Most Children Born this Century Will Live to be Centenarians if Present Trends in Longevity Continue
Present trends in human life expectancy were established in an era in which little to nothing was being done to target the mechanisms of aging. As of fairly recently, this is changing. There is now a growing contingent of researchers, entrepreneurs, and clinicians attempting to treat aging as a medical condition. This introduces a shift from (a) trying - and largely failing - to address the symptoms of aging, to (b) trying to control the causes of aging. This will inevitably produce far greater gains in life expectancy than those achieved in the past, but the size and timing of those gains will be hard to predict.
This is worth thinking on, when reading papers such as the one I'll point out today, in which the authors project past trends into the future. Those past trends, a slow increase in life expectancy at birth, as well as remaining adult life expectancy at every age, year after year, will almost certainly not continue as-is. It will rather leap upward as the first rejuvenation therapies worthy of the name are widely deployed. But when and by how much will the numbers change?
It seems a fool's game to try to predict that outcome with any accuracy, but a great many of the world's institutions have come to depend upon good predictions of future life expectancy, perhaps lulled by the consistency of the trend to date. Consider the massive providers of life insurance, pensions, entitlement programs, and so forth, all of which calibrate their operations to a given level of mortality and survival in later life. There will thus be some upheaval attendant to the grand success of adding a few decades to the healthy human life span in the years ahead. A changing environment tends to shake out the dead wood from the competitive economic landscape. But at the end of the day, longer healthy life spans are always an economic good. More people will be productive for longer, with lower medical costs.
Demographic perspectives on the rise of longevity
This article reviews some key strands of demographic research on past trends in human longevity and explores possible future trends in life expectancy at birth. Demographic data on age-specific mortality are used to estimate life expectancy, and validated data on exceptional life spans are used to study the maximum length of life. In the countries doing best each year, life expectancy started to increase around 1840 at a pace of almost 2.5 years per decade. This trend has continued until the present. Contrary to classical evolutionary theories of senescence and contrary to the predictions of many experts, the frontier of survival is advancing to higher ages. Furthermore, individual life spans are becoming more equal, reducing inequalities, with octogenarians and nonagenarians accounting for most deaths in countries with the highest life expectancy.
If the current pace of progress in life expectancy continues, most children born this millennium will celebrate their 100th birthday. Considerable uncertainty, however, clouds forecasts: Life expectancy and maximum life span might increase very little if at all, or longevity might rise much faster than in the past. Substantial progress has been made over the past three decades in deepening understanding of how long humans have lived and how long they might live. The social, economic, health, cultural, and political consequences of further increases in longevity are so significant that the development of more powerful methods of forecasting is a priority.
Soon people will not die of medical causes before age 100. If they die its because of accidents. We should work to eliminate accidents. Im from Norway and its one of the safest countries in world still there are room for improvements. Longevity and safety are going to be the largest industries. I know people are willing to pay for safety.
@thomas.a We have a long way to go before chronic diseases of aging cause fewer than severalfold more deaths than accidents. Accidents are not yet worth prioritizing relative to progress on aging and won't be based on lives to save or DALYs/QALYs. People in the EA community have done these calculations I suspect.
What's more, one of the largest categories of accidental death is road accidents, but these will likely fall dramatically anyway as autonomous driving becomes mainstream in the next decade or two.
Hi there! Just a 2 cents.
''If the current pace of progress in life expectancy continues, most children born this millennium will celebrate their 100th birthday.''
I think this is still a bit too optimistic, many children will celebrate their 100th birthday in the year 2100 or up (for those recent born teen and children in the year 2000 and above; that would be 21 years old or under now); but many will still not celebrate it and reach it. Reaching 100 years old is still in the low percentage of people; life expentancy is 80-85 or so; still not even 90 years old (although I think Japan is close to that) 87 years old expentancty. In some countries, it's still 60-70 years old expentancy; the study is talking about 1st world countries not 3rd world countries. Economics/finance/poverty is the reason why - it creates famine/hunger when food is priced/per gram and people have no money for said food or for paying rent/logistics/a place to feel safe to live in, expentancy is lower there; and constant wars/short life due to constant exposure to (war) danger (you can be killed just walking out of your hourse by gun/bomb fire). As such, life is cut-short due to danger exposure/danger odds/unsafe environment. It's not very long that the life expentancy in modern richer countries will reach 90-95 or so.
But, 'beating/reaching' that 100, is still hard and many people die in their 90s- of those that reach the 90; those that reach The End of 90..to 99 - and then the big 100. Are smaller by 'the extra year'; because there is acceleration of loss of people as you enter the 95-99 final bracket before hitting 100. I would wager out of 10 nonagerians (people in their 90s), there will 6-8 or so that will die Before 100. 3 on average, will reach 100. The 7 others won't and will die at 99 or before.
Each extra year is 'hard(er)-then hard' when you Nearly-reach 100, in the 90s decade.
It's why many people that become centenarian - reaching 100 - rarely live more than 10-15 years More after reaching 100. Many die at 101, 102, 103...105...some tough it to 109; but more rare reach the 'Supercentanarian Club' - the 110+; that is the 11th decade; most do not go over the 10th decade. In the 10th decade, there is large loss; so that centenarians reaching 110 are now the 'near-exception' to the rule. If they continue to 115 - they are now even more Exception to the rule. 115-120, and 122 (Max) are the exception final. Many supercentanarians of the ones that actually reached 115 or 120; die exactly at that bracket: 115-120. 99.99999999% of them.
That 122 person is the 0.000000001% (1 - out of 7 billion people on earth).
If you live in war-ridden/poverty-ridden country, your chances of attaining supercentenarian age are quite smaller; genetics is the largest component of why there would be a supercentenarian existing in a place of constant war/poverty/hunger; the environment shapes the longevity (acts on genes; but the clocks are rigged at birth; family genetics is largest component why a person could reach 100; if your (great)grand-parents reached 100; it's a good sign...but you need everything else with that; the environment must not 'change' your genetic makeup because it will affect it and affect your health; which could mean a shorter life due to health degradation premature; but if you live in a place of wealth/food/resources...you do exercise, you work your mind, you keep your health...then you could repeat your family's longevity genes you received and thus become centenarian; but the environment is important to 'shape' that possibility; you could reach 'by random luck' 100 living in war-torn country...but generally that's rare; it's only if you shelter from that; same thing with mice...grown in lab (resources aplenty/ad libitum/in peace) live much longer than mice living in the wild (facing predation/face competition for resources)).
''Considerable uncertainty, however, clouds forecasts: Life expectancy and maximum life span might increase very little if at all, or longevity might rise much faster than in the past.''
There/this. It is reassuring to here this, (I mean..not 'reassuring', who wants to hear that life will be short)..I mean, in the sense, the person is 'making sense'...thus not spouting bs...there is substantial element of ambiguity about maximum lifespan that would increase; 'life expectancy' will increase a bit...to roughly 95-105; 100 or so; but 'avg' will still be around 80-85 (if tallying all countries), because poorer countries will have (finally) reached 80-85 years old life expectancy. Without access to the medical advancements/services/hospital/health cares....then it won't increase all that much. Centenarians/Supercentenarians have a compression of morbidity, where they stay healthy enough' even in their 100s+ years old. But soon they face replicative senescence (too short telomeres at 110+) in their cells that have reached hayflick, while the epigenome is emptied.
Maximum lifespan above 122 years old is the big '?'....left. Anything right now will not make it happen; only if we combine everything there is (from epigenetic reprogramming to removal of residies, we might/could make that happen). Therapies that need to end 'researching on'/be done with, are calorie restriction/mimetic, metformin, rapamycin, exercise, sirtuin, antioxidants (fruits/veggies/herbs/synthetic), and other 'small molecule protector/destroyer thingy'...all of them in the basket of 'done with'/time to empty this basket into the nethers. None of them will make you live Beyond 122 max 'as statistic' in the the Maximum Life Expectancy of humans. The only way for an old person to live above 122 is to 'become young', and that is loss of cell signature (epireprogramming) to reverse the clock and then you still have the cell cycling telomere/hayflick prob. Otherwise, there is not much way the person can live beyond 122 (organ/cell/stem cell replacement is still iffy and we don't know if it will Really work).
For people to reach above 122, you must be 'young' epigenetically by 'epiclock' and by telomere 'mitotic' clock. If any of the two are 'old' because you are older (biologically/physically), then no, won,t reach above 122. To reach 122 there must be a 'discrepancy' between
Chronological Age and Biological Age. Where in the former is higher compared to the latter.
If you are 29 biologically but lived 50 years chronologically (in real-life years/time), then you have a chance of reaching 122. Because when you Are 122 years old - you Not 122 Chronologically; you are Actually, about 80-90 Biologically, and lived 122 years Chronologically.
Epigenetic research said that centenarians and their offsprings where 8 years on average younger then their chronological life; thus a 100 year old (chrono) is about 92 biologically.
To me rejuvenation that you end up dying later (when repeating on and on, still...) is not.
Rejuvenation is about re-juvenating, juvenation/juvenating comes from the word 'juvenil' which means 'child'. This, we have (re)become 'children//teens/young adult' biologically, this way we thus post-pone death; we could repeat this (loop) indefinitely to post-pone it infinitely too.
I don't remember but the odds of a Young person to die 'suddenly' are several times less than a person at 99 years old; thus, to make humans live above 122, is mandatory (and impossive without) to reverse our biological age and defeating aging/death (of aging process).
Just a 2 cents.
PS: I learned that oxygenation 'kills us'...I mean we knew about ROS (reactive oxygen species) from oxygen leaking free radicals in mitos causing oxidative stress/dna damage from ROS...but it's not the ROS the real problem from oxygen; its Oxygen Itself. Oxygen is a Natural Ager and a natural 'advancer' of the epigenetic clock.
Aniamals that are exposed to oxygen have an advancement of clock; Even when ROS (from O2 catabolism/anabolism/metabolistic burning of it) are Quenched. This demonstrates that O2 itself is a signal to 'age', as 'substance itself' - the clock recognizes it and uses it a 'counting mechanism' substance by minute exposure...when animals are put in hypoxia/anoxia, they have a Slowdown of epigenetic clock; whether ROS or not (well at least when talking about the Intrinsic clock; the extrinsic clock could be avanced when ROS is produced from O2; but Intrinsic clock advances When Exposed to O2..without or without (any) ROS made from this O2).
This reaches people living in heights/huge mountains/himalayas, they age slower (shown in blood, their blood acquires a new composition where their hemoglobin is capable of delivering enough oxygen despite the lack of O2 in altitude; their cells mitochondria OXPHOS (by O2 OXPHOS) changes, where ATP cell energy is produced in lower amount yet cells are viable even so)), same thing with divers..people that go in deep dive...or animals (mostly aquatic ones, like clams and sharks...all living in water...low O2 environment); these low oxygen environments slow down aging - by having less O2 (not so muhc less ROS..but less O2 itself, as the causing substance of aging). The body's blood O2 levels are acutally Lower than the exterior ambient O2; at sea level the air is about 20% O2..while Inside the body, there is a O2 balance/pressure at
3-5% O2; so Already our body have lower O2 exposure levels; it is a reason why we live 100 years. Clams 'burrown' themselves in the sea mudbed...and go into 'hibernation/hypoxia'..in the water; so they lower O2 exposure Even more...Naked Mole Rats - they live 35 years 'in hypoxia' and in a 'burrow' sub-terannean environment, in the ground - exposed to low O2 levels.
It's not a surprise, cancers Strive in Low O2 environment; cancers as infinite replication potential need No O2, because O2 'ages' the cancer...in fact, O2 - when combined with Heavy ROS - from O2 - Kills Cancer cells. It's what the immune cells do, they produce ROS (using O2) to kill cancer cells. Just to think of it..'just breathing' ages you.
@CANonymity: Fetuses in the womb live in O2 supply 60%. Normal is 95-99%. It dont cause brain damage. Theres also a heart surgery that is called Fontan surgery that are performed in children. O2 levels can then go down to 60%. Those children survive but can only walk a few steps before they need to rest. They have dark blue lips (cyanosis).
@CANonymity: After my grandfather died in a chainsaw accident where he cut his leg and got a cloth in heart I've been obsessed with prevention of accident and want to start a blog about it in same way as FA! In the US there's 100.000 forklift accidents annually. See this site and worst accident ever:
https://supplychaingamechanger.com/worst-forklift-accident-ever-and-forklift-safety-video/
Hi Thomas! Thank you for that. Just a 2 cents.
Ischemia, hypoxia or worse anoxia can cause reduction of ATP energy in cells (due to declining O2 for its creation by the mitochondrias), it's true that too low O2 levels and cyanosis can happen (I know, lived this, atherosclerosis causes ischemia and cyanosis when arteries are blocked of blood flow, the O2 levels then drop), for example, I had ischemia and it caused necrosis/cyanosis and varice/varicose formation. 100% O2 'hyperbaric therapy' causes paradoxal hypoxia inside, 100% hyperoxia causes very high ROS production damage - if ROS is not quenched; with that said high O2-ROS is enzymatically/non-enzymatically quenched via redox/antioxidation systems. So, children that would have very high O2 exposure will be protected by these brand-new systems. Children have accelerated epi and mitotic aging (that has been shown), in fact in the telomere shortening rate is quite higher; thus you lose much telomere at that early state; it will continue until puberty/once reaching sexual maturity (because sexual capability/reproduction is the 'purpose' of specie survival/once purpose 'done', the body then 'diverts' sexual resources towards 'somatic self-maintenance'/longevity (called 'grand-parenting/grand-mothering theory, whereby grand-ma gave humanity her longevity genes, and so people live long, thanks to her - for, she, lived long in 1st place)...and aging plateaus after 20s and slows down - the 20 to 80 years 'chunk' is the 'slowed aging' lane chunk of life. It is why we can live to 90, if aging did not slow down after 20s years old,we would never reach 100 years old; we would reach 25-30 years old no more.
'Fast aging/fast metabolism' = before 20s.
'Slowed aging/slowed metabolism' = after 20s.
I am not saying that we must stop breathing, our organs need Oxygen to make their cells' ATP energy currency....only I am saying is that oxygen itself is a 2-faced/double-edge (like most anything int he body/biology) substance - you need it to produce energy; yet, it produces ROS and Itself, it is an 'ager'/'enabler' of aging because the clock in our cells advances when it is exposed to O2 - 1% or 100%, it will advance; 100% O2 will not help it at all.
Children that would be improved by 'oxygenation therapy', like hyperbaric therapy...would gain energy by more cell ATP being made - for, there would be more O2 available...
But, in reality, it's more dual-nature than that... Oxygen is needed for organ function and cell function; but Oxygen itself Participates and Advances the epigenetic clock; Itself.
If you oxygenate your cells you give them a 'boost' to produce ATP cell energy...so how would this be ever bad right? It would because, you know - on the Other Side - there is Catch22; which is, that Oxygen itself - at the same time - that it creates energy for your cells/for your organs, to maintain function and maintain health .. It Also contributes to the advancement of the clock's ticking/time tabs; so thus double-nature/2-faced/double-wham. Double-edge sword.
We need oxygen to live/for organ function...yet...oxygen weathers/'rusts' us in the Same Stroke (by advancing our 'maturing program' process of aging and with excess ROS at mitos (though ROS 'oxidation/rust' is not causal to aging, it is causal to 'premature health degradation'; O2 exposure (ROS or not, oxidation/damage or not) is causal to clock change; the clock recognizes it and the more of it, the more it advances/an Advanced clock = More Aged/Older = Closer to Death 'of age/aging').
Just a 2 cents.
PS: I can definitely sympathize and empathize, I felt the same way when my mother died (of cancer), girlfriend died of cancer, uncle of alzheimer's and when I nearly died (of atherosclerosis). It is a wakeup call, I could be next one. And like you I have been trying to minimize risks/taking to prevents accidents. It is really great what you are doing with prevention awareness.
@thomas.a
Accidents have been a big issue for a long time. However, for workplace safety there are codes and enforcement organizations. For example OSHA. Here is a notorious meme on OSHA violations. https://m.imgur.com/gallery/epqPu8k . Nevertheless there is a huge room for improvement. The OECED countries fare much better at enforcing the safety rules and regulations. And many of those rules are figuratively written in blood. We have building , electrical, and many other codes for a reason. US is very lawsuit averse, so the corporations try to make their products safe or at least add disclaimer. The accidents affect disproportionally the younger, was more active and less experienced group. Also, there a selection bias of risky behavior to be weeded sooner or later.
All this being said accidents are a distant third cause of deaths in US. the first two being cancer and cardiovascular diseases. There other disease categories which of summed will outnumber the accidents. Some of the accidents can be greatly reduced by am awareness campaign, others will require other safety measures. Ultimately it is a goal very easy to convey. Reduce preventable accidents.
Likely true given even modest progress in anti aging science. but I think forecasters greatly under estimate potential catastrophic risk, meteor, bio and nuclear warfare, social upheaval etc...
Now a few comments on the article. As the saying goes predictions are very hard especially about the future. If we continue the current trend of adding a month or two to the life expectancy than in 80 years we will have 10 to 20 years . Depending on the distribution a sizeable part of the population will be able to reach 100 years. In US that would not make 50%. The study has chosen 2.5 years per decade. I doubt that without anti-aging discoveries it would be possible. If we do only incremental improvements we will be pushing the survival further but the Gompez law (chances of buying double every 8 years) and associates morbidity will not go away. So we could reach ( using only incremental improvements) life expectancy of 90 with very squared distribution. The current approach is to address each mortality cause separately. But if you reduce heart attack you still have cancer waiting impatiently. If you manage to reduce both of them you will see the percentage of strokes, Alzheimer's and chronic diseases rising.
Unless you can reduce all cause mortality which would be a form of slowed aging, at least from a statistical point of view.
So if we set aside all the awaited breakthroughs we could forcee that they pension systems will have to raise the retirement age. Here I predict that these adjustment will be performed in the most inept and clumsy manner. Like a cutoff of one month having a difference if 2 to 5 years on the retirement age, instead of having a gradual increase of an extra couple of months each year.
And the moment the tell anti aging treatments arrive the retirement systems well become a total mess. Imagine if you can retire with a guaranteed pension at 60 and get a series of treatments to live up to 120, even if not reaching LEV. most funds budget in average for 15 to 20 years .
Most children born in the 1980s will live up to 150 at least.
@Jonathan Weaver
Amen.
Of course, at some point the science will advance so much that rebuilding the whole body would be a routine manipulation. Then you are beyond LEV. 100 y from now is plausible to be close to that state. 50 years from now is plausible to be around LEV for almost anyone reaching that point. The most interesting are the next 20 years. The progress is a bit behind my expectations, though
100 could be on the mark only if it referred to the whole world population, on average. But alas, Malawi hasn't got the resources of Sweden, so probably closer to 70 in the first and 130 in the latter. Can foresee technological breakthroughs, not redistribution.
@Barbara: It's just the opposite! At current rates, Malawi will reach 70 around 2025, and be on par with Sweden around 2040.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart&country=MWI~SWE~OWID_WRL®ion=World
PPS: What I fear most (and would not be surprised) is that Big Pharma would, or most very likely will, want to 'cash in' on LEV if it happens because anti-aging is a big business/industry. But, ultimately that is wrong, it is tying the penny to your lifespan. Which is how it is right now (in capitalistic countries). In essence, LEV will very likely be a 'privilege', only affordable for the rich (at the start at least). I am willing to bet it, that if LEV/eternal life was now 'done/found' and 'made' in therapies/package deal...it would not be a 'cheap deal'...but an expensive one.
For big pharma; eternal life is 'stopping big pharma from existing and making money'...because no one dies of aging anymore. That's a ''problem'' (for it)...(like it should be a problem).....
That people actually don't die of aging anymore. It goes to show: Money > Life.
It has to end and become: Money < Life.
Capitalistic model 'at odds' 'with life' - very at odds with 'eternal life'.
Eternal Life = Infinite Life Resource = Expensive in $$$$$ because every1 forever living.
Mortal Life = Finite Life Resource = Less Expensive when death happens and rinse/repeat cycle.
In truth, capitalism would Gain More from every person reaching LEV; eveyone a potential person that would contribute to the 'capital' part of capitalism.
It's just that 'rich people' have 'the' resource that makes capitalism work (aka money, and plenty),
it will be a privilege...like people 'going to the moon' on a space shuttle...it's still very much a privilege, reserved for the 'elite'...(read between the lines: Rich).
Big Pharma could ask 1 billion dollars 'for eternal life'..it would not be a far fetch scenario...
Elon Musk would be OK. Me Less so (I am working on my 1st billion, and might reach it before I die).
Never in humanity has LEV ever been a reality/possibility..but now or in the near-to-not-so near future. It's the Holy Grail and Big P. will charge BIG BUCKS for it.
That's the error/the problem with capitalism/putting a price tag..on your life - finite, infinite = you better have infinite money to afford it.
Just a 2 cents.
PS: It's all wrong, in my mind, capitalism should never be put on life basics, like existing, and if aging, food, logistics/shelter are the 'constraints' to 'being alive/dead'...then these constraints must stop and no longer 'be taxed/charged/priced'...because it kills us. We are dying 'for (the) money' (not in the sense of 'wanting/loving money/'dying' for 'more of it''. But in the Litteral serious Sense - We Die, of it. It is possible that capitalism will have to adapt as model or disappear - if Applied on Life/LEV, because it may possible that people will revolt if they find out that only people in Sweden obtain LEV/eternal life...while people in Malawi die at 55 of hunger, as mortal; why would someone else have this luxury of *mmortal/eternal life. It's the old 'poor vs rich, ugly vs beautiful...etc'. It can't continue and I am guessing this would mean war and people killing each other - to obtain LEV. If people kill each other over COVID or other big problems; LEV will be the Far Bigger problem, because it will be a question of 'do you want to die or not die of age, anymore'; a pretty big one, the world will be 'changed' by that immense 'transformation', if people live forever (excluding dying of accidents/homicides). Possibly, people will migrate to places that offer LEV 'en masse'; meaning the ultimate goal of poorer areas will be to leave there and go a place that offers LEV; because otherwise -they will die- and 'unjustly' the rich countries will live forever...unbalance (like right now...with 1st world/3rd world countries...the difference, is that eternal life...is an Immense difference...that people are willing to die 'to try to obtain it'...). For thousands of years, humans have been mortal due to aging, now they could be not so; we still would die of accidents...but not of aging anymore. I foresee WW3 about LEV if it is a privilege to 'some one' vs another person; it becomes a 'mortal vs *mmortal' problem. Still, as I have thought/said before, many you could give 'eternal life' on a silver platter, 100% free, and they would not want it (many people want to die and care nothing of eternal life/think life is boring and sad/long enough as it is; in essence, they can'T live 'with theirself' for 1000 years...100 is enough). It might sound selfish, but only You Live inside of You; so at the end of theday; there is only, in you. 1 Body In-Habited By 1 Person/1 Life. LEV is 'For Everyone'..even poor countries. That is the Altruism (that capitalism/individualism does not reall care of), an altruistic individualism; each person, has a right, to live however long they wish (but govs so far don't seem to want that; govs can be dismantled if they no longer represent people and their life; Govs as we know them may end or adapt; because govs would have to adapt to people living forever; that is oftenly a 'economic' problem since gov perceive tax/capital(ism)). Thus, once more, back to the 'model' of living (capitalism/money), it may not be possible anymore if LEV happens. Perhaps, a 'new' resource will have to 'happen' and replace money.
PPPS: Sorry for the long rambling. TL DR: LEV is humanity's most incredible invention ever if it happens; it will be the most giant step in the entire history/existence of humans. But, it's costly. It is at odds with the whole money resource thing.
@Antonio: sure, if someone gets them enough surgeons, billions for immunotherapy, MRI machines etc. - and let's not even mention the very expensive new drugs in clinical trials today.
It's easy to push up life expectancy in Africa from 50 to 70 because you only need childhood immunizations (cheap), mosquito nets (very cheap), and HAART (also cheap nowadays).
But you hit a massive wall when you start needing high tech to treat the diseases of aging. Take a trip to the slums of Nairobi and Accra and then tell me how you gonna get Car-T to people who don't even have water purifying tablets.
Models based on current data ain't reality, as we keep repeating ab nauseam on this very site.
As an addendum: I am the first to want to brush under the carpet the fact that we shouldn't worry about inequality because sooner or later the gains of radical life extension will trickle down to those who live in less economically fortunate places.
I AM one of the lucky ones after all!
But the reality is that the cost of hospitals isn't going down as fast as the cost of mobile phones (duh) so the comparison is silly. High calibre medicine isn't a pill, and even if it were you would still need infrastructure to manage health care at population level.
We, the anti-aging enthusiasts, would come across as way more credible and less *ickish if we at least admitted that the poor countries that are lagging behind today will keep lagging behind tomorrow as long as they stay poor.
Mind here: I am in no way saying that we shouldn't pursue progress - it would be akin to saying that the aviation industry gotta go because one hundred and twenty years after the Wright brothers your typical slum dweller can't afford a bike.
On the other hand, saying that Malawi will be on par with Sweden in a couple of decades is cray cray since this "prediction" doesn't take into consideration the massive structural issues pertaining healthcare (and even still un-achieved basics like food security) vs telecommunications.
Seriously, this is one of the reasons many smart and ethically-minded people don't take us seriously and frankly I can't blame them.
We come across as naive or too selfish for consideration.
@Barbara: Quite disingenous. You said that Malawi will be near 70 in 2100. I show you that it will be there in 4-5 years and then you suddenly change your statement. Now 70 is easy and from there it will reach a plateau and stay there for at least 75 years, breaking the strong upward trend of the last 2 decades, because... because... you say so.
Yawn, Antonio. Just get out of your bedroom and have a look at the world.
@Barbara, @Antonio, @CANanonymity
There is huge inequality and for sure the first treatments be expensive. For the richest people even a billion is an absolutely affordable. Let's say that in 15 years the therapy to stop aging for ten years costs a billion, a milliard. A yard. However it comprises 90 % R&D and 9% profit and 1% actual costs. So after the R&D is amortized the costs will be 10 times less keeping the same profits. And if you reduce the profits you can go to 100 times less. So still a handsome 7-8 digit figure. But will suddenly be affordable by multi-millionaires. And there is a huge incentive to increase the client base 1 - profits, 2- more testing and data. This is about the cost side. You can think of this as the early adopters paying the R&D . A kind of luxury tax. Some treatments will always be expensive for quite a long time. Personalized genetic therapies will require specialists, labs, and god knows what. Small molecule drugs can be scaled easily to cost so little as to be affordable even by the poorest people. Of course they might have different priorities like food , for example.
As for the extreme poverty, the world economical growth has been stable for many decades . Ironicaly the poorest countries as playing catch up show higher growth rates. The world GDP (per capita) has doubled in the last 20 , or even 17 years. It might double again in 15. Per capita. And most of the growth will be within the emerging economies. Of course there will be winners and losers, recessions and such. But the general trends will go , as long as we don't end up with a world war III. In the latter case we would not care about the aging much.
So there will be enough money in the world for the therapies, as long as they are not bogus. Now if some groups tried to limit them on , say , copyrights grounds, just think what will happen if you have billion people motivated by essentially a death threat. The mildest reaction would be setup of "pirate" clinics and medical tourism. So that would be the economical pinnacle of the Big pharma. And ironically , "peak" pharma too. But let's jump from that bridge when we reach it...
For now I want to have anything that is proven to work in humans. And works better than CR/fasting.
sorry for the flood...
This is getting quite boring, with people plainly rejecting hard data in favour of opinions. I pass.
The important question is how many Millennials would want to be Centerians ?
When a young person (under 21 years of age) looks at a typical photograph of a Centerian,
It is not an attractive picture, the young person feels horror and pity. Longevity is not attractive, the young person would prefer to die before he/she gets old.
So to make Longevity attractive and desirable the Centerian in the photograph must look like an average 18 year or 20 year young person .... and without plastic surgery and prosthetic make up, only by biological rejuvenation.
It is important to stay younger longer, so the emphasis must be on rejuvenation in research and therapy. Simply living longer without being younger is pointless. Even worse: staying longer in weak, decrepit, wrinkled, ugly condition is a torment and that is why some old people commit suicide or request doctor assisted suicide : death becomes a relief of their torment.
@Nicholas D.
You cannot extend much the lifespan without reversing or at least slowing down the aging process. And indeed, there's not much fun to be alive in decrepit state.
@Nicholas D.
"When a young person (under 21 years of age) looks at a typical photograph of a Centerian,
It is not an attractive picture"
That's exactly the motivation we all have to invest in rejuvenation, isn't it?
(If one believes it is an achievable goal)