Fight Aging!

Reason,

What do you surmise that dividing line is now? What do you consider middle aged? Some people say it starts at 35-37, some say it starts at 40 or 45, and none of that really takes health and fitness into consideration. For those currently in what you consider middle age, what kind of numbers do you have in mind in regards to benefiting greatly, but not being able to be rescued?

Obviously none of this is an exact science, I'm just curious about what you're realistically thinking.

My parents are probably below the line (70-74 years old). Since they are still more or less healthy for their age and not much versed on science, I didn't talk to them about cryonics yet. It's also a pretty expensive and cumbersome procedure here (including moving to Russia or the US some months before the suspension). I think it will be pretty difficult that they will take my explanations seriously unless/until they are more sick (they get cancer or something). So I've been delaying the talk and they don't even know I'm interested in LE (only my girlfriend knows about it, and she doesn't take it seriously). Any guidance on how to approach the topic? Are there any personal experiences published somewhere about similar cases? There is a lot of literature on how to approach the general public, but... well, they are the general public, you usually only try to convince a few percent of them, and you don't care that much if you can't convince them this time; there will be other people next time.

I didn't realize you were so sceptical. I would imagine you count 40 years of age as middle-aged. Surely it's not too optimistic to hope that senolytics alone might get most 40 year olds who take care of themselves to 90, which would be to the last decades of this century, by which time surely we will have reached longevity escape velocity (even for 90 year olds)?

If this is your honest view - that most middle-aged people around today wont make it to LEV, it seems that the notions of 'deathism' and 'pro-aging trance' are a bit meaningless if the vast majority of the population will, in fact, die like every generation before them in history.

Well, but what about death escape velocity? Let's say a healthy living 50 year old person today can have another 40 years ahead of him, even without medical advancements. However, through all those years, medical science is evolving and benefits him, pushing this number up, adding years. And during those years there will be more advancements still. I think this article is a tad pessimistic.

Wow, we are syncing here, didn't read your comment before posting mine :)

I would say based on how fast the field is making progress that the odds of a "middle aged" person who is healthy and doing everything right surviving to LEV are pretty damn good.

Here in Spain, a 40-year old man can expect to live a little above 80 (around 85 for a woman). Taking into account the progress of "normal" medicine (not senolytics et al), simply projecting the last half-century trends, the actual numbers would be around 85 and 90, respectively. That gives them around 3 or 4 decades for anti-aging medicine to mature.

I'm 72 and get tons of aerobic and resistance exercise daily while eating right and maintaining perfect health. Come on, senolytics! Get your ass in gear!

Not making it by merely a few years wild be ironic. It would suck big one. It all depends on the rate of the progress. 2119, 2060, 2040, 2020?

For the next 5 years we have OISIN and George Church in the pipeline. How will that translate to human longevity?

"For the next 5 years we have OISIN and George Church in the pipeline. How will that translate to human longevity?"

Reason seems to think George Church is going down the wrong track. From a recent post:

"The genetic approach to aging, of using gene therapies of various sorts to adjust the operation of metabolism in late life is espoused by George Church and others. This seems to me just an incremental advance over small molecule calorie restriction mimetic or other stress response upregulation efforts."

To me it doesn't make sense at all to draw the line of doom at 40, which is the conventional beginning of middle age. In fact, it doesn't make much sense to draw it at 60, since as Antonio said a 40 year old woman in Spain is already expected to live to 90. This includes smokers, the obese, couch potatoes etc. so it's reasonable to believe that a clean living woman will reach 95. But wait, I was talking about a 60 year old, which means adding another couple of years to the total since we have already eliminated all the deaths occurring between 40 and 59.

To this intervention-less life expectancy of 97 we can add the 3 years or so (very, very conservative estimate) that will be brought on by a combination of NAD+, metformin, rapamycin, and cancer immunotherapy - just to mention stuff that exists. Plus 5 years from senolytics, if we are being conservative too, for a grand total of 105.

So now we can expect 50% of all 60 year old women in Spain to make it to 2064. Does anyone really believe that in almost half a century we will be stuck with the same therapies of today? SENS is supposed to repair the damage caused by aging, so by then we should have enough first or even second generation treatments not to slow the rate at which these centenatians keep aging, which would be pointless, but to shave off at least 20-30 years from their biological age (= statistical risk of death).

Of course the yearly risk of death of an 80 year old woman is pretty high, so without any additional breakthrough she wouldn't last much longer, and precisely, according to current mortality rates which are a gross underestimate, 11 years. Now it's 2075... at which point there will likely be a bunch of ways to avoid death in addition to cell repair, from mind uploading to reliable suspended animation, via more esoteric stuff like body transplants and robotics.

The usual objection here is that SENS may repair damage comprehensively enough only in those who aren't literally aged to death, which would disqualify our 105 year olds... IF these therapies went from being fantasy in 2063 to hitting the market all at once in 2064, which clearly won't be the case. My point is, the 105 year old women queuing for the latest rejuvenation trearment in 2064 will be biologically younger than any current 105 year old thanks to the cumulative rejuvenating effects of all the post-senolytic therapies that will gradually become available from, say, the mid 2020s onwards.

Sadly and however much life extensionists are loath to admit it, the real doom line isn't chronological age but income, since those who can afford experimental therapies and are cued in enough to know that they exist (education is in itself a marker of wealth) will be able to reduce their yearly risk of death much sooner than the frey. Which means that it's entirely plausible for the odds to LEV of a population of rich 60 (or even 70) year olds to be higher than those of a population of poor 40 year olds.

What I am getting at is that we shouldn't be talking about odds to biological immortality in terms of generations. Firstly because the thinking is flawed, and secondly because it doesn't help our cause given that the vast majority of radical life extension supporters - and those we need the help of - are already middle aged, close to it, or well above.

There's a scary little word at the end of the TLS article, one that isn't as much as whispered in our community even though it nags at the back of everybody's mind. Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will.

I have to be honest: its a little unsettling to see you say this. You're supposed to be optimistic. And yet here you are, openly saying that, yeah, the wonderful life extension medicines and rejuvenation technologies are just a bit too far away. Anyone who is "middle aged" (probably 30+ years old) was just born too early. They're doomed.

And that's the OPTIMISTIC scenario. Yikes.

One good thing that might happen due to immortality-envy is a dramatically increased interest in cryonics or other means of brain preservation.

Now I don't expect them to be successful in this endeavour, but my parents (aged 79 & 75) have just received and are about to start taking Rapamycin & Metformin, after having already been on NMN and other supplements for some time. Next up, hopefully within a year, will be first generation senolytics such as D&Q. With a bit of luck, this might buy them a few more years of health (and life), and perhaps enable them to take advantage of the next set of treatments coming down the pipeline. As for the chances of them making LEV, well, it depends on which side of the bed I got up from! But...

You can't succeed unless you try.

Nice,

So anyone who isn't child now is basically done for. Why keep the pretense of being optimistic then? Why banning me and prohibiting me from posting comments when you basically agree. Hypocritical much? Either way, you must think then that rejuvenation therapies will come in around 2050-2070 - I am dead around 2075 and I am 24 years old lol. So yes, we are going to die. Why not lobby for euthanasia then so we can freeze ourselves at age we want?

@Dokuganryu
You have pretty good chance to make it. Probably 60% chance.
I am about 20 years older, so my chances are much smaller but still quite real and at reach. As for my parents, they might benefit from senolitics.

@Cuberat

Based on what Reason wrote I pretty much doubt that I have any chance at all. 60% is too low and you can easily die in your 60 or 70's. I am not waiting till I am 80, most likely I'll die around that time because my family routinely checks out around that age. It sucks. I don't have the means to pay for cryonics nor do I live nowhere near cryonics facility.

Audrey de Gray said middle aged people have a "fair" chance to make it to LEV earlier this year within 2 decades. I believe that Ray K. and Jim Mellon were even more optimistic.

And, I can't believe that nanotechnology with nanobots and AI could not greatly accelerate knowledge to get us to LEV sooner.

I am sure (especially when solytics rejuv becomes mainstream and big bucks start pouring into rejuv) inside of 10 years the landscape will look hugely more positive and LEV within reach.

@Robert

Nanobots don't exist, you only have nanoparticles, nothing like actual bot swimming inside your body yet. That stuff is sadly far off.

One interesting factor to me is the growing pharmaceutical market in China. For a few years it seemed like it sort of stalled out. But over the last two years there has been really spectacular growth.

The Chinese state authorities had figured out that biotech advances was one of the places to allocate capital and labor to useful purpose, but for a time the political will didn't seem to be there to actually increase funding for the drugs. Which how could an industry grow without more money flowing to it. Europe had been in this place for like 20 years, where they knew the industry was a great employer and national champion corporations of the EU, discovering things of clear social benefit, but there was competing pressure of national governments trying to reduce expenditures. (especially expenditures not being spent locally, like on salaries of health care workers).

But I see signs of change in Europe, as they come out of the great recession, and some of the governments are not under as much pressure financially. And in China its not just signs of change, its blatantly obvious sales increases for the major pharmaceutical corporations.

We often talk here about the funding side of biotech, like the startups.. but we don't talk about the other side of the economic equation - the actual payments/reimbursements for approved medications. The greater the payments, in the long run the greater the capital & thus the labor that can be deployed.

A kind of surprising negative estimation from Reason here. So out of all well known figures who promote LEV the most optimistic view now is from Ray Kurzweil who said that he thinks that he personally already has reached LEV and the general public will reach it around 2030.

Reasons timeframe I think is now the most conservative one. I am turning 40 next year so I hope he is dead wrong and he was thinking too linearly when considering future developments. I'd appreciate if he elaborates his view as he clearly crushed some hopes with just two concise sentences in this post. Does he think that even with better funding and research there is no chance that older than middle age will make it? It might also be discouriging for potential future investors too because most wealthy people are very likely beyond middle age.

not a good outlook reason. I'm 32 this year and I hope you are wrong even for my parents sakes. what about what is available today (eg fisetin, rapamycyn, nmn,etc) theres plenty that can be done now to improve our odds.

A lot of disappointment in the comments today. Also a lot of what I think is false hope for senolytics. Judith Campisi has publicly stated she thought senolytics would not extend lifespan but would help healthspan.

Take great care of the body you have. Do not plan on something coming along to save you.

@Lee healthspan usually corrolates with lifespan. I thik senolytics will help get us to 100 along with nad and mtor inhibitors. and I myself think reason is being a bit too pessimistic here

Let's not forget that currently the funding is very limited for rejuvenation research. Once one class of therapy is proven to work then there will be a huge influx of money. So i am hoping for 5-7 years for the first class. Probably senolitics. They will get disproportionally large funding but other SENS approaches will get some collateral benefit of being lumped in the same bunch of research. Then in 10 more years we will start seeing other emerging therapies. And there is a positive feedback loop of funding of research that succeeds... Will that bring us to LEV ? My kids most probably. Dokuganryu (25 y.o.) chances over 50 %. People in their early 40s under 50% but probably higher than 30%. For the people over 60 the chances of reaching LEV are less than 10%, as I see it. But don't forget that for the millennia there was 0 chance of living over 120. Here we are talking about small but not negligible chance. Even 1% chance is huge compared to the status quo.

And even if we increase the healtspan and average span by 1 year. for 80-90 million people that translates to the equivalent of 1 million lives of men/years. Not the worst achievement, even if we don't make it to LEV...

I get the sense that the author, and maybe Reason himself, are "Glass half empty" kind of people. I would have written an article titled: "Consider How Awesome to be the First Generation of Immortals". Back-ups already in place as is tradition - 4 great kids.

Hopefully Reason will respond and clarify some of the comments. It seems like people's hopes get elevated and crushed very easily, which is definitely understandable. Mine personally fluctuate a bit too.

But I can't help but think that some of these comments are a tad dramatic, and that people are adding their own biases and context to what Reason wrote. In the essay Reason linked from last year(When I'm 85), what he imagines his health and the state of medicine in the mid 2050s will be like, to me, didn't seem like he thought he'd be dying any time soon around the 2050s, even as an 85 year old. He even writes:

"We will all live longer and in better health as a result, but no-one will be able to say for just how long until this all is tried."

To me, that seems to sum up the state of the field in a nutshell, as you can't predict anything that far out. But I don't know why some of the comments here are acting like this is some sort of surprise that could happen. There may in fact be a point of no return where you're too old and damaged. But then again there might not be, depending on who you talk to. But all of this is unanswerable, and open ended.

Even "LEV", if it ever is a thing, is something that we probably wouldn't realize for a very long time. Which, for what it's worth, I think worrying about LEV and trying to put percentages on who will make it and who won't is somewhat of a fools errand. There's no actual way to know that someone in their 40's has a chance that's higher than 30% but less than 50%. If you're in your 20's-40's now, and in the next 25 years or so, a couple breakthroughs come along that raise your life EXPECTANCY to 120, then that's a massive deal. And it's probably something that's not out of the realm of possibility. Sure, it's not adding an extra year to your life expectancy every year, but if you're 25 now and you can expect to live another 95 years (in mostly good health), 40 extra years seems like a win to me. It's also a ton of borrowed time that we previously never even expected or thought we could see, and it also buys you more time for improvement. Everyone should be expecting to die, it's just a matter of when. Will it be at 80, 90, 110, 120, 150 or above?

I fully expect to die, but not so much because I'm pessimistic about technology providing LEV in time (I am 48), but because it's near crazy it seems to me to believe that we have good odds individually of surviving wars and other violence that will inevitably occur in the next couple of hundred years (regardless of whether the 'mortals' and 'immortals' will come to blows). I had a brief discussion about this with Elena Milova on Facebook recently, on the anniversary of the end of WW2, in which I think 10 million Russians died. I've read that a Russian male born in the early 1920's had a less than 1 in 3 chance of surviving WW2. Elena herself said that her grandfather had an almost miracle escape from death during the war. But when I posted on her FB that a Russian male born in the 16th century, even somehow given perpetual immunity from aging and disease, would have close to zero odds of surviving the next 500 years, and therefore ending war and violence was almost as essential as ending aging, she dismissed my pessimism as silly and claimed that Russian men had more chance of dying in accidents or of vodka, than in war. Didn't convince me.

There's also the famous 'doomsday argument'. It seems to me absurdly ridiculous, that out of all the thousands and thousands of generations of humans that have ever lived, and the thousands and thousands (or millions and millions) of future generations, that we are either the last mortals or the first immortals.

@TranshumanistRunner: Today the people of Britain are taking a big step to ending WW2 once and for all by sending the Nazi heir Junker and the other EU tyrants packing. Free men tend to innovate at a higher pace than slaves, and the free men of Europe will no doubt contribute greatly to the cause of ending aging.

It' not a question of pessimism and doesn't have anything to do with whether senolytics will or will not "get us" to 100. The problem with Reason's apparent new view is that it is misaligned with everything that has always been claimed on this site.

Even with a ridiculously conservative view (less than a decade) of the gains to be head with senolytics, CR mimetics, immunotherapies etc. mathematics says that the life expectancy of a 60 year old without suicidal health habits is ALREADY over four decades. We should look at data rather than throwing out random numbers (e.g. 30% for a 40 year old, 10% for someone in their early 60s), since these are just guesses based on nothing but our current feelings.

As I explain in my previous comment, unless we throw out of the window some pretty solid and data-backed predictions, there is no good reason why people under 60 (or even above) should be "the last generation of mortals" . I would discount today's post as a glitch.

" It seems to me absurdly ridiculous, that out of all the thousands and thousands of generations of humans that have ever lived, and the thousands and thousands (or millions and millions) of future generations, that we are either the last mortals or the first immortals."

We don't know how many generations there are in the future.

This is not "absurdly ridiculous" at all. We are experiencing things for the first time as humans, regularly. Of course this is so because of the advancement of technology.

WW II casualties were immense, but it's still a very small percentage of worlds population.

Also:

"It seems to me absurdly ridiculous, that out of all the thousands and thousands of generations of humans that have ever lived, and the thousands and thousands (or millions and millions) of future generations, that we are either the last mortals or the first immortals."

By that logic it would also be absurdly ridiculous that all out of those thousands of thousands of generations we are the ones who put man to the Moon or discovered quantum physics. Science has made more progress in last 100 years than it did in thousands of years before that. Nothing "absurd" about it.

@Barbara T.

Maybe Reason is just in a depressive mood. It does seem really out of pace with what usually gets posted here.

@Barbara T.: Great points. Most sensible post by a country mile in this comments section.

A little overwrought in the comments here.

When I suggest that people presently in middle age will benefit enormously, but not make it to escape velocity, that is perfectly consistent with my post on the experience of being 85 in 40 years time: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/05/when-i-am-eighty-five/

People at 60 are likely to have greatly reduced mortality and an additional decade or two of life, but the secondary consequences of primary damage of aging are hard to deal with. Things like distorted and weakened blood vessels, for example. So far we only have senolytics for rejuvenation, and the other primary damage will keep on accumulating and producing secondary effects. I don't think that the next major advance of a similar importance to senolytics (probably cross-link breaking?) is going to arrive in clinics, or otherwise accessible, much sooner than a decade from now, given the state of the field.

We can argue about where the likely line in the sand is between being young enough to benefit from prevention from damage rather than reversal of damage, yet left with secondary and later damage that won't regenerate. I'm saying the line for actuarial escape velocity at the present time is probably somewhere between 10 and 60 years of age, which shouldn't be terribly controversial.

"When I suggest that people presently in middle age will benefit enormously, but not make it to escape velocity, that is perfectly consistent with my post on the experience of being 85 in 40 years time: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/05/when-i-am-eighty-five/ "

Read your earlier linked post. What then would be your best guess as to the average life expectancy at said age of 85 for your 85 year old 40 years from now? How close to EV would you estimate they would be at that point?

I can not escape the dreadful feeling, more accurately calculation, we are on the cusp of immortality, but I will likely be one of the last affluent mortals.

27 million Russians died in WWII, another 10-25 million more from WWI, civil war, famine and Stalin purges. I think if people realize they can live 500 hundred years maybe, just maybe they would take fewer risks like war and free solo climbing.

From my understanding of this, if you are too old you can't really be rejuvenated, because your body has decayed too far.

So it's not about how long will you live, but how long will you live with a relatively functional body.

Look at 80+ year olds, do they look like they can be returned to the normal/young state?

Ideally, we should be rejuvenated before we are like 65 or something.

@Scott Emptage
"healthspan usually corrolates with lifespan. I thik senolytics will help get us to 100 along with nad and mtor inhibitors. and I myself think reason is being a bit too pessimistic here"

I can't really agree with your statement, 100 is not increasing lifespan. The elderly I know (even older than me at 57) all have multiple health issues. Also there are multiple thousands of 100 year olds still alive and that is without senolytics or anything else. Longevity treatments need to get people past 122 1/2 (Jean Calmet) or they are technically not increasing max lifespan. That is the point Judith Campisi was making.

That being said, I would consider myself very fortunate if senolytics or anything else could get me to 100 in good health. The good health is the rare thing.

@Lee sorry I should have been more specific. I meant average lifespan to 100. and of course that's a careful estimate. and this is why addressing all those errors is the goal, people in their 70s might live long enough to get senolytic treatments and only get to 100 without making it long enough to benefit from more robust approaches. that's the point I was making

No one can know when LEV will happen. The reason I originally postulated LEV was to create a Drake like equation to numericize the effect of historical prize parameters to get an empirical set of variables so we could simulate how much time vs difficulty vs desire to solve vs money it would take to make mice live indefinitely. It worked brilliantly by the way as it created the rhetorical justification for even trying to do a Methuselah Mouse Prize...and, after 4 winners, it is patently clear (now) that mice longevity is eminently doable via at least 4 different kinds of interventions to increase Maximum lifespan (there's an addition 2 since then). Now mouse max extension is scientifically undeniable and even orthodox.

So, LEV will happen based on dependent on socio/economic stability, accelerating funding (which actually IS HAPPENing), superb entrepreneurial execution, unorthodox broken field running, keeping the right minimum ratio of "people of mission oriented good will", bringing in new/superb talents vs. people with money who just want more money etc. etc.

I think in the early stages LEV is an individual calculation - which is what Ray Kurzweil is implying. So, things like self education, financial wherewithal, geographical accessibility, social access, personal lifelong habits, willingness to work to preserve what one has health wise etc. all play into an unquenchable calculation of an INDIVIDUAL'S potential LEV.

So, I am 66. Here's my current goal: to make 66 my new 50. By this I mean, I have significant details as to what my biomarkers, strength, appearance was when I was 50. In all functional ways I am pursuing a return to those days. Shampoo - rinse - repeat.

After 1.5 years of pursuing this goal, I am now 94% of my former strength and expect that within 6 more months I'll be as strong as then. For instance, I can now do 800 pound leg presses again. I'm working to get my blood pressure back down to 50 etc. etc. THIS WILL NOT MAKE ME 50 again, but it's certainly better than not doing it LOL. What then?

Well, we started on Methuselah 20 years ago with no clear idea what to do...
Then we partnered with Aubrey, then we started the mouse prize, then we started SENS, next we discovered what killed most Supercentennarians and research started on senile amyloidosis, then we invested in Organovo, then we split and specialize in SENS.org and Methuselahfoundation.org. Started a tissue engineering prize with NASA, sponsored Organ Preservation Alliance, first investor in Oisin, first grant resulting in OncoSenX, funded Leucadia, started Methuselah Fund which coinvests with the Foundation, Incubating Volumetric Bio (on cover of Science Magazine two weeks ago), Turn Bio (mRNA cell rejuvenation), Viscient (3d human tissue "patient trials in a dish" - end point of NASH/liver disease - no cure), are seriously exploring a large investment fund...
...and...

First outside investor in Repair Athero - Reason's company. So here's what I think is happening. Reason is now a company operator and now sees just how HARD it is to do a biotech...LOL. Yea, it's all hard. It's all good. Be good to yourself and don't do anything stupid to be in a hurry to save yourself unless you have no choice ("right to try" for instance).

In about 12 - 18 months this field will start to explode with general hype and then major funding. The funding is of no use if it's used poorly. This is where folks who have educated themselves via Reason's labors of love on this blog and other sources come in. YOU are the folks who will help newcomers with funding to put in new ventures that really can REVERSE aging - not slow it down or just stop it. This is what Methuselah is about. When do I think LEV will happen? 2030...or die trying :)

Many of you reading this have been donors and investors. Thank you!

@Reason: I disagree... People who are currently 60 will turn 100 in 2059. Actuaries expect them to live to 90, to which emerging treatments like senolytics will add another decade. This means that in 2059 these 100 year olds will be biologically 90, since biological age = mortality rate at that age. This is by definition.

It doesn't matter whether our arteries are biologically 2 years younger than their chronological age and our immune system 12: the only thing we need to care about is cumulative risk of death.

But unless progress grinds to a halt, which nobody envisages given that AGE breakers are on course to becoming available in less than two decades  - followed shortly or even preceded by epigenetic reprogramming, strong cancer immunotherapy, clearance of some amyloids etc. - only the 100 year olds who refuse anything more cutting edge than senolytics will be biologically 90 in 2059. The risk of death for those who keep up with technology will be lower, making them even more amenable to the latest therapies.

On the other hand, estimating the odds that today's 60 year olds will live to see the 22nd century is impossible, since mortality rates from the 2060s onwards are anyone's guess. In fact, the only reasonable projection that can be made at this point in time is that healthy and health conscious wealthy people who are in late middle age today have a 50% chance of seeing 2060, the assumption being that treatments for which we have strong proof of concept will reduce their risk of death by just over half at any given age (a 50% reduction corresponds to about 7.5 years).

So drawing a doom line anywhere under 60 doesn't make sense. As things stand, 60 year olds have a 50/50 chance to see 2060, after which all bets are off.

I really wish we could stop throwing out random ETAs for LEV according to, as one commenter put it, which side of the bed we got up in the morning. These "estimates" are random guesses based on non-evidence. Quoting gerontology hotshots like Campisi, Church, or Kurtzweil is also meaningless. Apart from the fact that what they tell the press may be different from their beliefs, what do they know, really? They can't even predict the results of current cinical trials, let alone the state of science in half a century.

Even de Grey's famous "the first 1000 year old is probably just a few years younger than the first 150 year old" is - excuse me the dare - hogwash. Where is the evidence to back this claim? In fact, where is the logic? If we draw the doom line at 40 - or even around 50-60 which is what he does - we won't have a 150 year old until the first decade of the 22nd century. That far out, your cat's beliefs are as good as his. Problem is, Fightaging! deals in science, whereas beliefs belong in a church.

I have just crossed the lower doom line (40), so personally I am not too stressed about my outlook in the 2080s, which is when, according to cohort life expectancy plus a bonus decade from the senolytics brigade, I am expected to die. But many people here and certainly those under 60 also have a good chance - the statistic mean - to see the 2060s, a time of currently unimaginable progress.

In the meanwhile, please please please let's stop seeking reassurance that we will "make it" because none of the answers anyone can provide has any scientific validity whatsoever. Worse still, fear feeds fatalism and trolls.

All predictions about life extension and rejuvenation by definition are about something unprecedented, so the quality and accuracy will be very poor. Until now there was no real hope of generating the aging process. Yes, there were no theoretical hard limit like speed of light or sound for the aviation but no matter how much medical internation you get you still deteriorate and eventually die.

During the centuries the aging was one of the many existential concerned. Sailors were during futon scurvy, infections, accidents and wars. In fact, until 20th century it was expected that wiring an agent up to 30 percent of deaths are form non combat causes. Like infections, malnutrition, accidents, etc.. and yet if we look at the leading causes of mortality in 1990 https://demography.cpc.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/All-Cause-Mortality-and-Top-10_USA-e1402597040445.png the age related stuff is still significant, yet distant second to the infections. What is amazing that we have a real, albeit, small chance to reverse aging.

The problem is hard and complex. So were the bacterial infections before the antibiotics. And after fixing one thing we will use something else that requires fixes.

What should keep everyone up at night is cancer, which will likely to be superhard to eliminate even when all of the other stuff is completely fixed. Secondary aging damage like tissue calcification or the frayed elastin of blood vessels in the brain (probably not abundant enough to be dangerous in a normal lifespan, AFAIK) is not nearly so scary, because it might clear up (or at least become much less dangerous) on its own, after the primary damage is fixed.

Since I started reading about life extension ~2000, we have progressed from a few kooks online talking about it, to the point that there is in literally the last year or two corporations that have IPO'ed with anti-aging as a goal. For example Unity Biotechnology IPO'ed last year, and according to the latest quarterly report they are up to over 100 full time employees.

Seeing a company that has 100 full time employees working on this is a phase change, from seeing a few academic research labs doing part time research on life extension biotechnology.

When we have a bunch of funded corporations and together they have into the thousands of full time employees, including serious chemists & pharma/biotech people working on this, that is the next step.

100 people working full time can advance something faster than 10 people working full time. And 1,000 people can go that much faster.

The stage the pharmaceutical industry is already at, is each of the mega cap pharma corporations have ~10-20,000 full time employees who work on R&D.

The corporations like Pfizer, Novartis, Glaxo, Merck, Sanofi, etc.

Slightly off topic, but here are some links to my recent ideaXme shows -

Dr. Aubrey de Grey (you all know him) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z2bjVhDpBg&t=1s

Commander (ret) Dr. Luis Alvarez, Director of Organ Manufacturing, United Therapeutics; Co-Founder of GDF11 startups Elevian and Theradaptive - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uth_NY0bFBk

Dr. Matthew Roberts, Chief Scientific Officer and Senior Vice President of Innovation at Chromadex (NAD, NR, etc.) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdGAVtUlWk&t=1s

Enjoy and cheer up!

Forming companies with big investor $$ is fine

But until these companies can prove anything real clinically, we stand still

Unity is down over $600 million from it's highs (and has yet to tell the world what UBX0101 is)

Organovo just lost 40%!!! of its market value yesterday because of tissue survival questions and delayed pre-clinical work

We are not the last of the mortals until this turns up via real events!

Barbara T. said: "Even de Grey's famous "the first 1000 year old is probably just a few years younger than the first 150 year old" is - excuse me the dare - hogwash. Where is the evidence to back this claim? In fact, where is the logic?"

He wrote a paper to prove that using a mathematical model derived from some general principles, but I can't remember the title now.

This is not the article I talked about, but it's very related and uses the same method, I think:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267031/

"What should keep everyone up at night is cancer"

That's the age-related disease that less worries me. Cancer is slow, so I can take measures (i.e. cryonics). What really worries me are heart attacks, aneurisms, ... something that can kill me without warning.

Except for some very aggressive forms I think cancer will become much less intimitading within the next ten years given that the first generation of blood tests for early detection will become available in maybe 2-3 years. And on top of that we will also have more immunotherapies. Btw. for boosting your immune system against cancer spend as much time in the forest as possible. There are studies that the effect is somewhat 30% increase with 8-12hours forest bathing per month if I remember that correctly.

"What really worries me are heart attacks, aneurisms, ... something that can kill me without warning."

Isn't that something that a Craig Venter like full body MRI could detect early on? I think it costs $5000 right now. But it should become cheaper like everything with time. I was amazed when I learned that a full body MRI at a private hospital in my area is only 1000€ anymore. A couple of years ago it was 2000€. That's something I consider to do now and then when I am 40+.

Back to the original topic. Being middle aged there is no reason not to be optimistic. Provided not catching some stupid diseases on the way I think I will have further 40-45 years to live even without major intervention. There are three ways to reach 'immortality' in this timeframe with each of them has a considerable chance:

1)Biological rejuvenation through the SENS approach
2)Reaching technological singularity and transforming into posthuman age.
3)Promising advancements in Cryonics

@Antonio

>Barbara T. said: "Even de Grey's famous "the first 1000 year old is probably just a few years younger than the first 150 year old" is - excuse me the dare - hogwash. Where is the evidence to back this claim? In fact, where is the logic?"

The reasoning is pretty simple . Since the maximum lifespan is about 120 y. Getting to 150 will require a lot of amazing and profound breakthroughs. And if somebody managed to reach 150 it means the treatments are widely available and funded. The research and progress is ongoing and probably homing from 120 MLS to 150 or only slightly easier than 160 or 170. They will give more time for even more intensive research and so on.

And the registration treatments will most probably first be applied to somebody who's under 90. And you have 60 more years of improvements. Just to reach 150.

I agree that in the short term and if you're signed up for cryo, sudden death due to stuff like heart attacks and aneurysms would be worse than dying of cancer, but once the sudden death stuff is eliminated and if you want to avoid cryo (which isn't close to a guarantee of anything, anyway), cancer will be enemy number one for a long time.

@Antonio: I know that paper. It's a nice simulation that shows the theoretical feasibility of LEV and nothing else. Change one of the parameters (remember that the authors are just guessing that treatments will arrive at interval of 6 years, that they will precisely half damage, that removing one class of damage doesn't impact other types of damage etc.) and the odds of reaching x years for each cohort will change too.

This in addition to the fact that the paper says nothing about the first 1000 year old being just a few years younger than the first 150 year old. Assuming that this hypothesis is the result of the same mathematical model, the parameters would have to be such wild guesses to be entirely meaningless. Nobody has a clue of what medicine will look like in 2120, when the first 150 year old, according to de Grey's doom line of 50, will die. For all we know, people will have turned into holograms.

de Grey's long term estimates for immortality or survival to 120+ for those who aren't already very aged are not to be taken literally, since all they do is illustrating a theoretical possibility.

Any estimated survival percentage for the decades after 2060 is a totally random guess, whether it comes from the mouth of the world's top gerontologist, the owner of this blog, or the dude who sold you a coffee this morning. End of.

@Barbara T:

"This in addition to the fact that the paper says nothing about the first 1000 year old being just a few years younger than the first 150 year old."

As I said, I can't find that paper at the moment, but I think the model used was te same. Also, that result is somewhat implicit in Figure 5 of this paper.

Did you obtain very different results changing the parameters?

Hi Reason! Just a 2 cents.

I understand what you mean, and it is not pessimism but, rather, realism; a good dose of it.
There can be optimism in that realism, just dosed.

I am super happy for your blog and thankful for it; I am a visitor so I respect your opinions, are Your blog (yes, open on the internet),
and I am coming to it. If I did not like the opinions I could (also not just debate them) but go elsewhere (to another blog who agrees with my views).

It's important to make a blog and tell, honestly, what You want to say; not what others want to hear.

I think we need to be more respectful of Both negative and positive opinions of this subject of aging. The knee-jerk response of 'jerk' because
you don't have same opinon, no good.

Some people are just not seeing the 'light at the end of the tunnel', we better chances of reaching a 100 years old now if we keep healthy (in our younger years before),
but nothing is certain;

there are still tons of people dying prematurely or even More than before; because new diseases, new problems (of the 21th century), new realities;
and, likely, new ones too then (in 2100s)..

one of the biggest is access, rich privilege, people with financial resourcse can get teh stuff; poorer people can't. It will remain a large
factor, most likely, by then too. Because, I think (just my 2 cents), that poverty will not be cured in a 100 years; it will always exist like it
has existed for 1000s years; just because 'certain models' work, certain other ones don't, depending on the country (democratism, capitalism, monarchism, ...etc...and then in the 2100 - automatism/robomatism).
Finding ways to recycle resources, 'make them in the lab' 'free'...make resources 'free'...because nothing is free now.

Also the pessimism is understandable, we have to remember that Big Pharma has spent Trillions of dollars to fight diseases and still nowhere near curing them all.
There are so many diseases, so many problems, it's hard; very hard.

Aging (death/of aging) - even harder.

But, at least, we are closing on it.

This is just my 2 cents, I think in 2100s it will be similar to now..but, still substantially, different. Not THAT different though.
Most likely, no, we won'T be on Mars or pigs will fly, cars will fly...etc...

But, maybe, the rejuvenation element will have progress Significantly to where we Definitely do Reverse Aging - mostly in a petri dish still.

We Covered Damages, we covered senescence, we covered eroding telomeric DNA, we covered stem cell niche depletion, we covered chromosome decompaction, we covered mutations, we covered cell lackings, we covered cell detritus, we covered diseases, we covered clocks, we covered redox loss, we covered immunity loss, we covered transciptome drifting, we covered the whol mulla.

So, we kind of got all bases covered. By then, I think we will see longevity happening; will that translate into LEV...not so sure about that.

LEV requires an immense amount of therapies to make (maybe a single therapy will make it but I am not sure). It will be costly if underaffordable to many less off.

Later, it will become more affordable; I say, Later = Time...time is amiss, you age during that time waiting for it to be trial-clinic safety-approved and massmarketed 'to be affordable and available' where you live.

Time is greatest resource (more than money), because it is the one that limits us when we end.

Just a 2 cents.

PS: I think the current best thing is epigenetic reversal; the rest, such as damage reduction, needs to be VERY dramatic to make longevity escape and it must happen in a young age (not at old age).
Old age would benefit of cell identity age reversal more, for they erase the clock..and then you finish removing/repairing the damages and restore the body to that of 20-30. Restoring the body just 5 years biologically will not stop much the process; your changes of dying accrue with age; and if you stay 'biologically to 80' well you have an 80 years old chance of dying (much higher than reverting to 20y old body).
Thus, Biorejuvenation is all about reverting to a young body and keeping it that way, for as long as possible; and then rinse, repeat (like reprogramming); much later in life.

@David Permisov: Forming companies with big investor $$ is fine

But until these companies can prove anything real clinically, we stand still.. (continued)

Posted by: David Permisov at May 24th, 2019 6:01 AM

My investment in Unity is getting beat up, but I am holding and waiting for all the weak hands to be shaken out. /joke In seriousness I believe in the corporation and am willing to ride it $0 if necessary. The next thing we'll see is phase I clinical trial results - which I am not even optimistic about.

You are right that life extension medicine in general is still speculative but it is a colossal step forward seeing a corporation with 100 full time employees, including serious pharma/biotech people working on this. I don't know much about Organovo.

heart attacks and aneruisms are the most scary of them all for me. it could happen anytime, there is nothing more terrifying than that, in fact my hands are shaking with fear as I write this

@Ira S Pastor:

Finally I could listen to the interviews. Very interesting!

THE LAST IMMORTAL 5

@Antonio: you can reach diametrically opposite conclusions just with p hacking. A mathematical model is a representation of reality under a precise set of circumstances, and if these circumstances change, so does your reality - or the curves in the figure.

The problem with extrapolating from de Grey's model is that its parameters are assumptions which are, for obvious and understandable reasons, not based in any evidence. David Gobel's point about LEV being relative is that it varies according to the data we use to populate the formulas in the model.

Some of this data is unique to the individual (age, health, wealth, knowledge, networks) while other factors (intervals between discoveries, treatment penetration) depend on science. To all the possible permutations between these known variables you must add the disrupting impact of unpredictable negative events such as the discovery of new determinants of aging (see the 9 hallmarks), as well as unpredictable positive events (see how senolytics have a mitigating effect on other classes of damage - or at least on the effects that these other classes of damage cause.)

Slot in the "right" data and a population of 70 year olds who live in a model (=world) where: 1. mitoSENS receives billions in funding, and 2. fixing mitochondria turns out to have a huge systemic effect, may have a higher chance of reaching LEV than a population of 20 year olds who live in a model where: 1. There's a strong political backlash that dries up funding, and 2. It turns out that a couple of damage classes are unfixable, or they are fixed but don't solve the problem (see amyloids.)

And in a model where each class of damage is reduced by more than 50% or at intervals shorter than 6 years, even the older cohorts will have non-negligible odds of reaching negligible senescence. So if we increase the efficacy (=amount of damage they fix) of all first generation treatments from 50% to 75%, the odds to LEV of an 80 year old will go from near 0 to just under 10%.

This because according to the Gompertz law of mortality, risk of dying doubles every 8 years, which means that by increasing the efficiency of de Grey's treatment parameter by 50% we return an 80 year old to the state of a 64 year old. If we follow on the paper's assumption that the probability of reaching LEV for a 70 year old that is rejuvenated according to de Grey's treatment parameter (50% efficacy as opposed to our 75%, which means that his 70 year becomes biologically 62) is 10%, we can then see why the odds to LEV for an 80 year old rejuvenated according to our parameter and thus biologically 64 would be close to that figure. In fact, if subsequent treatments are more effective than de Grey's parameter(s) - they change - the odds for our 80 year old will be even higher.

Point is, no one knows what the efficacy of these treatments will be, nor at what intervals they will become available. There are so many variables that we just don't know whether reality will turn out to be model 1, model 2, model 3, or model n.

De Grey's simulation is just one of many possible ones, as he himself says: "Our simulation has many parameters, and that fact would in some circumstances be a basis for criticism-the more parameters one includes, the easier it is to find values that give a good fit to one's data."

The gist of it all is that we should stop hanging from scientists' every word with regards to "odds that one will make it" since even the most genius of them hasn't got a crystal ball - and thus a clue. As for the rest of us, we can justify our "estimates" all we like, but this doesn't change the fact that they are based on nothing else but fickle feelings: our predictions for LEV are gloomy if we read about a failed clinical trial and rosy when we come across an optimistic article. But feelings aren't facts.

@Barbara T: Your crystal ball point sums all this up perfectly. People on here can write 15 paragraphs and say nothing as they quite honestly don't have a clue. It's all a matter of waiting and seeing and trial and error. Even the geniuses out there like Aubrey and Ray Kurzweil can't agree on anything.

@Barbara T: You didn't answer my question.

@ Antonio: ??? Yes, by changing the parameters you get very different results, e.g. 80 year olds with a fighting chance to immortality (as explained in my answer) and, conversely, doomed twenty-somethings.

By the same token, the first 1000 year old could be only a few years younger than the first person to reach 150, or the first person to reach 130, or the first person to reach 279. Or maybe the first person to reach 150 will be the first person to reach 5000 through any of the many anti-death strategies not contemplated by de Grey's model.

As he says himself: "Our main finding in this study is that the concept of a longevity escape velocity [...] is a quantitatively realistic scenario." That's all. He isn't PREDICTING anything but just using dummy data to prove his point.

Nobody knows if treatments will arrive at precise 6 year intervals, all at once, or randomly staggered over a century. Or if they will clear 5 or 95% of the damage. Change just a couple of his assumptions and you'll get drastically different odds to LEV.

So how much differ the results you obtained?

@CANonymity 'This is just my 2 cents, I think in 2100s it will be similar to now..but, still substantially, different. Not THAT different though.'

I think that's very pessimistic given that 2100 is 80 years away. that's a long long time for something not to happen

its along road and we may get there in 20 years or we may get there in 100 years or never at all, however saying it wont happen or it will happen is pointless. best to focus on the here and now and get the basic research done and see where we are in a couple of decades from now.

@aa3

Organovo - An example of how the excessive hype in the space kills off not just excitement, but also wealth

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4266202-organovo-holdings-inc-onvo-ceo-taylor-crouch-q4-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript

Hi Scott! Just a 2 cents. Thanks for that. I know said like that, it sounds very pessimistic; but I meant in the sense...like, if you look back to say 1940s, you realize that though things are different today; at the bottom of it, not that much. People are still using cars (ok back then cars where becoming a thing), no one 'left' for the moon (ok later in 1960s there was spatial flight to moon; took a while...); in 80 years, maybe we will be on the moon or mars; but, likely, not. As said, in 1940s or before, they thought we would have 'flying cars', 'tall cities' and whatnot...in the years 2000s...that never happened.
That goes to show we have 'idées of grandeur' about the future; but, generally (much later), it's far more quaint than the original dreamy glamorous vision predicted. In fact, it's Notthing like the vision predicted; it's far more Less than the vision. Thus, far more Identical to how it was back then too, beccause things don't change That drastically.

If people become eternal life in the year 2100, of course, that will be the Biggest Change Ever and we all hope it. When I look at the year 1919...a 100 years before...I see the large difference to today; but, respectfully, I also see Ressemblance. There were 'Stores' back then..groceries...ok it was horse carts...and electricity was not super spread yet, still I see 'roads'...soon, cars, on them...

all the 'balbutiements' (the startings/birth) of something - today, just more of the same.

That's why when I read stuff like..in 2100: ''Obviously, it's Robots...it's Terminator Judgement Day...AI Will Rule us, and we slaves to our own creation...and we will be eternal...earth will be abandonned; there will be 3 new World Wards, including one for the Quest for Imm*rtality...who gets, who doesn'T....we will live in the abyssess and make everything free, no more capitalism, money is dead resource, languages are gone - English is finished, now it's mandarin; DNA will be our hard drives as we become Robocops and cyborgs full of nanobots'', etc.

Utopia, most likely; because, ethics, we won't let that happen and so, things will remain/similarity to today. There could be a Breakout Invention - like airplanes, or, TV, or teleportation, or, telekinesis/telepathic AI human-robot some other thing; the most break-out invention thing - ever - in humanity will be the finding of eternal life as now feasable, in LEV.

@Antonio: read my post!!! I obviously can't run the whole simulation because I don't have the dataset, but my example of 80 year olds going from 0 odds of reaching LEV to 10% odds of reaching LEV with an increase in treatment efficacy of 50% - and without changing anything else - answers your question. Reduce intervals and that 10% will go up. Increase them and it will go down. You can get as many results as you have parameters.

@Antonio: by the way, why do I feel that you are trolling me? If you are that curious about all the different results that you can get, just ask someone with STATA to set up a simulation for you (it isn't really a question of dataset but of time) and then play with the data. My first answer explained the principle clearly through a sample calculation and I am pretty sure that you got it.

@CANanonymity

Being immortal in decades will still resemble here and now as per your justification. We will still be human walking around, travelling around, eating food as usual etc, a matter of resemblance. No one is expecting walking cyborgs, with pokemons jumping around etc

There won't be much difference as per now, only thing is aging is cured. So whats the deal?

Pharmaceuticals in general is unpredictable. No one could say with any certainty during the 80's that AIDS would become a treatable disease. What someone in the 80's could reasonably say is that with the large numbers of smart people that were funded through corporations, governments & philanthropy to research the disease, that the odds of discoveries being made were rising with the level of effort being put into it.

Hi Jason ! Thanks for that. Just a 2 cents.

I meant in the sense that, as you said, it will be similar to today in those things. And, as you said, no one is expecting for cyborgs, robots..etc...

There won't be much difference...

No one is expecting...

Expectations / hopes...you hope that aging will be cured. We expect that not much will change;
if not much will change, than that keep expectations low = maybe no LEV/no aging is cured yet.

We want to keep hopes high/expectations high; to be positive/optismistic about it all; it does like it's 'Shaping Up' for the better and we get 'real chance' of getting this LEV; but don't fool/lul yourself; you could be deceived later when that is not a reality; neither by then.

'only thing is aging is cured'...I would say the same thing; but it's not 'only thing'. It's The Whole thing, the sole thing, the biggest and hardest thing, that matters. Hence, it's why it may Still not be cured yet; by then.

Miracle don't happen oftenly; curing aging is one of those. But it's becoming much more a feasilbe reality than a fantasy. I hope (and have certain mild-dose expectations) of it happening, and we still alive by then. 80 years is a long time for things to happen - yet, you could wait this long and, indeed, it has not shown up neither (too late). But, for the sake of being optimistic, it is better 'to stay optimistic' about it; I nuance with, being realistic of 'our chances' of LEV concretized by then.

Never has aging been cured ever; never has death (from aging) been cured ever...it's why the specticism is understandable; with that said - we Show It in Lab; that curing aging IS feasible - just must align all the elements and Make It work in a Human (easier said than done, we have 80 years, so the chances are better and better as time goes (we must just hold on/not die in that time...I know it sounds dumb to say 'don't die'...but..do CR (calorie restiction), use supplements/anti-oxidatnts, exercice, ditch the junk...stress free...etc; it's the only thing we got for now till then).

When I say stuff like imm*rtality to people around/family/strangers..it's almost like I am alien telling this...almost laughing at my face...so I guess I laugh with them..but deep down it's not laughing matter (death). It's just, in the past, there was many 'IMM*RTALITY- WE FOUND IT - TAKE RESVERATROL'...sensational papers...that turned out untrue. This fostered more skepticism and ridicule.

But, like you, it is better to hold a 'what's the problem, no worries, we will fix the stuff, and make it happen' attitude because it is more hopeful and optimistic than continously pessimistically think we are near 100% doomed. With that said, let's just be realistic about it all and not go into delusion; there is still a chance of things 'not happening' as planend (as in No LEV...by then).

Just a 2 cents.

CANanonymity, it reminds me around 2005 I was telling everyone about self driving cars and the beneficial things for society that they could do. Like helping seeing impaired people to have mobility.

Anyway most people thought I was an alien too, the idea that a computer could drive a car just seemed absurd to them. I said, but even if the computation power requires 100 or 1,000 times what we had in 2005, that it will come sooner than you think, (I had read Kurzweil's book 'The Age of Spiritual Machines').

Today people think we are going to all have self-driving cars within the next couple of years. Now I am actually the more cautious one, saying its going to take some time. My prediction back in 2005 was that ~2035 we will have self-driving cars.

Hi aa3! THanks for that. Just a 2 cents.

That s*cks....at least you 'sent out the word' and it's better than nothing. You made a contribution that way. People have tocome 'to face' with these new realities at one point or another. It's just the human nature again - doubting. Ever doubting. Everything.

A fearful creature human is; but it's also to our advantage; fear/(too much)doubt can help us overcome our fears and - doubts. When we act on them. Doubt is a sign of intelligence. For some others, it's more a sign of ingrained pessimism/negativism. But someone ultra-negative can be extremely intelligent, nonetheless. And someone 100% gullibly agreeing everything, not so. It's the opinions, personal life experiences, facts, attitude ('got an attitude problem') and wits mixture why someone would be doubtful.

Technically, self-driving cars, are already here; though not mass-marketed; just in 'proto-typing' phase; but, yes, by 2035 we should see something like self-driving cars...

What may slow that down is the 'petrole' companies who hold patents on 'Electric cars'...and want to keep making polluting-fossil fuel (gazoline) motor cars...still. When they should be terminated ebcause of the great pollution they cause. Electric cars/hybrids are a bit on the road but still too expensive than galozine cars; in 10-15 years, price will start to be more affordable and the types of electric cars will improve (here there were 'electric stations' that were added on the road..it's funny.. like a 'gaz pump' but it's an 'electric plug'...instead for your Toyota Prius Electric/hybrid car..
also they electric casr are still weak in performance (vs gaz engine) and low mileage; you can make max 250 or so kms; not 500 miles...the gas tanks of gas cars last longer; the battery needs charging too quickly; and in winter the battery discharges too quickly (just like your battery in your regular gazoline car). The different is these are special batteries (lithium ion I think) and there are some that have 'hydrogen' batteries also (dangerous/explosive)l; though not different than gasoline (highly explosive).

Recently, Budweiser 18-wheeler trucks were driven from one state to another to deliver beer cargo....with no one at the wheel; it was a success. The truck went merry along over hundreds of miles...and delivered the merchandise - No Accidents happened; the big truck was remotely AI controlled.
['Ghost in the Shell' truck].

So we are already there. What needs to improve is safety of the AI, AI learns like a baby...it must learn more and more the 'road signs'/road traffic signalization/laws...to make sure it behaves accordingly; and, also, understands 'surprise situations' like someone jumping in fron the truck surprise - the AI reacted correctly and calculated - stopping - in a fraction of a sec. Because, it was always 'human (driving) errors'..in the past..not anymore it will be ''AI errors/glitches/bugs''...so must fix that and because 'someone' is 'controlling' that AI - the AI controls itself; but someone made 'that AI' (its inputs); and then AI 'programms itself' as it learns like a child (neural AI). The most significant advanced of the later 21st centure - is AI. (autobots/robotisation/artificial intelligence is the future; but more 'quaint' than we think; not, necessarily, Terminator Judgement Day/Robocop apocalyptic scenario). What I fear one day is a AI-controlled truck or car...kills someone by error (digital bug error); there is no 'wanting' or anything; it was glitch...and soomeone at the wrong place wrong time. The AI does not know..so it thinks everything's ok (just like a child learning and not knowing yet). Most likely, the AI company will be blamed. That's the ethics of AI/autobotization later; ethics will curb down too much robot/AI control of our lives.
And, because AI is So Big, it will allow us to find a cure for aging; AI can learn to make new ways of finding/solving aging/death...it could Very Be Possible, that it is A Computer AI that solves Aging/death.

Just a 2 cents.

Technically speaking we already have self driving cars. The problem with them is like de Sartre , the others, or the non self driving vehicles. If we had the standards of safety of 1900, then there would be no problem to a adopt them. And there where some proof of concept event in the really 90s. The problem with the CDC is that all of the systems have to work in other to replace humans, and even if only one subsystem is worse than humans the whole thing is worse. While, with anti aging and life extension you can apply even the smallest improvement and have an immediate benefit. In fact, looking at how much money was spent on self driving cars, if the same amount was channeled for SENS it would be probably as close and as widely talked. At least I can personally experiment with fisetin and ds+qc without endangering random strangers in the highway

Aubrey said LEV in 17/18 years.

@RS
I got the impression it is 50% chance and for the people at the leading edge. And of course you have to be in good enough condition to benefit. Still compared to the status quo it is a lot

As a funny note I wouldn't be surprised if Aubrey stays with his new 18 year estimation for further five years. :)

Why panic lol, Reason meant for the general population, they are 10-20 years behind us here.

Many are already experimenting with D+Q and fisetin and who knows when will it available in clinics let alone adopted by the majority (probably 10-20 years after us).

I don't know why everyone should expect to die, I see no reason

The Transhumanist Runner: it does seem like a contradiction, really bizarre in a way. What's the point in all of this talk then if pretty much everyone is screwed

Barbara T: "Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will."

I'm sceptical of how universal anything is nevertheless in this case I don't think it would be an issue of sabotage as people near death wouldn't be able to do much. On the other side there could be a great deal of sadness

Dokuganryu at least stop with the idea of pushing CR and stuff like that