Submitted by TampaBai t3_ztvl8b in singularity
I was watching PBS the other night and one of the stories was about how life expectancy in the US has declined by 7 months over the last few years and that our current life expectancy of 77 hasn't changed since 1997. In addition, we spend far more on healthcare and technology than any other advanced nation. So how does this square with the predictions of futurists like Kurzweil et al. who assured us we would be well in to the longevity escape velocity by now? Even if you factor in the opioid crisis and coronavirus, the fact that we haven't gained any life expectancy since 1997 is quite a shock and certainly runs counter to the narrative that we are defeating aging.
TouchCommercial5022 t1_j1ghr2w wrote
Some predictions for LEV;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ryxuehnp8k#t=18m00s
https://longevity.technology/news/longevity-escape-velocity-within-10-years/
https://www1.cbn.com/aging-future-never-looked-better
https://longevity.technology/news/longevity-escape-velocity-by-2035-and-it-will-be-free/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbpzdlib2us#t=21m21s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZbyuBn4Ywg#t=17m25s
Personally, I think the LEV will be reached later in 2050, but we will definitely make significant progress up to that point.
Even if we're not in the LEV, we'll have made significant progress in our understanding of aging and be able to slow it down a bit, I'd bet anyone under 65 has a good chance of doing that.
The 'speed' of LEV is how quickly life expectancy increases. What drives that increase in lifespan, however, is not a continuous momentum, but discrete advances that can have large and relatively sudden effects. What this means is that looking at the average rate of increase in your life expectancy will never be an accurate representation of whether you'll "make it" because it's always possible that we hit a roadblock and no further improvements occur. for a while, or a massive new discovery is right around the corner.
What this means is that we won't really know if we've made it until we're almost into orbit (so to speak). LEV is something that will be hard to really determine at this point. Perhaps, in hindsight, we'll say we reached LEV in 2035 when [X] became available, but at that point we spent the next decade pinning for the next breakthrough.
Ten years ago, Aubrey would not have been optimistic about the progress of rejuvenation. By 2006, Shinya Yamanaka had figured out how to turn normal cells into more versatile and useful stem cells (induced pluripotent stem cells, or IPSs), and CRISPR was beginning to mature as a gene-editing technology. But these were tools, and more theoretical than practical.
For quite some time, we have been able to increase the lifespan of laboratory mice by imposing caloric restrictions or doing things that mimic the effects of caloric restriction. But in the last decade we have also learned how to use stem cell therapies and how to maintain telomeres to extend the lifespan of mice. (Telomeres are structures that keep DNA strands from unraveling when cells divide, like the plastic caps on the ends of shoelaces.) We can also implement senolytics, which are molecules that kill toxic cells within our bodies.
Some of these techniques are now transferring laboratory mice to humans in clinics. One of the leading senolytics companies published this year from a successful phase two clinical trial. There are also clinical trials of stem cell therapies, notably the use of induced pluripotent stem cells in Japan to combat Parkinson's disease, with a couple more trials starting in the US.
Robust Mouse Rejuvenation
We do not yet know how complete our portfolio of therapies needs to be to reach LEV. We just have to keep adding new components until we get there. mice cannot get worse from LEV because their lifespan is too short, so Aubrey has developed a different concept for them: robust mouse rejuvenation (RMR), which is when a middle-aged mouse, which has left one year of life, has his life expectancy doubled. This is the LEV Foundation's flagship research program, and for this purpose, Aubrey recently purchased 1,000 mice.
For quite some time, we have been able to increase the lifespan of laboratory mice by imposing caloric restrictions or doing things that mimic the effects of caloric restriction. But in the last decade we have also learned how to use stem cell therapies and how to maintain telomeres to extend the lifespan of mice. (Telomeres are structures that keep DNA strands from unraveling when cells divide, like the plastic caps on the ends of shoelaces.) We can also implement senolytics, which are molecules that kill toxic cells within our bodies.
Some of these techniques are now being passed from laboratory mice to humans in clinics. One of the leading senolytic companies reported a successful phase two clinical trial this year. There are also clinical trials of stem cell therapies, notably the use of induced pluripotent stem cells in Japan to combat Parkinson's disease, with a couple more trials due to start in the US.
Robust Mouse Rejuvenation The Foundations that Aubrey has established are necessary because private business cannot afford to take a broad enough perspective. He established the new one because he felt that the SENS Board had grown too timid to make the rapid progress that he believes is now possible. Readers of this article may be aware of this controversy, and while I don't intend to go into the details here, many former SENS donors believe Aubrey was treated unfairly, and we fully support his new venture.
I'm fine because;
⚫ Finally billionaires who are older than me don't want to get old
⚫ Nobody likes to get old
⚫ Being young is fashionable
And if I die, I won't care, because you know, I'm dead.
So yes, I am an optimist!
As long as you don't have to work long hours every day, living longer sounds good
But since the only option is to work hard and invest just to have enough money to live 10 or 15 years in fragility, it takes the thrill out of living forever.
They should read Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth books. They have rejuvenation technology and he imagines some interesting social changes based on people living forever. But basically, the poor work for 40 years so they can rejuvenate and then do it again. Forever. Better for the rich, of course.
Three stages of life;
You have time and strength, but no money. You have money and strength, but no time. You have money and time, but you don't have the strength.