Aubrey de Grey Thinks Robust Human Longevity Might Be Here by 2037

Aubrey de Grey is getting more bullish about his timeframes for robust human rejuvenation and longevity escape velocity. He now thinks it is only 18 years away and not 25 years anymore.

There is fastly progressing science and there is a rapid increase in funding and formation of companies. Areas that were making slow progress like Mitosens are now rapidly progressing. Cross-linking is making progress as well.

Robust mouse rejuvenation could be only 3 years away instead of five years. Robust mouse rejuvenation could be by 2022.

Aubrey is more optimistic that partial SENS will be able to deliver significant life extension impact.

Aubrey sees a lot of activity in all seven areas of aging damage identified by SENS.

It seems that the removal of senescent cells will deliver useful health benefits and some longevity.

Aubrey indicates that SENS has a fantastic relationship with the Buck Institute. SENS has multiple projects.

Aubrey is working at AgeX as a Vice-president. Previously Aubrey had believed that there was not much need for SENS to fund stem cell research. Aubrey always considered stem cells to be important. Michael West is doing some of the most important work on stem cells.

AgeX is now a public company. AgeX has the intellectual property of Michael West’s prior work.

There are two main areas of AgeX work.
1. Purestem. It creates highly pure populations of particular types of stem cells. You need to not use pluripotent stem cells inside the body. You need to slightly differentiate the stem cells but make them oligopotent. They can become a particular type of stem cell. AgeX technology can produce this reliably and with high purity.

2. iTr. AgeX is working on induced tissue regeneration (or rejuvenation). AgeX has identified genes to make them regenerative but do not make them pluripotent.

Antiaging in Aging

Singapore has the Center for Healthy Longevity. It is run by someone who was at the Buck Institute. Aubrey thinks Singapore will be major center for getting longevity research moving in Asia. Currently, many Asian countries are still not fully bought into antiaging research.

Analyzing the Global Impact if Aubrey is Correct

Nextbigfuture has analyzed the global impact if Aubrey is correct in his prediction of real robust human rejuvenation around 2037. It will be like 100 times the effect of HIV drugs in terms of the numbers of people and global economic benefit. The countries with the most senior citizens will see the biggest benefits.

SOURCES- Youtube- Science, Technology & the Future channel, Aubrey de Grey, SENS

Written By Brian Wang. Nextbigfuture

93 thoughts on “Aubrey de Grey Thinks Robust Human Longevity Might Be Here by 2037”

  1. I think you’re right that we’ve lost some good things, and we need to think about how to recapture them.

    These days, isolation and loneliness are a normal part of the human condition. We make friends easily as children, then we fly or drive far away for college, go through another friendship building phase, then move away again for work, try to connect with some coworkers, then move again for work, and again… and our social circles dwindle, with the average adult lacking even a single close friendship. This has important ramifications for our mental health.

    Before cars, trains, and planes, people hardly moved from their villages and had lifelong relationships with a hundred people. There were a lot of downsides to that situation as well, but I agree that we’ve lost something, and it’s hard for us to just choose to have it back. We’re embedded in a social and economic environment which guides our decisions, which in some ways causes us to miss out on positive experiences. But we can talk about what we’ve lost, think about how to reclaim it, and try to introduce changes that bring the things we value back.

    That said, when it comes to life extension, I think death is not the answer. Once we are dead, we are not gaining any positive experiences at all, with no ability to change our minds and improve on that situation later.

    Reply
  2. It is not a repetition, it is a serious consideration, seriously evaluating what we had, what we lost, what we have gained and then asking what is the best approach from here rather than reviewing the present as inherently progressive as conventional science often hints.

    Reply
  3. A few months ago, when I figured it, my own calculations, based on today’s fatal accident rates in developed countries, yielded a half-life of a thousand years for a large group of humans born at the same time, all with eternal youth.

    It seems very likely that a lot of accident rates will go way down with access to more advanced technology, especially as some people, perhaps feeling they have far more to protect, become extremely risk averse in their personal lives. (see “Safe at any Speed,” by Larry Niven)

    While this might seem likely to extend that half-life, this extension might be mitigated by a greater likelihood towards suicide among the extremely old (either by taking their lives directly, or discontinuing extension treatments) or by a growing propensity to take greater and greater risks until something does them in. (see “Grendel,” by Larry Niven)

    And, of course, there is the possibility that extremely old minds might come to resemble something that tends to run in a loop, living largely in the past, to the point where we might perceive them as cripplingly senile. Would they continue to receive life extension past the point where they even appeared to be aware of reality? (see “The Ethics of Madness,” by Larry Niven)

    Reply
  4. Pig heart valves last about 15 years in people, so we would have to modify the pigs further to meet our longevity goals. Though, if there were enough robot surgeons maybe it would not mater that much. Still, it would be much better environmentally not to have to grow hundreds of millions of pigs just to harvest organs. If we can make modifications that give the organs a 100 year functional life, and virtually zero rejection risk, that would be much easier on the environment. I think it is doable. I think we could even modify them to make vitamins, so we would be unlikely to have a deficiency in the future. A heart that made its own gamma tocopherol in every cell as needed would likely last longer. Whale lungs can extract a far higher percentage of oxygen out of the air. Modifying pig organs to have the best features available in the animal kingdom is better than making them more human. Besides the ethicists have more problems with adding human genes to pigs to make the organs work better for us. At what point are they more human than pig? But just taking the best genes of hundreds of animals should result in an excellent superhuman organ which beats the indistinguishable goal by a mile.

    Most organs can be replaced fairly easily, others are very hard. Transplanting an eye? That sounds very very hard…so take good care of the ones you have.

    Reply
  5. R. Khimi is not a troll. He has been commenting here for a couple of months now and seems quite sincere. And a number of his comments have been quite worthwhile.
    I don’t understand what he’s on about with his hippie medicine stuff, but that’s very different from a troll. Don’t confuse unrelated classes just because you dislike both of them.

    Reply
  6. I remember the death rate from accidents (and murder maybe) was a lot lower than that.
    I remember the result for a perpetually 30 year old being something like a half-life of 1000 years.

    Reply
  7. Well… I’ll agree to 1957, not 1968.

    Sputnik was the first live real demonstration of the tech, which we haven’t actually got in the anti-aging field yet.

    Reply
  8. I’d be prepared to have a pig based but basically humanoid body if that’s what it takes.

    I assume I’ll still get a mean set of tusks OBVIOUSLY.

    Reply
  9. I interviewed Aubrey a little over a year ago for my Seeking Delphi Podcast. He seemed somewhat discouraged that progress had not been as rapid as he tought it should be. I interviewed him again this week to preview the 2019 Undoing Aging conference to be held in Berlin later this month. His whole tone has changed. There apparently has been huge progress made in the 14 months or so since the first podcast aired. I don’t know if I can post a link here, so search for Seeking Delphi on YouTube, Apple podcasts/iTunes, or PlayerFM to find it. Or search the web for the Seeking Delphi web page.–Mark Sackler

    Reply
  10. Aubrey de Grey cracked the Hadwiger-Nelson problem which was a well-known unsolved maths problem for decades.

    What have you done? Or perhaps you are just a mental sluggard in compare?

    Also he is from an English upper-class family where eccentricity is more tolerated among intellectuals.

    Reply
  11. It may also be possible to grow new organs within you. Start with some small ball of cells that are already differentiated to become an organ and implant it. It may take several years before it can really take over.

    Reply
  12. Not a fan. I think we can continue to modify pig organs and get the same longevity and function out of them without the quagmire. You need a brain to make a body function…even a clone one, I suspect. At least brain stem stuff. You could probably delete the frontal lobes, but that is not going to satisfy many people who have ethical issues with it. Also we have no way of growing clones fast…except in the movies. But pigs grow fast.

    Reply
  13. Is there a consensus that surrogate bodies without brains (if that’s possible; I imagine there’s very little work to evaluate feasibility) to grow one’s organs from a cloned donor body, is ethically off the table?

    Reply
  14. It is not just a matter of printing cells. Tissues are cells that are bound together with a structure. And, not every cell is a shape that is easily printed. Most nerves are long. They can be feet long. The ones from the big toe to base of the spine are the longest.

    Cloning won’t do it either.

    We really don’t know how to transplant a brain or a head.

    Nanites are our best bet for renewing the body. They could take the whole nucleus out of a cell and replace it. They could recognize crosslinks and separate them. They could transport stem cells to where they are needed.

    Hard to even guess at the limits of nanites.

    That said, printing organs is probably not completely a fool’s errand. Arteries, cartilage, ligaments, back disks and more might be conducive to printing…but I am just speculating…could be much harder than it sounds.

    Just using modified pig organs seems like a fairly easy fix for failing organs like heart, lungs, kidney, liver, intestines, stomach, bladder, and more. They have fixed the main hang-up. Pigs have some viruses in their DNA that are actually fully functional. You don’t want that. But they used CRISPER and have pigs without this. They are also modified so that the immune system is less likely to reject the organs. We still don’t know how long these organs will last. It would be a real pain to replace them every 10 years. I think they will last fairly well…because our antioxidants will be going through the blood and our body temp is lower.

    Reply
  15. I wear suspenders instead of a belt. It just seems to do the job better. But it is not exactly a southwest thing. And it is not that I have no aesthetic. I am quite artistic. But as priorities go, conforming and looking sharp is not high on the list. To me comfort and efficiency, allow me to be more effective at doing the things I want to do. I’d probably wear farmer’s/railroad overalls, if they were easily available, in my area. They just seem much more utilitarian and functional. Then I would truly be out of step. And I might be mistaken for the janitor.
    But I still would not wear a color that does not look good on me…there are limits. 😉

    Reply
  16. Layman question, asked in spherical cow space.

    Other than the brain, would there be any reason, given infinite $ and man-hours something like an international flagship initiative, not to print new organs from each patient’s stem cells?

    As a strategy for that adult human’s full body genetic correction.

    Reply
  17. High IQ does not make people nonconformists. Most people with high IQs learn very easily and excel in school and have no need to go off on weird tangents. People seek approval. And they achieve that easily from teachers and parents. But they may chose a different crowd for that approval, moving things a little.
    It is the creative, I think, that go off on their own tangent, and they are more successful at it, if they are also intelligent.
    IQ is one kind of intelligence: school ability. That was the point of the creation of the IQ test…to place students a hundred plus years ago when educational resources were more limited. IQ is the ability to understand what is trying to be taught both fact and technique. Those who go along without question, and follow directions well, are going to be faster than those who examine the point, validity or implications of everything they are presented.
    There is a very different intelligence, that which allows you to learn from meticulous observation things no one is trying to teach you. Most people are mistakenly convinced they do this well. Those with a green thumb or are good with animals tend to be better.
    Those who examine and question everything very closely, and can think freely from what culture and education says are, I feel, more likely to do things differently. It often takes an ability to see alternatives that don’t occur to others commonly.

    But things like appearance? That is just priorities. Efficiency over embarrassment.

    Reply
  18. No one here is actually positing that kind of hubris. Rather the opposite. That the world sucks because people are unwittingly perpetuating a mental and physical handicap that manifests itself in said people’s influence on their environment; and that that handicap (the notion that lifespan has been so inflexible that it must be universally immutable) should be removed asap.

    So no one here, who has spoken up, is stuck in that trap.

    Reply
  19. I agree, but on the other hand I don’t pretend to have enough imagination to foresee all the yet unknown ways evil bastards will subvert the ever receding but never ending number of vulnerabilities in the source code of human society.

    On the gripping hand all pro death arguments must be accounted for and comprehensively dismantled. Every possible variant of every one of them, no matter how flawed.

    Because each one gives someone somewhere a reason to keep the pro death trance going around them, and means there’s at least one more person with a reason to die unnecessarily. I mean, despots of the future may not be a superset of that sort of person, but unless we get into morbid “single death tragedy/million death statistic” sort of POV, then every single human life counts and so every single pro death argument no matter how convincing or not, is equally beyond the limit of tolerance. edit- because that seemingly niche argument inevitably finds a human to fool into being another zombie in the pro death trance.

    Sorry that’s a little wordy but I wrote it as I thought it through and I’m too tired to reshuffle it for brevity.

    Reply
  20. Such people are rare. The kind I mentioned would be far more plentiful. Hitler did take lots of medications and treatments…if science had been more advanced…he still would have died in a bunker. You thought I was going somewhere else with that, didn’t you? 😉 Someone would have found a way to kill Stalin by now. You can’t kill millions of people with no consequences for a hundred years. Guards will slip up or be bought off or just decide to end the jerk themselves…because he said something one too many times reveling just how evil he was.

    If anything, it makes those in close contact feel more responsible for allowing them to continue. And these jerks would probably take to killing their own children to avoid any of them trying to take the throne, as it were.

    Will we continue to have despots well into the future? I am not saying necessariy that every country will become a democracy, but it seems to me that, if there are dictators in the future, they will probably be silicon…and mostly benevolent.

    There may be a lot of power at the top like in China, but ultimately there is oversight…some group…elected or not.

    There could even be rule by algorithm…something much simpler than an AI. Cost-benefit analysis or something like that.

    Reply
  21. I think it is currently possible to correct a bunch of bad genes in zygotes…and we should. Very hard to genetically modify genes in all the cells of a living breathing human. Even modifying 50% would be a massive accomplishment.

    And we can also make the same modification we did in mice where we control apoptosis by just adding a chemical that gives the signal for senescent cells to kill themselves. No need to wait around for the perfect senolytic. One gene change is all it takes. And the periodic administration of the trigger. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/scientists-extend-life-of-mice-by-35.html

    Reply
  22. One answer would be for the OP to understand economics. Wealth is created by individuals, it is not a fixed supply item. No rich person is hoarding anyone else’s wealth. It’s impossible for them to do so, in fact.

    And no, the fact you used the word “money” doesn’t change that.

    Reply
  23. Collecting recyclable trash is not the same as living in a hunter gatherer society. The point of my argument is that it is a trap to look at our state as an epitome of anything. We could progress in better more beneficial ways that we currently do. Approaches we had in the past actually might hold a better promise for the future!

    Reply
  24. Specifically? Pick one item for A-B comparison.

    Basicality and distance are irrelevant to whether people are/aren’t condemned to death unnecessarily by some technocentric/phobic agenda.

    What you’re talking about sounds more like ecologically-oriented culture than method-agnostic healthcare.

    Reply
  25. Where is your nuclear powered smartphone? Why aren’t we using gamma rays to sterilize all our meat and poultry? Why do we have only half the highways/lanes we need? Why aren’t nuclear power plants making most of the electrical power? Why aren’t we fertilizing the ocean growing large amounts of phytoplanction soaking up CO2 and growing millions of tons of salmon in the process? Why aren’t we already editing embryos to prevent heart disease, and cancer? Why aren’t we using advances that could wipe out pathogen carrying mosquitoes? For that mater why aren’t we using Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizer (DRACO) to kill viruses. It has killed virtually everything they have tested it on: https://riderinstitute.org/pages/draco
    But no one funds it.

    An offal lot of effort goes into protecting the large corporations and maintaining the status quo rather than really building the US or other economies. The Internet should have been replaced with a newer one with none of the flaws or inefficiencies. New pre-planned cities should have been built taking full advantage of transportation technologies, and recycling technologies taking pressure off of the older inefficient cities. Only China is doing anything like this and not very well either. The telephone system is antiquated. With a computer anyone can present their number to the caller ID system as anything they want, including the person being called.

    Reply
  26. And which is blindly protecting.

    Never mind the “retarded” and “jihadist” assertions, which clearly aren’t “a regressed mind’s resort to aggression”.

    Reply
  27. There are better ways to explore, heal our connection to the earth,helping our bodies rejuvenate, we don’t need to go very far, most of it is very basic.

    Reply
  28. Instead of a look, try a listen. Though with your usual grumpy skeptic attitude, I don’t expect that would convince you. But in my own experience, I’ve heard (and seen) him discuss his ideas in several videos as well as live. My impression is of an intelligent person who knows what he’s talking about, but with a rather unusual personality. His looks reflect his quirky personality more than anything else.

    Reply
  29. > In order for RMR (robust mouse regeneration) to take place, the MMM (maximally modifiable mouse) project and MitoSENS project would need to first succeed.

    I’m not convinced that those are indeed required. Just clearing senescent (and ideally also cancerous) cells should have a big effect, even more so with stem cell replensishment and extracellular junk clearance (including cross-links). The first two should take care of the intracellular issues as well, since damaged cells would eventually get removed and replaced.

    But it depends on how RMR is defined. If they just want to show a significant increase in lifespan, then complete SENS isn’t required.

    Also, I expect the glucosepane work to accelerate now that they’ve figured out how to synthesize it.

    Reply
  30. I am not saying you wrong in what you say about physical appearance. But I am saying that has nothing to do with his research or his intelligence.
    I looked at his credentials a while ago and was impressed. I am guessing here but I would be willing to bet yours are NOWHERE near as impressive and comprehensive as his.

    Reply
  31. It’s not a sure thing he’s a troll. I’ve met people like him. It’s not a long way to go from naive and harmless Gaia type mysticism to naive and overzealous mistakenness.

    It’s not wrong, if that’s the sort of person here, to help people right their wrong headedness.

    Of course me saying this out loud will make things more stubborn and worse. LOL!

    Reply
  32. “it will probably be exponentially more expensive to keep rejuvenating yourself past a certain point, so that problem might more or less take care of itself.”

    The actual cost of manufacturing therapies is less the material cost than the intellectual cost. Not the kg of matter but the years of knowledge that led to the formula.
    Somehow it doesn’t seem realistic that people everywhere in the world would put up with dying unnecessarily early for the sake of something the size of someone’s student loan debt — because the financial space for everyone to earn a very comfortable living is so much larger than required to not be strictly sustained by the business of anti-aging R&D/mfg.

    Maybe some countries will be that cut-throat about profits. I doubt they all will and if so the worldwide picture becomes much more of a buyer’s market on the immigration-wise. Why would you stay in a country that fleeces you for the right to live, versus another that merely taxes you for it.

    There’d probably be a lot of pretentious debate over how socialist, or whatever, that kind of policy is, and how despicable those citizens are.
    That’d be funny.

    Reply
  33. I think that’s likely not a real issue for most people. I recall reading once that if you didn’t age at all, and just were subject to the lowest accidental death rate of any age, you’d likely live about 300 years. Assuming that greater vitality would lead to risk taking, probably not even that.

    Reply
  34. In theory you need to deal with all 8 problems in order to end aging, but as you deal with each one in turn, the longevity curve gets more stretched out, with early mortality declining.

    On advantage with immunologically invisible cells is that you can create “organoids” to deliver various therapeutic products, like whatever it is that’s in young blood.

    Reply
  35. Ah, the old fixed pie fallacy. I assure you that no matter how much money Bill Gates has, there is still room in the world for you to be successful. Wealth is a measure of value, not strictly limited to land or stuff. If you have something of value to offer the world, you can exchange that for wealth. Fixed pie thinking is basically saying there’s nothing useful I can do because someone else is doing a lot of useful stuff already, or that everything worth inventing has already been invented.

    As far as Stalin-types living forever. I agree this is bad, but biologic immortality will not stop a high velocity rifle round or a suicide drone. There will also be, presumably, lots of immortal good guys who don’t like living under such people.

    I think it’s true that living longer will give people more time to rack up compound interest, which after a few extra decades can really generate staggering sums. Most likely society will evolve to extract more money out of those people. Just thinking about it from the standpoint of the way things generally seem to work in the world, it will probably be exponentially more expensive to keep rejuvenating yourself past a certain point, so that problem might more or less take care of itself.

    Reply
  36. Or just walk away.

    A despot of the kind we know today, but in the year (for simplicity’s sake) 2100, would be more like an asshole neighbor. By virtue of the fact that you have 200 years ahead of you and a technological landscape where it’s not like that despot has the only oasis for you to survive in.

    Reply
  37. “Sahlins concludes that the hunter-gatherer only works three to five hours per adult worker each day in food production.”

    I’m at zero needed. If you want to count what I spend vs. what I make, it is about 20 minutes.

    I could quit my job and spend 4 hours a day collecting recyclable trash to cover my food bill. And live out of an old car. Would that make me affluent?

    Reply
  38. Dealing with those problems is infinitely better than dealing with the obligation to not be alive at all.

    It seems like exactly the kind of growing pains that a human *should* have to deal with in learning to know themselves, as delphic/Socrates put it. Death as we learn to deal with, would still exist, only it would exist in the context of a full life, rather than a partial and involuntarily truncated life.

    Reply
  39. Plenty of people have some significant positive influence on the world from their focus on one thing, at the expense of some other thing (e.g. whether they’re competitive athletically or artistically, etc).

    The universe is a deep and wide enough place to explore and examine, compared to the human brain’s abilities and the short life time to use it, that it’s not hard to spend disproportionate amount of time in favor of pursuits that soon become esoteric to everyone outside that intellectual niche.

    Reply
  40. A vigilant commitment to rule of law and free press/expression along with term limits. Failing that, assassination.

    Reply
  41. And if we can get to true rejuvenation, we will never need to worry about whatever show up afterwards as an aging mechanism.

    Although, I would offer one caveat. While a brain or body might be made eternally young, that might not work with the operating systems we call our minds. Sure, a partial wipe and reboot might be possible, but how, exactly, would that differ from death? I can see family wanting it done for a loved one, or an organization wanting it done for someone they need. It wouldn’t be like death for them, quite the opposite, but how is it not death for the individual it is done for . . . or, perhaps, to?

    I expect that it will be like operating systems on computers; some run for ages with not problems at all, but many will someday crash, even without a hard drive failure.

    Reply
  42. slob* ≠ moron

    Geniuses tend to be nonconformist

    *actually his beard looks clean and symmetrical to me so perhaps I should have written unstylish ≠ moron

    Now I work in Silicon Valley at a company that writes software to design computer chips (so biggest customers are Intel, Nvidia, Apple etc.) Eccentricity like that is not unusual among the smartest people here.

    https://www.medicaldaily.com/majority-rules-we-tend-conform-unless-we-have-high-iq-34522

    Reply
  43. Don’t just quote truisms, show the math for how they actually apply to specific arguments you reply to.

    If you can’t tell how you’re being tone deaf right now, that’s more likely issue than everyone else but you being cavemen or whatever insulting rationalization.

    Technology is not inherently evil.
    Curing aging does not inherently make the world a worse place.

    Technology and curing aging are in fact a healthier thing for the world when present than absent. For instance, technology is dirty in part because people are short-lived: if people lived (e.g.) 500 years, there would be time and patience to research develop and implement clean tech. Also because people would have to live with 500 years of consequences.

    Reply
  44. Yeah that was great news. If you buy into the SENS framework, though, that is 1 of 8 things probably “solved” in terms of cost. There is still 7 more to go.

    Reply
  45. Get real. No one who judges people on their distaste for their particular style or charisma has any credibility in transferring that distaste to something unrelated like their scientific merit. Or intelligence. People like John Bolton are not the rule that disproves the exceptions.

    You don’t like AdG. That’s the only substance to your comments.

    Reply
  46. Yeah, that’s just nonsense; in the real world appearances matter if those appearances are distracting. Rasputin here is a shyster. Shysters always garner an audience.

    Cutting your hair and being clean is not narcissistic. Wearing a beard like this, or being an urban hipster with ‘a style’ is narcissism. Former secretary of energy Ernest Moniz sporting the Quaker Oats haircut has a ‘style’ and an ‘image’ and is therefore narcissistic. Papa smurf here is just a moron.

    Reply
  47. Too bad Alan Harrington didn’t live long enough to see us “mobilize the scientists, spend the money, and hunt death down like an outlaw.” Finally his dream is happening.

    Reply
  48. Personally, I care. Save my 10 year old son from aging, and I’ll be happy, but save me from aging, too, and I’ll be a lot happier.

    Reply
  49. If we get this stuff reasonably soon, it gives us a lot more time to solve whatever shows up afterwards as an aging mechanism.

    Reply
  50. You fail to see that curing aging gives people the choice to live or die; to live or die how they choose. If bushmen are good (in your above intimation) it’s SPECIFICALLY because of their actions. An action meaning the thing that a non-inanimate object does. Meaning someone who is *alive*. Hence the longer that person lives, the more “good” that person does.

    So curing aging is merely a multiplier for whatever the person does, which itself is decided by their values. Curing aging is IMMATERIAL to one’s values. It only enables humans to be more human.

    Not less.

    The printing press was not an inherently evil thing.

    Reply
  51. This is kind of like someone in 1968 saying that, despite all the hype, we’ve not put a single footprint on the moon yet.

    It may be accurate, but it shouldn’t be the takeaway.

    Reply
  52. Revolutions happened when there was less than eternal life (lived in freedom) at stake. Why would some despot survive when people have not merely 50-odd years to fight and die for, but possibly 10 or 100x that.

    It also fails when extrapolated far enough. If I teleport you to some feodal time and place in our past, and you get to bring all the tech toys you wish that could fit on e.g. an acre of land. That means solar panels, all the fabrication tools to fit a large workshop (e.g. Jay Leno’s with 3D scanners and printers, the works), guns, etc etc.

    It’s not hard to see how the above scenario, as you move *you* decades into the future, gets less and less of a big deal in terms of you dealing with that feodal despot. More so if it’s not just you but everyone else that has increasingly better means to be self-sufficient.

    Despots’ authority is material scarcity. That scarcity is diminishing, not increasing, with time. We’re not nearly at post-scarcity, but given decades and centuries, technology will make it so you can bugger off with/to social circles to whatever chosen spot in the solar system. That is just a matter of time, not a scifi prospect.

    And curing aging does just that: put time on your side. Just like prison escapees bide their time.

    The *key* is ensuring democratization of aging therapies. Avoiding the Elysium (crappy movie, but easy illustration of) kind of scenario.

    Reply
  53. FTL has no basis. Where’s the basis for “merging with technology” in a substantial way for >125yr healthspan? Anti-aging research is not hype.

    Reply
  54. A major breakthrough that was not mentioned here is they found a way to make stem cells universal so they don’t get rejected by the immune system. That means very cheap stem cell therapy and much more money and research will be spent on stem cell research.
    I used to say “Live forever” I have since changed it to “Young Forever”

    Reply
  55. You’re exactly right a book “Should always be judged by its cover”! OOps that’s not how the saying goes. 🙂

    Reply
  56. Quote “Though it is unlikely they are doing that, because of backward politicians and so many anti-science people. ”

    Technology has never been stopped before by those people although they have slowed some aspects down for a while.

    Reply
  57. If they are good at wealth creation, chances are that they are also creating wealth for others. The other shareholders, employees and such.
    And once they have their mansion, they probably will not repeatedly sell and build new ones…so that means less waste. The money is not horded in a vault, it is invested.

    Contrast this with intelligent wise investing people dying and leaving their wealth to spoiled bozo kids that squander it on parties, absurd weddings, luxury goods and services all over the planet. Meanwhile the company fails to innovate in any way, and goes down the toilet.

    If you are concerned with economic disparity…there are reasonable ways to deal with that.

    Reply
  58. We don’t know what Alphabet’s Calico is working on. Maybe they are working on the hard stuff: Methylation and other epigenome restoration, glucosepane, various organelle recycling, tissue regeneration without scaring (you could just remove one kidney and it would grow back a fresh one, then remove the other, and the other one would go back…and growing back your teeth if you lost one or had to have it pulled would be awesome), thorough and even telomere extension, identification of and CRISPR editing of longevity associated genes (it would be great if you could fix all the heart diseases genes, cancer genes, Alzheimer’s genes, Parkinson’s genes, arthritis genes, skin thinning genes, bone density loss genes, muscle atrophy genes, diabetes genes, and macular degeneration genes).

    And I don’t care if they can only change these genes in kids either. What an incredible gift to give to the next generation. 30-50 gene changes, and the probability of getting these 11 causes of death, frailty, and sensory loss could drop to maybe 10% of previous rates. That probably means 100+ good years if they take reasonable care of themselves.

    Though it is unlikely they are doing that, because of backward politicians and so many anti-science people.

    Sadly, I think what they are doing is just identifying aging genes and looking for drugs based on those proteins or which make those proteins ineffective…rather than anything truly bold…like these other companies. Hope I am proven wrong.

    Reply
  59. Despite all the recent anti-aging hype, not a single human has lived past the max age of ~ 125. We may be living longer, b/c of increasing health & drugs that keep us alive but max age is fixed – for now.
    A more likely scenario for extended life is that in which humans merge with technology = cyborgs. It will be interesting to see which competing technology succeeds in extending human life.
    Avatar like transference of self to artificial body is still only in the relms of scifi, much like FTL warp drive capability.

    Reply
  60. Dude is Rumpelstiltskin with that beard. I can’t believe all the serious comments! look at him! Dude is whack!

    Reply
  61. Indeed. That problem is often invoked where dictators are involved, but with the possible exception of Franco, how many dictators get to die of age-related reasons now?

    Reply
  62. Yes, the immortal a**hole scenario. The typical answer to this is: letting everyone die just to make sure a few a**holes also die is not a worthwhile a**hole mitigation strategy (in fact, employing that strategy would make us really big a**holes), so we’re just going to have to figure something else out to protect us from a**holes.

    Reply
  63. Our science pretends to be about reason, but it is a hidden dogma pretty much like the Catholic church was. It also known to diminish everything that existed before it. Read about the Original affluent society
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/bushmen-who-have-little-have-much-to-teach-us-about-living-well/2017/08/25/d721c53c-7dda-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.24d6bee40c3a

    Reply
  64. In order for RMR (robust mouse regeneration) to take place, the MMM (maximally modifiable mouse) project and MitoSENS project would need to first succeed.

    MMM uses CRISPR to create a strain of mice with a phage integrate target site in their DNA so that gene therapy in them can be done easily in all tissues. Brian Kennedy, former director of the Buck Institute, and now director of The Centre For Healthy Longevity in Singapore is running this project.

    The MitoSENS project seeks to express all 13 mitochondrial protein encoding genes in the nucleus.

    Aubrey must know or think that both projects are close to to success to be forecasting RMR in only three years. I hope he is not being overly optimistic.

    Also, although one damage type, Senescent cell removal now has several companies working in it, other types such as glucosepane cross link removal, and intra lysosomal garbage removal, only have one or two companies working in them. Cross link removal only has Revel Pharmecuticals, and garbage removal only has Ichor Therapeutics and Repair Biotechnologies. Human Bio was working on removing oxidised LDL, but has been quite for some years now. Only having one or two companies in an area makes it prone to failure and delay.

    Reply
  65. LOL, the only substantive, measurable way humans have improved their condition on this Earth is through rationality, science and technological progress.

    Since the enlightenment and ramping up at the Industrial Revolution, wealth, personal opportunities, travel, life span, every single wellness metric you can think of, has improved.

    And this despite the great wars and other calamities.

    The beautiful, idyllic past you imagine simply didn’t exist.

    Reply
  66. You bet you beard aubrey. One drawback to longevity. Is lets say someone amasses a lot of wealth, the longer they negate potentual other people from aquiring a decent amount of money, until they kick the bucket. Lets say you get someone influential like, like Stalin. And they live a long time. The time and influence they could have, could be disastrous to society. I would rather dislike several people over time. Than distain one potentual person that would seem like an eternity.

    Reply
  67. We don’t need more Frankenstein science. We have failed to better ourselves this way. We need first and foremost connect back to the earth.

    Reply

Leave a Comment