Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sumane12 t1_je489j2 wrote

Even if it is 50, and that's pessimistic I think, you will get life extension therapies before actual longevity escape velocity, so I'm expecting someone like myself 38 years old, to live atleast another 80-100 years.

51

ImpossibleSnacks t1_je5jwxk wrote

Also 38. Feels like we are likely gonna be the last generation that actually gets old, and perhaps the only generation to revert from old to young again. What an insane experience that will be if it pans out.

I do think if people our age make it to 60 there will be enough advancements to get us to 88 pretty safely. And from there who knows… I definitely expect to live well past 100 if I make it to 60.

19

sumane12 t1_je5mx5i wrote

Yea, could be wrong I suppose, anything can happen. Just seems a lot is changing right now, and most people don't experience change like we will.

2

ElvinRath t1_je5u2rk wrote

In my country live expectancy if you get to 60 is already around that...

​

it was already 86 in 2019 (PRE Corona, we'll probably go back to those numbers when we get the data from 2022)... So 88 in 22 more years is pretty conservative.

​

Anyway we got to a point when the main impact in live expectancy is having a healthy live. Be a tiny bit active, avoid being overweight and you'll get past 90 even without medicine improvements.

1

ImpossibleSnacks t1_je5wlg2 wrote

Yeah calorie restriction and exercise and clean diet will get you very far. Hopefully we can make progress on cancer and heart disease as those can strike you down as you get older even if you’re healthy.

2

civilrunner t1_je6hkf1 wrote

I'm curious about this. Will we be able to extend health span before we will be able to repair age related damage and therefore reach LEV?

Most of the stuff I've seen that doesn't genuinely repair age related damage doesn't really do much if anything to extend human lifespan. For instance even if we cure all cancer, life expectancy would only increase by about 2-3 years due to other causes of death like dementia, heart disease, strokes, etc... (Obviously that's worth it, but it's not nearly the same utopia society as some think it could be)

The only thing I've seen that genuinely adds years to human health is reducing stress, having friendships, exercising, eating healthy, avoiding pollution, and making consistent good choices to reduce accidental risk (seat belts, bike helmets, etc...). The standard being healthy stuff.

To really move the needle a lot it seems to me that we need to be able to heal age related damage pretty much everywhere. I believe we are getting to that point within an exponential curve, but it will still likely require synthetic biology delivery systems and a great understanding of our genetics (understanding what Yamanaka factors are truly doing) and much more (many things that each need substantial break throughs).

I believe AI and automation will help a lot with accelerating scientific discovery on this path and we may be shocked by what happens within the next 10 to 20 years.

I personally don't believe any of us can predict further out than 10 years and even anything beyond 3 to 5 is a pretty massive stretch.

2

sumane12 t1_je6jgw8 wrote

Remember, you're judging this based on people who are dieing in their 80s today, think about what life was like 60 years ago when they were in their 20s, open coal fires, smoking and passive smoking, little to no understanding of health and fitness (general population), little to no health and safety at work regulations, little to no enforcement of FDA regulations, little to no understanding of the effects of alcohol, obesity etc. Not to mention the effect of caloric restriction, intermittent fasting, Metformin, yamanaka factors, resveratrol, these will have a compounding effect to the point I believe anyone born 1980s+ will probably have an average life span closer to 100 than 80. That's assuming no further medical advancements between now and then.

1

civilrunner t1_je6js9y wrote

I agree. No one knows their life expectancy until well they're as old as their life expectancy (whatever it ends up being).

3

just_thisGuy t1_je7mssp wrote

If you live 80 or 100 years you will live forever, short of accidents, war and the like. In fact I’m thinking 20 more years should be enough, particularly for people still under 50 years old, I think in 20 years it might still be hard to treat some stuff if you are already 80+.

2

sumane12 t1_je7ntc9 wrote

Seems like it's going that way for sure, but I guess anything can happen.

1

Ginkotree48 t1_je4kmly wrote

Yeah it will only cost $600,000 no big deal guys!

−11

sumane12 t1_je4n03c wrote

"And since your going to live forever, you can pay that off over 100 years at 12 grand per year"

I'd take that deal all the live long day.

23

ShadowRazz t1_je5q001 wrote

You will have to work every day in the mines of Mars. Toiling day and night, never sleeping, subsisting on Nutrapaste rations and recycled urine water. If you ever stop working the nanobots in your bloodstream, controlled by the mining corporation, will accelerate your aging until you comply.

2

sumane12 t1_je5r4z9 wrote

😂 love this, might include it in a new dystopian drama

2

Xbot391 t1_je4trj5 wrote

Off of what income? 😥

−3

sumane12 t1_je4uid9 wrote

Either UBI, or what my AI pet will make for me. failing both of those ideas, 99.9% of the rest of the population will be in the same boat, so I'm looking at a world wide violent revolution, where we take the wealth created by AI for ourselves.

Third option is looking less and less likely by the day (most people actually want to look after others, and the democratisation of these technologies is forcing prices down), but I'm ready to fight for the survival of myself and family if necessary. I do believe abundance is not only possible, but exceedingly likely in the near term.

7

Xbot391 t1_je4uxqy wrote

I really hope you’re right. I’m 27 and pretty optimistic about reaching the point of LEV. I’m just worried I won’t be able to afford it since I’m not one of the 1%.

3

Saerain t1_je5qwgg wrote

The pressure for that to drop rapidly is even stronger than usual for emergent tech. Aging is a tremendous burden on the whole of society. Everyone, especially "the rich" from a monetary standpoint, benefits from minimizing it across the whole population as quickly/effectively as possible.

And that's just the pure economic pressure, never mind the ethical or sociopolitical.

1

Ginkotree48 t1_je73aep wrote

Can you explain to me why it would benefit "the rich" from a monetary standpoint to minimize the cost across the whole population as quickly/effectively as possible?

1

ShadowRazz t1_je5pbtj wrote

With the rate of inflation by 2050 thats the cost of a Big Mac

0