Becoming increasingly pessimistic about LEV + curing aging

Submitted by Phoenix5869 t3_yndodv in singularity

I used to be optimistic that we would at least have treatments by the 2050s but now im becoming increasingly pessimistic. I honestly wouldnt be surprised if aging isnt cured this century, or at least before the late 21st century. They've been talking about this stuff for decades and decades and there's been basically 0 progress made. I remember reading an article 6-7 years ago when i was 11 about how the treatments are just around the corner. How many times have u heard about “breakthroughs” that failed to materialize? How many articles have u read over the years about how “in 10 years aging will be cured”? And none of it has actually translated to anything more than hype. I wouldnt be suprised if in 15 20 years we still read the same sort of articles but nothing happens.

61

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

civilrunner t1_iv8h8z7 wrote

Predicting anything 20+ years away is impossible. There's likely to be so many unknown variables including what happens when new technologies converge.

For instance quantum computing seems likely to be feasible in the 2030s. Combine that with the more advanced AI simulation modeling and optimization that could use quantum and silicon compute simultaneously to run massive accurate models and then optimize on them. Combine that AI with a far more advanced large language model style AI that can comprehend a large amount of paralleling big data science including genetics, epigenetics, bioelectricity, microbiome, and more. Then combine that with far more advanced lab on a chip technology and automated labs for rapid physical testing in highly optimized through digital analysis treatments and well it's clear that we're talking about magnitudes and magnitudes of an improvement over current methods of medical developments.

That's also just the stuff we know is coming, if we're talking 2050 then well there's going to be a lot of things we're completely blind to coming as well.

Edit: This has little to do with politics. Obviously we all need to vote and defend democracy if you can. The wealthy should in my view be taxed higher so that we could reinvest those funds like back in the 50s and 60s again. With that being said my comment is about the science and technology which is promising and is what brings clear prosperity to the masses, just look at the median worker in the 1800s or 1600s compared to today and it's clear how wealth is generated by technology and increases in productivity which is key to building a utopia.

104

apple_achia t1_iv9mksm wrote

Yes it’s very difficult to answer any questions 20+ years away. Like “will America have succumbed to fascism in the face of the refugees caused by the (conservatively) roughly one billion people currently expected to be displaced by climate change between now and 2050” or “to what extent will there still be complex society in the face of widespread ecological collapse”

Very difficult questions to answer indeed. I hope our techno overlords figure out how to fix this mess quickly and choose not to keep all of the gains in productivity to themselves like they have since the 1970’s. Any way I’m sure the secret to immortality is RIGHT around the corner in the next computational break through, for those who survive til then.

7

DyingShell t1_iv9vxse wrote

shh we don't talk about REAL issues on here, only fantasies.

4

apple_achia t1_iv9wy11 wrote

Funny you should say that. On my post regarding climate change and singularity, I got into a lengthy discussion with someone who claimed that having a true metaverse, a simulated reality people could secede into where they could act as a God and experience whatever they want, would solve the climate crisis. That the ultimate fantasy IS the solution. presumably the thought was that if this happens, enough people would opt into it that we’d be able to save enough resources to stop climate change.

So shallow. No acknowledgment that this would just be offering an extremely pleasurable form of suicide to the masses. No acknowledgement that the people most likely to take such an option would be the least materially well off, and thus the people causing the problem the least. No mention that this wouldn’t affect any existing power structure and so even if it was Jeff Bezos himself that chose to digitally castrate himself into experiencing only a simulation of reality, someone else would just take his place.

I think many people on this sub are just technological optimists unable to reckon with the heightening crises of industrialized society, and anxiously awaiting a savior. Maybe there will be a technological singularity before climate change makes that next to impossible, but the idea the result of that will just be a fantasy VR machine is absurd and shallow.

11

Frumpagumpus t1_ivjp3be wrote

it seems pretty obvious that replacing business trips (and i know you are a doomer so this will trigger you, but vacations) with vr would be a massive ecological boon.

0

apple_achia t1_ivjrl99 wrote

I’m a doomer, but you’re realistic for saying metaverse will save the biosphere from abrupt change. Yes, very realistic solution, have fun with that

1

Frumpagumpus t1_ivkgl78 wrote

bruh the biosphere has been through quite a few abrupt changes. and it's been around a long time. some of them quite a bit worse than modern co2 emissions.

human civilization is changing even more abruptly tho.. kinda the point of this sub...

and lastly you intentionally re phrased what I said just to disagree with a point I didn't even make lol.

1

apple_achia t1_ivkhrm3 wrote

The last time the atmosphere changed in composition by a comparable amount to the last 250 years, Cyanobacteria was colonizing the ocean and photosynthesizing, injecting O2 into the atmosphere and causing one of 6 recorded mass extinctions. Now granted, this was at a fraction of the speed, it took place over a few thousand years, a lightning flash in geologic terms, and changed the composition by a smaller percentage make up.

So yes, the biosphere has seen changes in the past, even within humanities timescale. But not by this amount and this abruptly. To say there have been “worse” ecological changes in the past is obfuscation of the crisis we’re in.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_ivktbls wrote

what are you gonna do about it, aside from brigading this sub?

covid lockdowns didnt put much of a dent in co2 emissions.

personally i think there is 0 chance you could put a gov into power either democratic or authoritarian which would reduce emissions as much as you want

realistically that leaves geoengineering. which would probably be a lot easier to do with AI.

oh yeah and of course VR would help too but you just cant help but shit on people who are trying XD

1

Artanthos t1_ivc9c2o wrote

Fascism as a response to climate driven immigration seems much more likely than a complete collapse.

Desalination plants are already capable of solving water shortages in the American West, just not at a price people are currently willing to pay.

Vertical Farming and cultured meats are pretty much climate independent. Again, not at a price most people are currently willing to pay.

It’s going to be the 3rd world countries that face collapse.

2

[deleted] t1_ivcmsa5 wrote

If 3rd world countries collapse, everywhere else does too. The lives of the wealthy first world folks is completely reliant on cheap labour and slavery in poorer countries. Without that, everything wealthier countries rely on completely collapses too. Welcome to globalised capitalism; a vast slave system.

There’s no corner of the globe you can run away to and be safe from the ensuing political and economic instability. Most likely this instability leads to large scale warfare that puts our risk of nuclear war way way up there too. Perfect storm

I don’t really see human civilisation lasting long under that scenario which is why tackling the lions share of carbon in the 2020s, before it snowballs and becomes an order of magnitude harder, is crucial

2

Artanthos t1_ivee32z wrote

  1. If 3rd world countries collapse, the availability of cheap labor increases. To the extent that society allows immigrants.
  2. Automation is already reducing reliance on cheap labor. This is especially true in agriculture and food services.

If anything, the wealthy will soon reach a point where they no longer need laborers. At least not at anything resembling today’s volume.

3

[deleted] t1_ivci07a wrote

And with regard to life extension, people in this sub seem to think that “discovery” will automatically lead to “access”

People in the US are still routinely bankrupted for extremely basic access to healthcare but people in this thread seem to think they’ll somehow have access to the most highly coveted form of life extension in human history?

As if.

It’ll cost hundreds of millions of dollars and none of us have even the slightest hope of accessing it when it is discovered. Access is likely to be politically suppressed as well due to fears of overpopulation.

So the real barrier to life extension for all of us is actually political change, not scientific discovery.

Discovery might happen this century.

Access? In a harsh unequal economic system that treats healthcare like a for-profit cash cow? I think we need an anti capitalist political revolution to even have a slim chance of socialising life extension

A revolution like that has been fought for hundreds of years already and arguably since the advent of mass surveillance we have an even less surmountable asymmetric power struggle in front of us than ever before.

Frankly I think we probably have already missed our best chance at achieving that a few decades ago

3

botfiddler t1_ivj7nal wrote

Overpopulation is coming from the growth in poor countries, especially in combination with increasing standards of living. We were first. I will not limit my life time in favor of other people.

0

[deleted] t1_ivj9qa6 wrote

We were first, so we’ve already used up more than our share of resources, and those places need to be given a fair share in developing..

0

civilrunner t1_ivb0tqj wrote

I would say that democracy and government is the most critical thing we can do today to protect the future. Doing that will go a long way to taking care of the rest.

I personally expect the developers of longevity medicine to want to profit from it so they'll make it widely available and likely sell it to the government because a biologically young workforce can be far more valuable than an aging one.

Although for instance Bezos may be rich, Amazon does provide substantial value to the majority of people at least in the USA by competing and lower cost and increasing quality across a lot of markets. Similar things can be said for bill gates and making computers accessible to mass markers.

While extraordinary wealth may be generated, it will only be generated if the technology affects a mass market.

1

[deleted] t1_ivcob28 wrote

Amazon takes substantial value from people, their profits come from their workers labour. It doesn’t provide shit; it’s workers do that with or without Amazon, but it can’t do shit without them.

What’s worrying about your comment is that I don’t think democracy can exist without destroying companies like Amazon. Amazon is a great example of how capitalism is taking us back to feudalism with petty lords in charge (ie NOT elected democratically)

As you say we must protect the future by protecting democracy .. but democracy is way further gone already than you might think. Capitalism is a direct threat to it because it’s fundamentally about preserving privilege often passed down over generations, like feudal monarchs, so completely mocking democratic power.

−1

civilrunner t1_ivcon7g wrote

That's a taxation problem. They keep prices lower and provide substantial competition across countless industries including web services.

Their pay for workers is also pretty high and they offer to pay off tuition and more. I know it's fun and popular to hate them, but I personally blame the politicians who write the tax code.

2

[deleted] t1_ivcpzg9 wrote

Monopolies crush competition, they don’t create it. Amazon buys out its competition it doesn’t bother trying to better them. It is probably the worst example for “encouraging competition” you could pick in our global economy.

And you’re now deviating significantly from your initial statement about protecting democracy when you advocate that a company employing millions should be run by 1 unelected dictatorial owner.

Which one is it? Democracy or dictatorship?

You can’t advocate both; these push us in opposite directions.

0

civilrunner t1_ivcqeja wrote

Amazon is a lot of things, but a monopoly is definitely not one of them. Walmart still controls more market share for retail than Amazon does by a pretty wide margin. Even AWS has healthy competition with Microsoft and others and is therefore not a monopoly...

Amazon is a public company in the private industry. They aren't part of the government obviously... The government taking over them would also be devastating to our economy. Private Public partnerships and taxation with reinvestment is the way to go...

I get that you like to doom, but at least know what to doom about. Moore v Harper, the SCOTUS case that may allow state legislators to ignore voters and send electors as they please and therefore end democracy is the biggest threat today.

We should elect officials who may enable reducing inequality and creating opportunity through government investments but that's a separate issue...

Edit: also you can always buy Amazon shares and then vote about the direction of their company if you'd like...

3

[deleted] t1_ivcr2wo wrote

Hard to swallow fact: a country cannot claim to be very democratic at all when millions of its people are made to spend the largest share of their waking hours languishing under a dictatorial power structure. That’s absolutely how 99% of hierarchical capitalist businesses are structured.

So you don’t in fact advocate for democracy, you need to admit you have no problem with authoritarianism dominating the majority of peoples lives.

That’s a direct threat to the sort of socialised life extension I think most people assume is desirable

I would expect that people with an interest in the singularity should all expect us to move on from barbarism’s like this. You can start by advocating for democracy to be expanded into all walks of life; I’ve little doubt a singularity would lead to workplaces returning to common ownership as worker coops or similar; if for no other reason than that it will recognise that all human history has represented the struggle to free ourselves from authoritarian oppressors

0

[deleted] t1_iv9wqtn wrote

You’re right, being a pessimist who bitches on Internet forums is a lot more productive.

This subreddit has nothing to do with most of the issues you are talking about anyway?

−2

apple_achia t1_iva2dsn wrote

Well sorry but if AGI is going to solve all of our problems and usher in a new era the least it can do is start with the impending doom staring all of you in the face.

If there werent any pessimists on this sub, it would just be a circlejerk about how protein folding software is going to make you immortal by 2025

I like to poke and prod, because otherwise all you’d get here are people saying a singularity will bring us all into paradise. We’d be immortal beings, living in computational metaverses, omnipotent in their own rights. This is something I’ve actually seen multiple times on this sub. Now we’re doubtlessly in an unprecedented age of technological advancement, but without examining our ideas about this we’re bound to overestimate progress in the same way people on the collapse subreddit assume civilization will end yesterday. I’m here to interrogate ideas, bring a little bit of reality back into the mix, and occasionally have a laugh when someone tells me I’m going to be immortal. You know, because no generation before us has ever thought that.

6

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iva7iht wrote

We should be optimistic that an AGI/ASI can fix all of our problems.

On the other hand...

We shouldn't rely on it, and we should be doing the best we can to save the planet until autopilot becomes available, yeah?

Sometimes truth hurts, and the truth is that blind optimism helps no one.

8

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivaebwa wrote

Should we be optimistic? How do we know for sure AGI is going to be a net positive at all?

1

[deleted] t1_ivcm88y wrote

An AGI is still built by engineers paid by someone to build it

Hard to swallow pill: The people paying for it will be the ones to benefit from it. There’s absolutely nothing that says it’s benefits will be socialised. We live in a highly individualistic unequal capitalist system built and purveyed by the people with the money to fund this research and there’s no reason to believe they’d program it to favour some sort of socialist utopia; they’ll design it to protect their own privilege as they always have when designing our politician and economic system.

People in this sub often seem to assume that “discovery” is all that’s needed but that’s immensely naive.

The main barrier to benefiting from AGI and life extension is political, not scientific discovery. And likely it will take decades or centuries to win politically; and victory isn’t even guaranteed anytime soon.

1

[deleted] t1_ivcsjg3 wrote

I think it’s also dangerous to assume that AGI won’t have inbuilt biases based on those who built it and those who are designed to administer it. All software that exists already faces this issue.

So it will exist to benefit certain politically powerful people and shore up their privilege and advantage.

Those interests could be DIRECTLY opposed to what’s best for the rest of us. See: how military tech is used now; mostly for social control and political suppression.

It’s only really an ASI that would likely significantly benefit everyone and I hate to be a downer but I don’t think people who aren’t programmers quite realise how little chance there is of that arriving soon. A lot of sensationalist headlines, not a lot of substance there unfortunately

1

ActuaryGlittering16 t1_ivbi1j8 wrote

This is really refreshing. I’ve never seen this type of pessimistic, prodding sentiment on Reddit before. If only there was an entire subreddit full of millions of people like this, all discussing the future! Every fascinating advancement could be funneled into the same talking points of climate change, race, gender, and classism! Just think of everything we could accomplish with a subreddit like that, wow!!

5

apple_achia t1_ivbt6yh wrote

Gees it’s like those issues tend to reproduce themselves when new technology develops since nobody ever touches the power structure behind them. Surely the invention of the cotton gin will end slavery and the oppression of the African diaspora.

If there were reasonable expectations for what something like protein folding simulations could accomplish, I wouldn’t poke fun like this. There’s a reason I’m not doing this on a computational biology subreddit right now

But no, rather than thinking of enzymatic pathway engineering or costly advances in artificial food technology or expensive and extensive clinical trials on novel proteins, this sub always goes to “eureka! I’m immortal! We can be gods!”

2

[deleted] t1_ivcny0n wrote

100% the biggest barriers to ordinary people benefitting from scientific breakthroughs is our harsh unequal capitalist system.

It’s laughable seeing people think that all we need to do is discover life extension.

I bet they sell it with a multimillion dollar per year subscription attached.

I bet that then leads to a political movement asking for it as a human right but just like most movements demanding access to life in the form of housing, food, healthcare etc which have been raging for centuries against our current system, there’s no guarantee of victory at all.

In fact I think the asymmetric power imbalance has never really been worse.

Police are more militarised than ever. Mass surveillance is a weapon of repression an order of magnitude more powerful and one-sided than the invention of iron or gunpowder… it could well be true that capitalism has completely triumphed and so ordinary people will never be able to afford life extension.

I put the odds of this at 90%.

0

StarChild413 t1_ivedwqo wrote

so we just need to inspire people with the promise-via-parallel of immortality to join a movement for housing, food and healthcare as human rights and have among the movement good enough hackers to combat the surveillance state to make those rights a guarantee so immortality is

1

[deleted] t1_ivelyuf wrote

Hackers like that exist but get captured by state interests fairly fast, competing probably isn’t viable. That said I do think there is an internationalist protracted people’s war ongoing against capitalist interests that is the best hope for the socialising of immortality tech.

Until that tech is discovered, socialising healthcare is the necessary preparation.

1

EscapeVelocity83 t1_ivcen1d wrote

Like greedy people scrapping projects because it undermines their motivves

−2

abc-5233 t1_iv8rv9n wrote

This reminds me of a Wired article about the game of Go. It was written in May 2014 and it described perfectly how computers weren't able to play Go, even at amateur level, and how they could probably never do so.
In March 2016, the algorithm Alpha-Go won a tournament against the world champion.

From not being able to play at amateur level, to super human in less than 2 years. That is the power of exponential growth. It is so deceiving that people have a very hard time grasping it.

To calibrate your exponential understanding try to answer this riddle: If a glass is doubling its content every day for a year (365 days) before becoming full, when is it going to be half full?

The answer for most people seems to be the obvious 6 months. Half the glass, half the time.

But this is exponential growth we are talking about, and in this subreddit most people will probably know the right answer: 364 days. If the content doubles every day, it will be half full one day before the end of the time period.

But here is one question that is trickier: When is it going to be at 1% of its capacity. At what time will it still have 99% to go?

The answer is one week before the year is over. Because from 1% to 100% there is 7 doublings: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, >100 (128).

If you understand that medicine is now an information technology, that is doubling its understanding and command of the human body at an exponential rate, and the doubling of its understanding takes 2 years, and that the Singularity is happening in 2045, it reasons to expect major significant advances in the 2040's, and not before.

43

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9cl9d wrote

It takes up to a billion dollars and often 10 years to get something from research through FDA approval. Tell me again how it's the same as solving the Go game a little bit early in the timeline.

The majority of R&D today, experimental verification of hypotheses, and overcoming political, economical, and financial challenges are not exponential. They are also not on the brink of being exponential. Therefore, the speed at which life-changing innovation becomes available is not going to go up fast, soon.

This has nothing to do with me underestimating exponential progress. Biological innovation going to the application stage is very much limited by things in which there's no exponential progress possible.

9

abc-5233 t1_iva9u6z wrote

“The majority of R&D today…” keyword: today. The COVID Vaccine from Moderna was ready 2 days after the sequencing of the virus DNA which took like 2 hours. It could have been available to the general public in a week if the simulated biology testing was good enough. Simulated Biology testing is not good enough today.

Deepmind is already working in a virtual cell that will allow for digital testing of all biological processes in the future.

If I had to guess, I would say that digital medicine is now at 0.1% complete. Meaning, we have 99.9% to go. So, we’re almost there! Just 10 doublings, if every doubling takes 2 years, 100% digital medicine will be ready in 20 years. Just in time for the singularity.

9

ChoosenUserName4 t1_ivaapld wrote

The delivery mechanism of the Moderna vaccine was in R&D for multiple decades. The only reason to go to market went that fast was because of the global pandemic, otherwise there would have been another decade of safety testing.

And what does a simple vaccination against a virus have to do with the complexity of life prolongation? They're not even on the same scale.

−3

abc-5233 t1_ivaer8s wrote

You are confusing the very concept of the Singularity. The Singularity is the increased complexity of the Universe, given by a side effect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a closed system always increases.

That is, on average, systems tend to be more disorganized (increased entropy). The side effect of this universal law, is that there are pockets in the Universe where the exact opposite happens. Stars, planets, are places where entropy decreases, as a law of the universe. You can check the book The Romance of Reality for an in-depth explanation of this phenomenon.

The Singularity is the inevitable result of decreased entropy because we are in a pocket of the Universe where we entered a feedback loop of loss of entropy. Complexity has been increasing on Earth since its inception, and it will continue to do so until complexity cannot get any more complex. Starting from being created with most of the elements in the periodic table, to simple strands of DNA, to cells, multicellular life, human brain, technology and information technology. It is like being at the center of a star to be that is accumulating gas via gravity, and will ignite as a star when the critical mass creates fusion.

Focusing on a particular strand of this entropy loss is losing perspective of the whole phenomenon, and therefore, the ability to make predictions. Like trying to predict the path of a single ball in a Galton Board. It is absolutely impossible.

But predicting the overall distribution is super easy, because it is always the same.

The exact path that digital medicine is going to take is impossible to predict. But the fact that it will be complete by the time the Singularity happens is as sure as any other predictable physical phenomenon in the Universe.

2

ChoosenUserName4 t1_ivai02u wrote

All this pseudo-philosophical nonsense about entropy isn't going to change the fact that there are major hurdles to be taken before we understand the full complexity of natural systems and have the ability to manipulate it in meaningful ways (escape velocity, immortality). These major hurdles are identification of the right targets / pathways, experimental verification, drug development and testing, and getting the money to finance all of this. None of these steps is currently on a exponential trajectory. Yes, we'll get there, eventually. Everyone in this thread will probably be long dead by then.

Also there's no law saying that there must be pockets of increased complexity to somehow counter balance entropy, that's just a consequence of self organization of molecules, you know the thing that eventually led to life itself.

6

abc-5233 t1_ivalary wrote

An honest question: if you think this is pseudo-philosophy, what do you think the Singularity is?

Meaning, do you actually believe there will be a Singularity? And why?

2

ChoosenUserName4 t1_ivatb6h wrote

As I've read it (remember it), the singularity is the point where new discoveries are made so quickly that it no longer makes sense to try to predict the future. Yes, I believe we will get there if we don't destroy ourselves before it happens. I don't believe it will happen in the next 10-20 years though.

The only way I see to biological immortality soon is to invent some sort of scanning device that can record an entire human being at the atomic level, and then a machine that can emulate hundreds of millions of copies of that human at the atomic level, preferably sped up by a lot, so that many experiments can be run quickly and in parallel. Not sure if that would be ethical for the simulated human, but that's another question. Of course, the machine should be able to design the experiments and learn from them.

I don't think there's a golden bullet for aging, very much like there doesn't seem to be one for cancer. It's probably a lot of slow processes that are all intertwined with many side effects of upsetting the balance.

1

abc-5233 t1_ivayqic wrote

Yes, but the reasoning for the fact that new discoveries will happen in an every increasing lower time span, is described by the Countdown to the Singularity. That is how you get the date 2045. It is not a guess. It is a calculation.

It might be a flawed calculation, for sure. But it is not something that was just guessed out of thin air.

That is why current events usually only distract people from the actual prediction. Because focusing on the small current advances make people lose track of the accuracy of the prediction that was made decades ago.

3

botfiddler t1_iv9qaf9 wrote

Many of the drugs and treatments they're looking into are already approved, but for other things. If it's not approved fast enough, people will go to other countries.

7

ipatimo t1_iv9t4yw wrote

FDA approves thing only in USA . There are plenty of countries that would be glad to become the world centers of rejuvenation by just loosing their regulations.

1

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9xfn5 wrote

Good luck making your money back, not being able to sell in the US or Europe.

2

ipatimo t1_iva0abj wrote

Istanbul is now a place where thousands of people travel to make their hair transplants. What would be If they could provide a rejuvenation service? Hair will grow back as a bonus.

4

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iva158i wrote

Drugs need to be safety tested on people and proven effective before anyone would be willing to use it. It's not like we would just scale up what Joseph Mengele did in the concentration camps during WWII. There's a reason clinical trials are expensive. You have to be very careful and very sure before you test things on the first person.

1

ipatimo t1_iva1wtk wrote

With the development of human's organs in test tube and AI systems the testing of new drugs can be drastically accelerated. And of course the work can be done to simplify regulations, keeping the same level of safety. But in countries like USA and EU the rigid Healthcare system is not ready for such changes.

4

ChoosenUserName4 t1_ivaauvo wrote

Man, I have been hearing that same pitch for the last 30 years. Any day now.

Also, if it doesn't happen in the EU and US, it's not happening. There's nowhere near the same amount of biological research. Follow the money, that's all.

0

Clawz114 t1_iv9u77n wrote

Another good example of the exponential growth is starting with a penny on day one and having it double every day for 30 days. Day one is a penny, day 30 is $5,368,709.12.

Exponential growth will enable things that today seem impossible.

6

FantasticCar3 t1_ivilbd0 wrote

>Exponential growth will enable things that today seem impossible

like me getting a gf?

1

[deleted] t1_ivct1jj wrote

I assume that OP is just as concerned about personally being able to access this tech which is an entirely different discussion to the exponential growth of tech.

We live in a harsh barbaric capitalist system that rarely even provides the bare necessities to most people. The main barrier to life extension for ordinary people is political and economic.

If you want life extension you need to join a political movement seeking a massive socialising of healthcare. Don’t bother becoming a scuentist; that part of the problem is actually super straightforward.

The political part of the equation has far less chance of success within our lifetimes. Better get started

1

dontpet t1_iv8h0gm wrote

I'm 60 and only in the past 5 years have I thought that science is progressing fast enough to save my butt into the indefinite future.

So much has happened in the past five years in regards to the science required for indefinite lifespan. And it is only going to speed up. AI combined with the wave of doctorate level training.

I do wish we all had a Ministry of Longevity though to make it all happen much more effectively. Every boomer has a stake in this happening.

42

Belostoma t1_iv8j2ok wrote

Rich people are throwing billions of dollars into research on this. So far they have prolonged the lives of many a nematode.

19

dontpet t1_iv8nzfn wrote

I'm grateful to them for their likely selfish foresight. I wish our governments worked the same way toward our collective well being.

16

gropethegoat t1_iv8uigg wrote

Have they? For sure they haven’t managed to extend the life of rats in any capacity

1

Belostoma t1_iv8xftx wrote

Yeah, nematodes are easier. I'm a biologist in a different field, but I have coauthored one publication in that field because I did the statistical analysis for them. I'm not terribly impressed with the anti-aging field overall. There's a lot of "let's just try tons of different chemicals and see which one causes some marginal improvement in a model organism." It strikes me as kind of a scattergun approach searching for a molecular fountain of youth that probably doesn't exist. I think they are on track to finding things that help people age more gracefully for a while and get a few extra years of good life. That's a worthy goal, but I just don't anticipate an earth-shattering "now we will live forever" type advance on the short timeline some futurists are hyping. The state of the field is less "these nanobots will reprogram your cells" and more "blueberries seem to be good for you."

25

Mokebe890 t1_iv94eo7 wrote

Ye I cant believe like people clinge on some chemicals in terms of longevity. Invasive bioengineering is absolutly crucial to achieve longer lifespan. Maybe genetic reprogramming approach will actually be usefull for us.

11

Adaptandovercome5 t1_iv8wvxz wrote

They have. Lipolic acid, and Carnitine are two clinically studied sups. And then there is fasting studies on rats, works well, but sucks to incorporate.

3

gropethegoat t1_iv8yj1b wrote

They haven’t. Record for lab mouse longevity was broken by a mouse that died almost 20 years ago. Calorie restriction isn’t relevant in that case.

4

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9cq8h wrote

Facts be damned in this sub.

5

AsuhoChinami t1_ivmxry5 wrote

Maybe you could, I don't know, ask the other side questions to learn more about their perspective and viewpoint? Why are self-proclaimed "realists" and "skeptics" so God damn arrogant and snotty? You people are as likable as nails on a chalkboard.

0

Cr4zko t1_iv9667m wrote

> Every boomer has a stake in this happening.

Oh god... not the boomers.

6

dontpet t1_iv96bzt wrote

Yeah. Well actually no. I'm wrong there. I don't think the boomers really see this as a possibility so far. Whatever comes after, with all those 50 year old tech types.

3

aperrien t1_ivbhmlv wrote

Do you mean Gen X? People keep forgetting us anyway 😉

2

dontpet t1_ivd24lp wrote

Probably. I forget about you guys as I'm just inside the boomer age bracket.

Now get off my lawn!

2

CLOUD889 t1_iv988u6 wrote

I don't want to see you boomers alive any longer than nature intended, look at what you've done to the planet.

Endless warfare and death?

Look at how your cohorts salivate at the escalating war with Russia.

−11

Caring_Cactus t1_iv998ua wrote

Bruh that's just overgeneralizing, come on

9

CLOUD889 t1_ivd9f8e wrote

We're on the brink of WWIII with Russia, excuse the cynicism , but that's all I have left. History has not been kind to us.

0

dontpet t1_iv9a08y wrote

Well, you will likely get the satisfaction of that. I doubt many of them will be around by the time we get it sorted.

Those claims about boomers and war don't seem right to me but you do you!

7

CLOUD889 t1_ivd99gg wrote

Tell me, who is pushing for world warfare in Ukraine? Open combat in Europe with Russia? Who is pushing for that?

There was a time the boomers engaged in ant-war protests, now they check the value of their warfare stocks.

0

dontpet t1_ivdsnmk wrote

I don't know. I haven't seen anyone pushing for that in my life or Reddit. The boomers I talk to about it focus on the harm being done to Ukrainians and are confused about solutions.

But as earlier, you do you!

2

CLOUD889 t1_ivdwc0r wrote

Jeez, it's like we have a society looking for the perfect lattes while ensuring wholesale killing is profitable.

1

CrazyWillingness3543 t1_iv9z0lb wrote

Exactly, there was famously no warfare and death before those bloody boomers.

4

CLOUD889 t1_ivd8vug wrote

You're proving my point.

And there shouldn't be any life extension to the humans before they can prove their civilization is peaceful.

1

ActuaryGlittering16 t1_iv8ukkx wrote

I dunno how long you’ve been around, but there’s been an explosion in this field in the past 3-4 years. It’s markedly different from how things were in the late 2000s thru the mid-to-late 2010s.

I’m very confident that by 2050 you’ll have some serious tools to extend your healthy lifespan.

42

CrazyWillingness3543 t1_iv9ynwk wrote

Literally says his age in the post. Answer: he's young as fuck and thinks 7 years is a long time.

17

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iva90cb wrote

Oh my gosh. No results from something I read online 7 years ago..? Altos labs will NEVER CURE AGING GUYS THE END IS NEAR WE ARE ALL GOING TO GET SUPER OLD AND GET SUPER CANCER GUYS

12

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivaekqm wrote

You will get old. You may get cancer. Death is part of the human experience. Just like the boomers you all rally against, extending life span to immortality is to steal the miracle of experience from future generations.

−19

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivafkte wrote

Ah yes, death fetishism. Let's not cure old age, for it is only natural and part of the human experience...

Anyone who accepts aging is ageist, old people are people too. If it's at all feasible to save them, I don't see why it's not worth giving it a try.

If you're against longevity research, go fuck yourself. Seriously.

21

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivag37t wrote

You dont cure suffering, you just give it to someone else. If you can not critical think to the extent to understand that the world has a population cap and every old person who lives longer takes resources from someone else, go fuck yourself. Seriously. I do not support a distopian future of forced sterilization or rationing so some greedy pathetic billionare can live for 10000 years.

−13

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivaitsg wrote

Nobody is going to keep it for the rich only. That's a fiction that you fucktards make up so you can rationalize not trying in the first place.

14

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivajhms wrote

The rich will control the resources of development, as they do currently. Why will the technology then be shared with all of society when they will all see the consequences very clearly. Again you fail to answer. How do you prevent runaway population growth? How do you prevent food shortages? Ohh the AGI will solve all that for you too? You live in a fa tasy land. But go ahead let your anger convince you that its a problem free future where we all live to a million and play paddy cake in a field of roses. Get a grip.

−5

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivakny1 wrote

Go ahead and let your anger convince you that the rich control everything and the only future for humanity is destined to be dystopian.

11

[deleted] t1_ivcpci4 wrote

> by 2050 they’ll have some serious tools to extend their healthy lifespans

FTFY.

We live in a harsh unequal system dominated by profit-seeking markets. As if access to life extension is going to be socialised.

Basic healthcare in the US is still tied to employment, and people are still commonly bankrupted

My bet: multi million dollar per year subscription models. “Eat shit and die, peasants” is the way our system treats MOST people right now, why would we expect this to be any different.

Political revolution away from a greedy capitalist system remains the most important project to improving the average persons lifespan.

Access is still a way more important and far-fetched project even than discovery.

1

gahblahblah t1_iv8k331 wrote

Large growth in accessibility to information about our most basic cell biology building block structures is the opposite of '0 progress' - Google’s deep-learning program for determining the 3D shapes of proteins stands to transform biology, say scientists.

You are equating your ignorance of progress as meaning there has been no progress.

39

[deleted] t1_iv970vs wrote

[deleted]

17

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9cztk wrote

As someone with a long history in the field that keeps current with scientific literature, I'd say "where's the damn progress, because I haven't seen it?". I would be very surprised if something meaningful happens before 2075.

1

gahblahblah t1_iv9eswt wrote

I have already posted a link above that is an example of progress. If bettering tools to understand the body isn't progress to you, perhaps your definition of progress is flawed.

7

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9d4nq wrote

A computer program that predicts protein structure a little bit better and faster than the stuff we were using 25 years ago, isn't going to change medicine in a meaningful way without changes in which animal experiments, clinical trials, and FDA approvals are done and financed.

−5

SgathTriallair t1_iv9et2l wrote

A) not a little faster, mind bogglingly faster. It is going from months to hours.

B) by understanding how the proteins fold we can run simulations on the computer to find the most likely candidates for love testing. This could knock off years or even decades of trial and error.

13

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9yre5 wrote

Please enlighten me on what the next steps are to get from a faster, a little bit more accurate simulation (protein fold prediction has been around for 30 years or more) to immortality. Tell me what has changed that is going to make it so much faster to get drugs tested and approved than it used to be.

The wishful thinking in this sub borders on delusion.

−5

SgathTriallair t1_ivaueme wrote

I told you how the drug testing will improve. Since so much testing is based on trial and error, we can model much of that trial and error so that we only do animal and human tests in drugs we think are likely to work.

As our models improve we will eventually be able to skip animal and maybe even human trials. Those are both flawed systems do it is possible to create a new system which is more reliable.

The next stage that medical researchers have been talking about is custom drugs. We will assess an individual's biochemistry and then tailor drugs to them rather than assume that all humans are exactly the same (current method).

How does this all lead to immorality? Fuck if I know. I'm not a medical researcher. That is part of what makes science exciting. The future is the last great unexplored country. No one knows what the twists and turns of gate will bring us. No one can predict what the next break through will be. What we can say with certainty is that we haven't reached the end of the journey.

I'm sorry you hate this sub. It can feel terrible if you or a loved one are staring down the barrel of death and all we offer is "here are some cool things that might happen". If you joined up to find the secret to immorality, then you came to the wrong place. At the moment, achieving immorality remains the domain of snake oil salesmen. But just because something was impossible yesterday doesn't mean it will be impossible tomorrow. Sure maybe everyone reading this will die before the breakthrough happens. That just makes us like everyone else that ever lived, we aren't being extra punished. On the other hand it is possible that everyone under the age of 50 has the chance (by no means the certainty) to cross the threshold of aging.

Note, even in this wonderful future death is still likely. Trauma, disease, and suicide will all exist. There will almost certainly not be someone who lives forever, there are too many freak occurrences in the world. But just because you won't make it doesn't mean you stop trying.

5

gahblahblah t1_iv9mcnq wrote

A quote from my link "An AlphaFold prediction helped to determine the structure of a bacterial protein that Lupas’s lab has been trying to crack for years."

The tools is already being helpful - but you don't seem to think this counts as meaningful progress because 'more work is needed'.

Your definition for progress would make you blind to the majority of progress. Improved tools are progress, and this tool is helpful right now, and it is not a small benefit, no. You may be ignorant of the benefits, but this doesn't mean they don't exist

3

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9xxz2 wrote

Read my comment. Going from a computer prediction to something that will prolong your life, isn't something that scales exponentially. All I said is that we had pretty accurate computer predictions decades ago, and look where that got us. Yes, it's helpful, yes it's better, but it's not game changing when it comes to immortality, and there isn't a clear next exponential step.

The wishful thinking in this sub borders on religion. I am going to unsubscribe since I had enough of this bullshit here.

−3

gahblahblah t1_ivcejoe wrote

I have provided direct evidence for my views. You could try r/longevity. It is a science based sub - although you may find that they disagree with you there too. Bye bye.

3

ChoosenUserName4 t1_ive0fd7 wrote

Too many fanbois on this sub. You have provided no evidence at all, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Keep hoping, keep wishing. I'm done debating 14 year olds.

0

Effective-Dig8734 t1_iv8ynwb wrote

I just have 0 Idea where you’re getting your info from. 10-20 years ago you would be looked at like a crazy person if you talked about being immortal or curing aging. Even the people who talked about it still though it was 40-50 years away, which is pretty consistent

24

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivafp90 wrote

You still are a crazy person. Resources are limited people can not continue to have kids and live forever. Embrace the human experience, enjoy perception. Then face death like a man and not a coward. Instead of wasting your life, live it.

−10

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivai3ed wrote

Are you in pain every day? Can you barely walk? Do you suffer from dementia?

If you replied no to those questions, you have no right to be calling anyone a coward. We can prevent suffering by defeating old age but you're just another person who wants to prevent progress. Someone who wants suffering to be embraced. What will you do when it's you in that position? Can't take care of yourself. Can't go to the bathroom on your own. You're going to accept? You are going to embrace that pain and suffering? You are going to "be a man???"

I seriously doubt that. Lie to yourself all you want, though.

You're the fucking nutcase here, pal.

16

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivailbv wrote

Who knows, I hope I will be able to. No one is saying we should not try to cure dementia, no one is saying we should not decrease pain. But as typical of your ideological insanity you ignored all the problems, failed to offer even a sinvle solution. What do we do about the run away population growth? The famine? War? Oh great you cured a few individual sufferings and wrought suffering on a mass scale to all of human civilization. Those things you tall about as if they are guarantees, they will not be extended to everyone.

4

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iv8exeb wrote

Professionals in the field think reversing aging is possible within 20 years.

20

Phoenix5869 OP t1_iv8h78q wrote

Afaik they said that 20 years ago

2

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iv8he2u wrote

Who said that?

12

Phoenix5869 OP t1_iv8hm9w wrote

I heard ppl 10 years ago saying that we would cure it in 15 20 years so i assumed they said that 10 years before that aswell

−8

PolarsGaming t1_iv8nf0z wrote

You say LEV is within reach by 2060 so hopefully you live until then I guess?

5

nblack88 t1_ivalny9 wrote

I don't mean this as an insult. Ten years ago, you were 7. Give it ten it more years, you'll be in your 20s, and will have those years behind you to research and watch any progress. That should give you a better idea of whether or not to be pessimistic.

4

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iv8qamt wrote

What kind of "experts" are you listening to?

2

GhostInTheNight03 t1_iv8rd9v wrote

The experts that said that lengthening telomeres was all that needed to be done, compared to what we know today, the hallmarks of aging, that was a ridiculous assumption, predictions now are logically much more accurate

10

Phoenix5869 OP t1_iv8v9k3 wrote

Idk but i heard a lot of them say that we are nowhere near curing aging. i hope theyre wrong tho

0

TheHamsterSandwich t1_iv99l9z wrote

Who said that?

4

ChoosenUserName4 t1_iv9dcp9 wrote

You know, the experts, people that got PhDs in the stuff, people that spent 30 years studying the field. Not, Reddit experts that watched a sketchy YouTube video and then formed an opinion based on wishful thinking.

−4

botfiddler t1_iv9qt7m wrote

I don't think there won't be one cure and then you're done, it's about complex treatments during your lifetime.

1

FantasticCar3 t1_iviubie wrote

whoever said that was wildly optimistic. Perhaps you have taken that as turth and are now disappointed. just give it time. its not impossible and u are still very young

1

botfiddler t1_iv9qn7q wrote

Someone maybe said that back then, without having any data backing that up. The current situation looks much different.

1

ixfd64 t1_ivfk3wj wrote

There's a running joke in the diabetes community that "the cure is always five years away." I imagine this is the case for many other diseases.

1

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_iv8qjec wrote

What matters is getting AGI, we get that, everything else follows afterwards.

17

arindale t1_iv8dr3x wrote

Healthcare is unfortunately prone to hyperbole. It doesn’t help that they can extend the health span of mice in many different ways, and that doesn’t translate to humans.

But realistically, you have nothing to worry about yourself. You are young. Enjoy life. If you are able to see the singularity, you will experience massive improvements in health span.

13

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ivaat2j wrote

Unless we get turned into paperclips by a misaligned superintelligence. Then none of us will be benefitting from improvements in lifespan/healthspan.

1

No-Philosopher2573 t1_ivahbha wrote

Assuming the singularity is a net positive to humanity is a very narcissitic point of view.

1

sumane12 t1_iv9eugt wrote

  1. you are 17-18, so your perspective is extremely skewed
  2. there's been consistent, although slow and linear, growth in life extension, 90% of humans who ever lived died before they were 40
  3. people who are working in Life extension research are trying to extend healthy life, meaning keeping people fit and active into their 70's and 80's this has had massive breakthroughs recently
  4. anecdotally, if you look at celebrities, they have aged extremely well. 40 is the new 30 and 50 is the new 40. This might not resonate with you because of your age, but I remember when I was a kid, most people over 40 looked aged, now even 50 yr olds look fit and healthy.
  5. AI is taking us further with being able to solve protein folding and soon many other issues.
13

[deleted] t1_ivcf5jh wrote

I would just keep in mind that the older life expectancy numbers are all based on averaging across a much higher infant mortality rate.

People didn’t exactly live that much less; it’s just that way waaaay more babies died in pregnancy / childbirth or in the months directly afterwards. So I would take those figures with a grain of salt as I wouldn’t exactly call that life extension in the way most people imagine it.

So when you say “90% of humans died before they were 40” that’s misleading; most of the people dying that led to that figure did so before they were even 1, and then when you calculate an average life expectancy that drags the total down to around 40.

For those that survived early childhood they often lived almost as long as people do today. People were never exactly dying of old age at 40.

3

sumane12 t1_ivcjass wrote

Of course you are correct, but it still needs to be considered. Ultimately we are slowly fighting against everything that eventually kills us. we take a reduction in infant mortality as "matter of fact" but let me tell you, my second son was born 3 weeks ago and my wife and I did not get to the hospital in time and I had to deliver him myself on our bedroom floor. Miraculously everything went well and the ambulance arrived seconds later to take both him and my wife to the hospital, but it was such a dangerous situation. After that I will never take infant mortality for granted again.

With regards to your statement about people living almost as long as today, I disagree with. Yes 40 was never considered "old age" (as far as I am aware) but 50 and 60 definitely was. Living to 60, 300 years ago, would be like living to 100 today, very unusual and only perfect health, diet and environment would get you there. Now my dad is in his 60's working at a comfortable rate, and getting plenty of exercise and apart from type 1diabetes, has no major health concerns.

People are living longer, its just a fact, yes infant mortality skewes the data, but if you remove infant mortality from the data, I believe we have atleast doubled life expectancy from when modern humans first evolved.

2

venustrine t1_iv8x50g wrote

as long as the richest people still look like ass i don’t buy anything

11

rationalkat t1_iv9krjq wrote

Some predictions for LEV:

11

94746382926 t1_ivb83ko wrote

It'd be interesting to plot the age of the scientists against their prediction for LEV. Seems like most always put the prediction right before the end of their expected lifespan.

3

[deleted] t1_iv8ioe0 wrote

[deleted]

10

yachtsandthots t1_iv8j4ba wrote

NR failed to extend lifespan in the ITP

5

[deleted] t1_iv8jme3 wrote

[deleted]

5

yachtsandthots t1_iv8lt6c wrote

The ITP only tests one intervention at a time. However, previous studies that have shown life extension with NR have not used methyl co-supplementation so it’s not unreasonable to expect to see an effect.

8

imlaggingsobad t1_iv8q9mn wrote

I'm still expecting LEV somewhere in the 2030s.

10

SgathTriallair t1_iv9emcw wrote

The scientific process takes time. We have made intense strides. The technology behind the COVID vaccine and Alpha Fold are already revolutions.

The standard chicken for medicine is:

-discovery of a principle

-designing a treatment based on that principle

-doing the various trials to launch it

-making it available to rich people

-making it available to everyone

This process takes like 20 years. You are what 18? You've got your whole life ahead of you, don't stress anti-aging solutions yet. Plenty of people are working on them and they get here when they do. There is no law of physics that prevents extreme life extension so it'll come in one form or another.

10

SFTExP t1_iv8spx1 wrote

Murphy’s Law. They will discover life extension after we die. 🤨

7

Phoenix5869 OP t1_iv8tor5 wrote

Lmao true with my luck it'll be discovered the day after i die

6

[deleted] t1_ivcg7ek wrote

Worse: It won’t be freely available when they do discover it. It’ll probably cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. We live in a capitalist system

2

shanjacked t1_iv8zjkg wrote

It reminds me a little of how many cancer breakthroughs I've heard of in the past 20 years, but now I'm of the age where I'm seeing friends and family succumb to cancer.

5

Mokebe890 t1_iv94umf wrote

The 5 years survival rate increased overall to around 70% of patients, its really huge. Im sorry to hear about your relatives, but we made significant progress in detection and curing cancers.

8

Phoenix5869 OP t1_iv94imq wrote

Exactly we hear about “breakthroughs” every week, especially in stuff like cancer treatments, stem cells etc (remember that article 10 years ago about scientists curing paralysis in mice?) and they all fail to materialise. We cant even cure genetic conditions caused by 1 single error after decades of reaserch but this sub would have you belive that were gonna cure all genetic diseases and aging in 20 years and become immortal cyborgs 😂😂😂. Im starting to think the crispr “reaserch” is all fake and the scientists are in on it to make money and they just make up some results and make it look convncing.

4

[deleted] t1_ivch561 wrote

The thing you should be more concerned about, if you ask me, is access to this breakthrough when it happens.

We live in a harsh unequal capitalist system not even slightly responsive to human need. It responds more readily to greed.

When it is discovered I expect the treatment to costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Why? Because people will still pay it and someone will get very rich.

Sad but probably true.

So all the worst people in the world will become immortal and everyone else will just die like normal.

I expect this will be the case for hundreds of years because those immortal few will ALSO use everything in their power to stop this treatment being socialised, knowing it will cause immense scarcity of resources as the population explodes. They will go so far as using police to violently suppress a rebellion.

I do expect this to eventually lead to a revolutionary scenario where humans demand life extension as a human right but many will die in the struggle and it probably won’t be won within our lifetimes judging by how hard fought anti capitalist struggle has been so far, without victory yet.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it is the limits of politics and capitalism, that are the main threats to life extension for all of us but the very wealthiest few, not scientific discovery.

Arguably that’s harder to solve.

1

EntireContext t1_ivaamsw wrote

Once AGI is here longevity is a solved problem. But it makes sense that you're pessimistic given that your AGI timelines are way off in my opinion. AGI will be here between 2025 and 2030 if this progress that we're seeing with Large Language Models continues at the same pace.

3

xenonamoeba t1_ivajeeo wrote

the WHOLE POINT of the singularity is that you won't be able to see beyond a certain horizon, you won't be able to tell what's up next, how technology will advance... one AI is "sentient" and becomes infinitely more intelligent than humanity, I doubt they'll struggle finding a way to expand the human lifespan... they'll probably do it in half a second by 2050.

3

DarkHoneyComb t1_ivaxce6 wrote

My take has always been that as soon as we get machine learning models advanced enough, we can just ask them to solve various health problems.

And with the way research and development is going so far, and the incredibly pace of improvement, it’s look pretty good so far.

We don’t even need AGI; just a sufficiently advanced model solving specific problems will do, which we already have for generative art.

I think the next decade will be very promising.

3

pyriphlegeton t1_ivbi71p wrote

A large part of this is the same reason why people are so disillusioned by fusion power: reading non-scientific articles.

Listen to actual experts in the field, ideally as many as possible. Journalists tend to not have the dahinter idea ejat they're talking about - and they exagerrate on top of that.

Besides that, predicting future progress is inherently difficult and inaccurate.

3

DarkCeldori t1_ivcsuvd wrote

The thing is we've had lots of advances in the fight against aging. We've discovered stuff like metformin, akg, melatonin, nad+ boosters, sirtuin activators. We've even discovered that some of the yamanaka factors can be used to rejuvenate the epigenome all the way if needed.

Right now preliminary studies in rodents seem to show promise for astaxanthin too.

If you go by Aubrey De Grey's notions of aging, it would be extremely difficult for a monkey to double lifespan or for a human to double lifespan. Yet we've seen that it is likely our common ancestor with monkeys had monkey like lifespan, and a few minor tweaks tripled lifespan in humans. The changes were easy not uber herculean engineering feats as Aubrey supposes. Analysis of the genomes of even longer lived mammals like Bowhead whales show lack of many of the engineering suggestions of SENS in their genome.

Again the longer lived a species is, the fewer mutations or changes are likely needed to make it an ageless, or biologically immortal species. Humans are pretty long lived already. An intervention that doubles or triples lifespan in a shorter lived organism, might actually make humans ageless or biologically immortal. This might only need be a cocktail of a few drugs and nutraceuticals.

3

TerrryBuckhart t1_iv8zngu wrote

hard to predict, but I think it will happen within 100 years.

2

[deleted] t1_iv907fs wrote

There is actually a lot of progress what you talking about? Go to lifespan.io to track progress

2

innovate_rye t1_iv92fer wrote

i align curing aging with agi and digital physiology of humans. im optimistic and expect cryonics to be better in a couple decades. a black horse could be quantum computing which is still mysterious.

2

arisalexis t1_iv9fjx2 wrote

0 factual data you just feel bad? Cool

2

botfiddler t1_iv9pjls wrote

This isn't how such progress happens. In US aging has now been acknowledge as a medical condition for which drugs can be prescribed. Drugs are also more systematically tested. There are some very promising trends, not just hopes and snake oil.

2

TotalMegaCool t1_iv9uk6h wrote

Remember LEV does not mean we stop aging, it means we are at the point when 1year of medical advancement produces 1year of additional life expectancy. When we reach LEV you won't see old people walking into a hospital and young people walking out. What you will see is older people being prescribed drugs that have been shown to improve life expectancy by about 1 to 2 years for the sole purpose of extending life. What happens in those additional 1 to 2 years is more of the same but every year the gains get greater until we reach a point when we can reverse ageing. It may be decades between LEV and being able to reverse ageing.

2

goldygnome t1_iv9zgzi wrote

Just look to the hype curve for your answer.

We've had the peak of inflated expectations. The field has been recognised as legit and money has begun flowing.

We're now in the trough of disillusionment where all the announcements and breakthroughs haven't seemingly achieved anything.

Next up the research will start to bear fruit, offering small improvements at first, nothing too exciting. When? Probably late this decade or early next.

2

Homie4-2-0 t1_ivah3ym wrote

Something you need to consider is the time differential between discovering something and getting it approved by the FDA. The FDA and medical regulations are notoriously slow, inefficient, and conservative. It's improved considerably over the last 50 years, but 6-7 years is still a tiny amount of time when it comes to medical research. It would be considered a quick approval to go from finishing research and getting it approved within 5-10 years. All those breakthroughs you read about 6-7 years ago are currently at varying stages of the clinical trial process, and many of them will likely see the light of day within the next 5-10 years.

​

Also, a well-known concept in economics is that it can take decades to go from discovering something and implementing it. There are several reasons for this, but in this case, the most important one is the need for complementary technology. Even if we could prove a gene had a certain effect and correct it with gene editing 30 years ago, it cost too much and was too inaccurate to be safely implemented. This is what changed over the past 10 years. We now have the technology to implement gene editing, reverse the epigenome, and kill senescent cells affordably and safely. In the case of gene editing, it only got here within the last 5 years. Within the next decade, we're going to see the floodgates open when it comes to medical innovation.

​

Edit: I forgot to mention that AI is another complementary technology that only got here recently. AI has increased research efficiency within biotech exponentially over the last few years. You only need to look at AlphaFold to see the effect it can have.

2

savagefishstick t1_ivb4lv5 wrote

its all coming by the end of this decade. we already have ai doing so much with protein folding and we will continue making breakthroughs faster and faster every day. thats what growth on an exponential scale looks like. Just keep holding on till the end of the decade.

2

Addendum709 t1_ivdqtd8 wrote

I often have these fears that we'll be stuck with 2010s/2020s technology for the rest of the century ngl

2

JoelMDM t1_iv95v38 wrote

Radical life extension is like fusion. Always 30 years away, until the day it suddenly isn’t. There’s really no way to predict this kind of stuff easily, since it usually depends on a series of ‘lucky’ breakthroughs.

I’ve talked about this often with my friends, but you know what scares me? The chance of being on the generation for whom it’ll have been just barely too late.

1

Phoenix5869 OP t1_iv970fc wrote

Yh i worry about that sometimes like what if my generation just misses out by a few years. Its probably too late for our grandparents generation and our parents generation which sucks

2

JoelMDM t1_iv97bq2 wrote

Yep, that’s the assumption I’ve been going with. That it’s probably too late for our parents but that we (us under 40 or 50) should hopefully live to see it happen. It’s very likely that the first methods of life extension will be focussed on maintaining pre-existing infrastructure, helping the body better repair itself, etc. If that infrastructure is already significantly degraded, you might be able to halt further degradation of the regenerative processes, but even though you can stop a metal beam from rusting with a new layer of paint, if it’s already partially rusted through, it’ll give eventually.

The trick then is to stay alive long enough to see them come up with a way to properly reverse aging too.

*Oh and as a little edit: Be careful to not hold onto that “I’m sure I’ll live to see radical life extension” idea too strongly. It’s unhealthy, and I have to frequently remind myself to live as if it’ll never be a thing.

2

mli t1_ivafzpy wrote

Curing aging is just like fusion power: just around the corner, like it has been for the past 50 years.

I believe we get close to these things, fusion power, AGI, curing aging etc. but not close enough. At least not in this century.

1

94746382926 t1_ivb8ksw wrote

Curing aging is the original fusion power in a sense. Humans have been chasing it since as long as we've been around or at least since the beginning of history. IE, the story of Gilgamesh.

1

villagewinery t1_ivb7dl0 wrote

"6-7 years ago when I was 11"

LOL

Revisit the Human Genome Project for some perspective on research and forecasting.

1

fitandhealthyguy t1_ivbcxr4 wrote

Realize that it takes about 10 years to go through clinical trials. Basic research leading up to clinical trials for a drug can take decades. Nobody is seriously researching anti-aging drugs in a clinical research setting because the FDA is unlikely to approve a drug strictly for anti-aging.

1

EscapeVelocity83 t1_ivce60x wrote

Have to consider conflict of interest with profit and dominance

1

CommentBot01 t1_ivd5xv1 wrote

Answering this discussion is unworthy.

1

seyiit t1_iveao8s wrote

Actually it's the opposite. Billionaires like zuckerberg, bezos and Peter Thiel start investing in reverse aging/ LEV technologies and the latter funded companies like airbnb, Spotify and Facebook during their early days. Another point is that these companies of course want to make money with these technologies but will it just be for the rich? Well yeah but just at the beginning imo. If they want to make big money they have to adjust their prices to the average joe. Maybe a model where you pay a fixed amount( based on tax bracket) and the government pays the rest with tax money.

1

Elegant-Tomorrow-203 t1_iv99gxa wrote

Even if it does happen soon, it will be extremely expensive and delegated to the rich. Just like those rich celebrities using diabetes drugs to stay thin, normal people can’t even afford groundbreaking tech like that

−2

CCrypto1224 t1_ivc9pyw wrote

I mean even if they pull it off, nobody is gonna be able to afford it but the same rich jerkasses we don’t want to see anymore, and the minimum wage isn’t gonna get any better if workers are able to work till they’re well over 90 years old.

−2

wattamPrince t1_ivdy6sh wrote

If ageing could be solved and we could live healthily until we are 150+ we would have to leave earth and become a multi-planet species; our current affordable housing crisis’ would look like a drop in the ocean compared to that scenario. Boomers living forever and hoarding all the wealth for eternity, fucking typical 😅

Edit: fun sub eh?

−2

lord_ma1cifer t1_ivbcuss wrote

OK but should we? Is aging something to be "corrected" or simply a natural part of life that needs to be lived. Also if we were to "cure aging" who gets the treatment? I highly doubt it would be given to everyone, most likely it would create a group nigh immortal one percenters who already had a God complex, and this would simply push them over the edge. Aging is the built in equalizer, it ensures no matter how powerful these monsters get they still have an experation date. I for one think it's a terrible idea.

−3

SavingsVersion3934 t1_ivc9ml3 wrote

so envy and aging are linked ?

2

StarChild413 t1_ivednan wrote

or we might as well just (as not curing aging/achieving-what's-immortality-for-all-intents-and-purposes would technically do on a longer timescale) kill everyone so no one can ever get a god complex again?

1

TereziBot t1_iv8hrct wrote

every human that has ever lived has grown old and died, barring those that died even earlier. i understand the appeal of life extending technology but theres also some beauty in the human experience of an end to all of this that every single one of us will eventually experience

−15

Phoenix5869 OP t1_iv8knyx wrote

"Beauty to the end of life" u wont be saying that when ur 86 in a hospital bed

12

NeuroUtopia t1_iv8nr17 wrote

Its called coping. I'm sure if you promised anybody in their 80s a fresh new body, they would take it with no questions asked.

10

PolarsGaming t1_iv8nqp3 wrote

To each their own I guess but please don’t try to halt the development of the technology 🤙

7

green_meklar t1_iv983z5 wrote

I don't see the beauty in that. It doesn't strike me as particularly more beautiful when a 90-year-old dies than when a 9-year-old dies; both missed out on an eternity of potential future experiences. And that's not even counting the ill health and decrepitude for decades leading up to death.

There may be some meaningful and even poetic aspects to death, but there is nothing desirable about it that isn't vastly outweighed by the desirability of avoiding it.

2