 Erich Le Berg has published a thought-provoking paper in biojarentology that offers a critique of geroscience. When people discuss the prospects of targeting the aging processes to prevent, halt, or even reverse age-related diseases, their beliefs often fall into two opposing categories. The first is overly optimistic blue sky thinking, and the second is an overly pessimistic view that it is simply impossible. Both extremes are problematic. One side largely ignores the challenges involved, but the other side discounts the progress being made by the professionals working in the field. What is needed is a balanced view that accepts the difficulty of the task ahead but does not outright dismiss the possibilities. The author of this paper is not opposed to the idea of tackling the aging processes but offers some valid criticism of the field as it stands. His aim is to actually offer critique, not because he thinks the field is nonsense, but rather because he wants to see it mature and be taken seriously. Geroscience is a simple term, gyro means old age, so geroscience refers to the science of aging. While some people see it as an attempt to rebrand life extension, rejuvenation biotechnology, anti-aging, and so on, the word has become more popular lately, particularly in academic circles. The author points out that there seems to be debate in the geroscience field that it is possible to increase health span without increasing lifespan. This seems unlikely and others have criticized this apparent disconnect. One argument is that the goal of geroscience is the extension of lifespan by extending health span. This is in contrast to most current medicine, which focuses on tackling one disease at a time. Medicine today does a great job of extending your lifespan but not your health span. In other words, you can medically manage an age-related disease and remain alive for many years while still being sick. However, extending health span without extending lifespan seems quite unlikely. This is because geroscience interventions do not seek to simply treat and manage the symptoms of age-related diseases. Rather, they seek to slow or even reverse the actual aging processes themselves. It is difficult to grasp how someone could instantly transition from being healthy to dead in a world where aging is partially under medical control. It is likely that compression of morbidity would occur in such a scenario and that the diseases of aging would be pushed back further into advanced old age. This would most likely also increase lifespan as well as health span. However, if aging were comprehensively understood and interventions could fully control it, then there would naturally be no limit to healthy human lifespan. This is with the understanding that if medicine could fully suppress the diseases of aging, then aging itself would also be effectively suppressed. While it is unlikely that such comprehensive control of aging would occur as the result of initial geroscience interventions, it is perhaps a longer-term possibility as the field, technology, and effectiveness of interventions are refined. Our field has a reputation for being tall on promise and short on delivery, and this could continue to be a problem. The author of the paper points out that there are quite a number of publications that hint that we are close to a breakthrough in slowing or even reversing human aging. This is a fair point, and indeed, there are a number of people who continue to support the narrative that the defeat of aging is just around the corner. This is misleading, and such ambassadors for the field would do well to curb over-enthusiasm and present a more realistic and balanced view of where we are now and the challenges ahead. For example, there is currently a lot of enthusiasm for partial cellular reprogramming as a way to rejuvenate the body. While the animal studies so far have been promising and there has been a flood of investment into this approach, there is a lot of work to be done before it reaches people. The same applies to senolytics. There was once a huge amount of hype and enthusiasm for senescent cell-destroying technologies, yet here we are years later and we are still waiting. This is because, as it turns out, senescent cells do have necessary functions and are not as black and white as their initial portrayal, and simply destroying them all is probably not a good idea. It is dangerous to apply reductionist thinking to complex things like aging, and the development of medicine is a slow process and we still have a long road to reach our ultimate goal. The fact of the matter is that while considerable progress has been made in animal studies regarding the reversal of aging, the increase of lifespan and health span, and the rejuvenation of tissues and organs, those results are a long way from translation to humans. The work of our field is very much a long haul, and we should always be mindful of that, especially when talking to other people about it. The author goes on to highlight further issues with the gerascience approach as it currently is. While some of it is probably not going to be palatable for people who have unrealistic hopes for things to move faster than they really are, it is important that we remain grounded and consider the real situation when we talk about the field. Gerascience is a great concept, and it could potentially be a game changer. However, it has some image and technical issues that really need to be addressed before things can move forward.