"Lifespan: Why We Age – And Why We Don’t Have To" by David A. Sinclair and Matthew D. LaPlante

The argument

You should read Lifespan: Why We Age – And Why We Don’t Have To while self-isolating from the coronavirus because the author discusses ways in which people can improve their longevity. The book discusses habits that people can try to improve their lifestyle. Self-isolation is a vital time in which people can create good habits. Habits can take up to 66 days to form, which makes self-isolation the ideal time for people to create beneficial habits. This book is also beneficial in comparison to current events. During a time of self-isolation for a virus that does not have a cure yet, it can be encouraging to read about the longevity of human life. It provides hope for the reader’s life in a time of self-isolation. By explaining potential ways to improve one’s lifestyle, the book puts the reader in control of their health while self-isolating. Lifespan is a good book to read while self-isolating because it educates the reader on scientific breakthroughs about aging. It gives access to readers that are not scientific experts on longevity and genetics. It helps people to learn more about genetics and the possibilities of reversing the aging process. This allows people to see the potential future of humankind and change the reader’s perspective towards aging.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This argument is made under the assumption that people want to change their habits while self-isolating. Some people may desire to use self-isolation as a time to relax and practice self-care. People could be already satisfied with their habits and deem themselves healthy, so they won't want to change anything. While self-isolating, people want an escape rather than another change in their lives. With so much changing in society due to the pandemic, people would rather get lost in fiction. They would find it much more comforting to distract themselves instead of reading more science-related books.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The book's central material is a research programme rather than settled guidance. Its claims about interventions to slow ageing are contested within the field and rest largely on animal work, so a reader treating the habits as established science would be acting on a hypothesis; the premise presents it as instruction. [Rejecting P2] The 66-day figure comes from a study whose actual finding was that time to automaticity ranged from about 18 days to over 250 depending on the person and the behaviour — an average, not a threshold. Isolation was also a poor setting for habits built around gyms, commutes and social structure, most of which were unavailable; the period disrupted existing routines at least as much as it enabled new ones. [Rejecting P3] Agency over long-term health is weak consolation against a present, transmissible risk that longevity research does not address, and reading about extending life during a pandemic may sharpen anxiety rather than relieve it. As the counter-argument puts it, many readers wanted distraction rather than another project.