.
I agree but the evidence for “driven” is not concordant is it? The relationship seems to be bidirectional. But we are way into the weeds now and thinking is likely to change with subsequent waves of research. Perhaps instead of positing a single primary hallmark, there is benefit in positing the critical hubs that connect them. (I’m taking a purely pragmatic return on effort view.) From this perspective, the metabolism of NAD+ seems like a candidate for the central node connecting mitochondria, the nucleus, and overall cellular resilience. Another way of framing a middle-ground research agenda. I dunno . . .
You have a negative way of looking at the same thing.
I could find a few areas, such as a cure for cancer, that we could agree on. You would have been hard pressed in the 1950s to find someone who didn’t believe that a cure for cancer would be achieved by the millennium.
““what might have been” the saddest word for mice or men”
Science fiction writers produced plenty of nonsense.
Even as a kid, I could see that having a Jetson cycle or flying automobile in every garage was a ridiculous idea. And, in other areas, none of them dreamed of the internet or that a single modern smartphone of today would have more raw computing power than all the world’s computers combined around 40–50 years ago, illustrating the staggering exponential growth in computing power. Or that I could reach in my pocket, pull out a phone, and talk to someone in Siberia.
The real accomplishments since my birth in 1941 continue to amaze me.
No, we haven’t achieved sustainable nuclear fusion yet.
But, we went from coal-powered plants to nuclear power, solar power, and wind power.
Some real things:
Real: Vacuum tubes to billions of transistors on a tiny chip.
Real: No electronic computers to computers that even science fiction didn’t dream of.
Real: Artificial intelligence with computational and programming powers undreamed of.
Real: Sulfa drugs to today’s advanced antibiotics
Real: Aviation: From props to Martian rovers. SpaceX is launching satellites weekly.
Real: Worldwide communications from Morse code to smartphones that have features even Star Trek writers didn’t dream of.
Real: Real robots that make Robby the Robot, which was just a science fiction dream, look antiquated.
Blast from the past. Dr. Morgan Levine.
The science of super longevity | Dr. Morgan Levine
I think it is via the acetylation process.
Yes and that list is so very long and of a nature that we tend to overlook it. Many are of a broader nature but no less significant. Pinker, for example, points out that all major indicators of human progress are positive if we take the longer view, presumably one that ignores small political cycles. Another list.
By the way, we do have a Jetsons style flying car now. It’s called the Airbike by Volonaut. It’s just people haven’t been buying them en masse.
And luck is a bit part of healthy aging 
Velcro
If by “luck” we mean events beyond our control that affect our destiny, then luck plays a substantial role in longevity. I’ve seen the optimistic sound bites claiming that we control as much as 80% of our health outcomes—but such assertions are overstated. The degree of control varies depending on the specific health issue, but even dimensions of health that seem fully—or almost fully—within our grasp often are not. Our genetic inheritance and early childhood environment set lifelong systems in motion—psychologically, epigenetically, and otherwise. Even the very interests we share in this forum can often be traced back to our genes, our upbringing, and a constellation of formative experiences. We might feel “free” in the sense that we could choose to ignore these matters—but in truth, we cannot.
Just read a study about an excited group in Ireland talking about stem cell treatments bringing osteoarthritis to an end. Date? 2015!!! 