Scientific Progress to Radical Antiaging, Aubrey Sees 50+% of Longevity Escape Velocity by 2035

Antiaging expert Aubrey de Grey says antiaging science is considerably closer to robust mouse rejuvenation than we were 10 years ago and the gap between the achievement of robust mouse rejuvenation and the achievement of robust human rejuvenation is also coming down quite fast.

Aubrey de Grey is the co-founder of the SENS research foundation and its Chief Science Officer. He has helped launch several antiaging startups. He has been at the center the antiaging and aging reversal industry. He reviews all of the major science and gets insight into all of the antiaging companies.

The chance of somebody alive today benefiting from the Methuselarity and never getting sick as a result of how long ago they were born, that chance is much higher than 50%. It’s probably 80% or 90%. At this point, the chance of someone who is let’s say, 53, of reaching that is probably 40 or 50%.

If this longevity escape velocity is achieved in 2035 then within 15 years after that these treatments will be free and widely available to all people. The reason that Aubrey believes this would be the case is that it will be too expensive for countries to maintain a medical system without giving away antiaging.

Aubrey is seeing great results with the combination of stem cells and senolytics. Senolytics is removing zombie cells from the body. Stem cells are generating new cells.

SOURCES- Longevity Technology, Aubrey De Grey
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

80 thoughts on “Scientific Progress to Radical Antiaging, Aubrey Sees 50+% of Longevity Escape Velocity by 2035”

  1. we have lost 99.999% of memories, conversations, personal letters, personal inventions/ works, etc. What is important? How many even read, consult, or reference Socrates? There is being academic, then there's being comprehensive, then there's being completist, then there's being sentimental, then there's being obsessive. Focused on the few? Sample from the many? Stay in the present?

    Reply
  2. unfounded conclusions and reasoning that doesn't not match typical human behaviour.

    (my personal goal to make sure MTCZ doesn't get last
    word in any conversation i care about)

    Reply
  3. poor comprehension skills.
    Keeper is saying focus on the getting it out not the getting it widespread.

    Life span extension is a fundamental good. increasing health span is a fundamental good. saying it has to be widely available, or that it is the main selling point of investing in it or that it has to be cheap is obstructionist. Better that fewer people get it earlier than many people get it together later is The Issue.

    (my personal goal to make sure MTCZ doesn't get last
    word in any conversation i care about)

    Reply
  4. poor comprehension skills.
    we don't need a zealot. we need a humble scientist with good communication skills. Inform us. don't sell it.
    H3 said he's the wrong personality for getting the technology advanced and is driven too much to making it available widely, a noble goal, but which will eventually undermine the need for trickle-down, which allows earlier availability (you don't have to solve widescale release right away)
    (my personal goal to make sure MTCZ doesn't get last word in any conversation i care about)

    Reply
  5. (cont'd)
    I think that a lot of people who don't regularly follow science (and who can blame them, seriously) might hear "anti-aging" and "age reversal" and think, "Oh, well, I could never afford that." I hope that perspective never comes to fruition. I hope that Aubrey de Grey's prediction of vastly available anti-aging technology comes to fruition in the near future.

    My hope is that it will be so available as to be nearly unavoidable. Not that I believe something should be forced upon an individual, but I hope that the choice will be there, and that the medicinal advances will be easily accessible to all people.

    How freakin' cool would that, be?

    "How far over the horizon would you look, with a telescope that could see into forever?"
    "I suppose I would look as far as I could understand what I was seeing. And, once I looked as far as my understanding allowed, I would look beyond that."

    –Hinderman Malloy and Frederick Gouldifarn, respectively

    Reply
  6. Hey guys: I rarely feel the need to repeat myself. But, I made a comment earlier in this thread and I feel the need to correct myself. I referenced a concern that we would need to withhold anti-aging technology en masse until we become a multi-planet species.

    I am– and likely will remain– quite left when it comes to believing that medicine needs to be widely available to Earth's populace regardless of cost. I actually believe that's inevitable (though that's its own conversation). POINT:

    Brian dinged me (and rightly so; Gods love him, I owe him coffee, any time/where) for my statement about a possible necessity to withhold anti-aging tech until we become a multi-planetary species. I'm not gaslighting, I'm literally saying I'm crazy for making that statement, and I'm grateful to him for bringing it to my attention.

    The thing is: I've been obsessed with age reversal since I read Bram Stoker's Dracula at age 8 (on my birthday). Immediately after, I read "Vampires Burial and Death: Folklore and Reality" (I still suggest this for anthropology). The reason I mention this is that, while I consider a lot of you guys who routinely comment to be vastly intelligent (I have literally and proudly cried– unabashedly– from the learning y'all have imparted to me); unfortunately, I fear a vast majority of the public has made my mistake, which is to consider anti-aging tech luxury item instead of a multi-disciplinary advancement in medicine.

    (cont'd– wow, I never do this)

    Reply
  7. Yo, I do have to say, thanks for jumping on me for that initial comment I made. Brian made an amazing point about it, too. As liberal (and libertarian, and even socialist-leaning) as I can be, I was looking at anti-aging the wrong way. Which is VERY ironic, considering my actual dogma.

    Anyway, I'm going to re-read a a TON of Asimov, Sagan and look up O'Neil. I know for absolute certain that I meant to read up on O'Neil a few months ago (and I actually did so in reference to another one of your comments on another topic [I think?]), but there has been a LOOOOT of alcohol and performing since then, so I don't recall it. Will look this person up again and actually make notes. I'm pretty sure that, last time before this that I commented on O'Neil in reference to something you mentioned, I did so while on stage and my friend had to take my phone from me and we had to start the set over LOL! I am NOT against responding to NBF when I should be doing other things! i am completely for it! ^_^!!

    Reply
  8. Well I have seen people who detest the Amish.

    Anyone who is happy and content is the enemy to some people.

    Other's have the "Not with us, then you're against us." approach to life. Whether it's their particular brand of politics or whatever.

    Some just hate Christians of any sort.

    Some I don't even know because they can't express themselves beyond inchoate rage.

    Reply
  9. Information in the form of books, TV, movies has been operating in a universe of multiple, redundant copies since they were invented.

    We have still lost countless works, from any original writing of Socrates through The Story of the Kelly Gang to some episodes of Dr Who and The Goodies.

    Reply
  10. Gods love you Brian, I hadn't considered that at all. I was like, "Hang on, why are Brian and Dan pumping the breaks in my comment car like drivers ed teachers?" lol I hadn't even considered that. Which, honestly, is completely ridiculous, because I'm definitely one of those people who wants the entire population to have complete and easy access to all medical care and its advancements without having to worry so much about cost.

    My problem was, I was thinking of anti-aging treatment as a luxury item and not thinking of it as an advancement in medicine. Which is COMPLETELY incorrect (and, yes, absolutely, immoral).

    Turning that over in my head, I think I was speaking from a place of fear (though also curiosity). I do have a fear that there will be major advancements in medicine that will be kept from the vast majority of the populace, and I would consider that a crime against humanity. I also feel like I may be somehow afraid of overpopulation causing problems in the short term and getting worse into the long term. That's another conversation altogether, and I do have other thoughts on it, but there isn't enough time or room, here. I've deviated enough already.

    Very eye-opening,
    Thank you! ^_^ <3

    [EDIT] Afterthought:
    There are some medical treatments which are price-hiked and made occasionally (and sometimes consistently) unavailable to people, which makes them SEEM like luxury items when, in fact, they should be easy to come by. Exempli gratia: epipens.

    Reply
  11. you mean meritocratic-based distribution.. geez, give to those who have the most to contribute to society?.. we're not just making the economic pie bigger, we're expanding the whole kitchen of socio-economic greatness….

    Reply
  12. or associate research, client base, and front-line medical staff with a big name provider – Mayo Clinic or something… Anti-ageing -> Brand it. Whatever happened to HMOs – create a system with a provider that advocates interventions based on current pre-clinical work such as thymus, senescent cells, metabolic waste management…

    Reply
  13. 1) it's not saving the world. It's allowing people to live arbitrarily long lives in good health.
    2) It's not trying to fix people, it's allowing them to live long enough, whether they "fix themselves" or not — rejuvenation is a separate thing.
    3) Allowing people to live arbitrarily long SPECIFICALLY enables people to gain more time to choose for themselves, rather than reducing that cumulative amount of choices during their time alive and in good health.
    4) Choosing a world where people are allowed to choose for themselves whether they live or die, is a *more* humane choice, than choosing a world where people are condemned to die without having any choice of it. Indeed the very principle of medicine (Hippocratic Oath) is that.

    None of this is subjective, it's the very principle of eliminating aging.

    Reply
  14. What you describe only holds if nothing changes once people (whether some or all) live effectively forever. Effectively forever because it makes no difference whether it's 1.25x or 2x or 500x normal lifespan: everyone else dies while they go on.

    But someone who lives even a mere 2x "normal" lifespan will not behave like they would with 1x lifespan and no prospect for even further rejuvenation.

    The very reasons for people's self-neglect are rooted in knowing they will die right around the time they've started to become wise enough to truly appreciate life — and can't do anything about it.

    << there will never be a cure for ageing, just a series of interventions, constant, relentless, forever — unless people want to become Human 3.0)) that's the rub — its work and an endless battle (at best) — the human body is just too frail and complex and self-defeating.>>
    This is a very loaded premise for what sounds like a pet favorite forecast, for a future you have no basis for being sure of: the very medium of that future (human existence) is going to be *completely different* once aging stops being involuntary.

    Reply
  15. they need a combination visionary and herder — inspire Top people but keep them pragmatic, practical, focused, and ever-so-slightly obsessive. What Elon did to EV in the early 2000s — took piles of mature, but not quite 'there' tech and definitely not coordinated tech — just closed the gaps and steve jobs'ed it into a successful Industry, not just business. Anti-ageing is still 20 years away from where EV was 20 years ago, but its the only way to stop it from being fusion (forever 50 years in the future).

    Reply
  16. it's the saving the world thing that makes it less likely… stop trying to fix people, let them choose to fix themselves.

    Reply
  17. i think you're giving today's humanity too much credit for having dreams, ambitions, and goals. Most people don't eat well, use a gym regularly, have a family physician, do any self-care. Unless anti-ageing intervention is no more effort and cost than a multi-vitamin in the morning, it will never take to more than those healthy self-starters anyway. What are regular gym users (2 – 3+ times a week), say 5 – 10% of population aged 25 – 65. Same number would sign up for a life span 'escape trajectory'. The rest? possibly a last ditch medical intervention to add a few years, over and over again… maybe push into their 90s to see their grand kids as adults for a bit, but otherwise proactive? not a chance. And without those numbers… funding will not take off… (the bottom line — there will never be a cure for ageing, just a series of interventions, constant, relentless, forever — unless people want to become Human 3.0)) that's the rub — its work and an endless battle (at best) — the human body is just too frail and complex and self-defeating.

    Reply
  18. The market is huge: aging isn't a thing. There is age-related ill-health in the form of any number of conditions. Rich people will pay handsomely to maintain muscle mass, bone density, improve skin health, prevent neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons. Aging is going to be treated indirectly by addressing the causes of the above. If you think there is no market for this, you are mad. Think of the market for hair loss prevention and erectile dysfunction.

    Reply
  19. Actually, Mr de Grey believes it will be effectively free because taking care of aging people will be more expensive than "curing" them.

    Reply
  20. <<
    Also, Pew polls, etc., have indicated that life span extension is not any priority list, even medical. Without public support, where's the Market? without that definable catchment, where are investors? Without investors, where are the staff and facilites for R&D? They don't even have a sense of the required resources to implement all of their SENS approach. Super noble but too vague to provide serious business focus. Aubrey not the right visionary – where's Ventner-He'd rein it in
    >>

    Incredulity is proportional to how deeply ingrained (voluntarily and not) the idea of aging is in human cultures. It's more a sign of refusal to get their hopes up rather than a lack of enthusiasm if hard evidence actually appeared.

    Curing aging doesn't need to be accepted everywhere. Once 1 country implements it, the competitive advantage will speak for itself.

    Reply
  21. Your statement – I think there may indeed be a need to keep it [successful antiaging] under wraps (much as I hate saying that) until we figure out how to become a multi-planet species.
    I think it would be immoral to suppress the information or suppress access to better medical care. Also, becoming multi-planetary in a population dispersion significant level will take 100-200 years at a minimum. Even with molecular nanotechnology, there would need to be over 100 million people off planet and adding 50-150 million every year to begin meaningfully offloading population beyond any increases.

    Reply
  22. better to get informed and invest in a limited/ narrow high-success therapy
    rather than the huge slew of chasers. There's a time to invest in The
    Industry and a time to invest in a certain product/ therapy/
    intervention. Focus.

    Reply
  23. better to get informed and invest in a limited/ narrow high-success therapy rather than the huge slew of chasers. There's a time to invest in The Industry and a time to invest in a certain product/ therapy/ intervention. Focus.

    Reply
  24. not convinced of Grand Goal — most likely a gradual roll-out range of therapies with a wide range of successes and unreproducible results. Probably won't even believe that the first 130-yr-older got there because of it… too many people with too many 'damages' — longer health span will be nice though, as this thing gets going.

    Reply
  25. cryogenics. we're at a new kind of vitrifcation technique now, i think. Whole new realms of cryo- research – surgery methods, preservation of multi-cellular, cancer eliminating techniques…. what is it $150k for 20 years preservation of your head in Arizona facility?

    Reply
  26. You're falling for the entropy fallacy. A human body is not a closed system. There's no physical reason why it would need to wear down over time. In fact, every atom in your body gets replaced many times over the course of your life.

    Reply
  27. This is only for the benefit of the 1%, isn't it? An it goes with a severe population and birth control for the other 99%.

    Reply
  28. Maybe Aubrey not the right 'face' of longevity. pro-positive and pro-opportunity. It's not about saving everyone, it's about wanting to extend your current lifestyle. Medical preachiness is not very compelling.

    Reply
  29. Agreed. It's too focused on a Grand Goal with too many systems and too few resources. It relies on wide public acceptance and reduced regulation in an increasingly red-taped industry. Maybe off-shore medical tourism?

    Reply
  30. Wish it were true. Sure it is not.
    There is no point in a (or any) human's life (embryo, infant, pre-pub, young, middle, pre-menopause/andropause, old) that they are So Healthy that they are, at that moment and if it was indefinitiely maintained, immortal. The human body, in its most healthy, is still a rusting machine with limited recuperation capacity. It's not just about damage – it's also about things running out, being used up, and changing — not just damage. So let's replace parts, improve bits, undertake upload, re-design, and add redundant systems. I get the sense that Aubrey wants to retain the Human 1.0 but on a full coverage warranty plan. Why? Limited sensory apparatus, questionable memory, highly inefficient, mediocre structural and performance systems. C'mon. I'd be more interested in cryogrenics to maintain the Mind and re-attach(?) to a network, super-being, one of Iain Bank's AI ships, etc, etc.
    We haven't even learned to clone growing hair yet — and the market for that is huge.
    Also, Pew polls, etc., have indicated that life span extension is not any priority list, even medical. Without public support, where's the Market? without that definable catchment, where are investors? Without investors, where are the staff and facilites for R&D? They don't even have a sense of the required resources to implement all of their SENS approach. Super noble but too vague to provide serious business focus. Aubrey not the right visionary – where's Ventner-He'd rein it in

    Reply
  31. I guess I just meant that a longer term perspective might enable us to look at life differently. Perhaps, with longer lifespans, we might find a deeper reverence for the spaces in which we choose to place ourselves, including the present moment. Of course, one can certainly make the point that the present moment is no more nor less important, regardless of age. But, I'm curious about how our perceptions of presence in an environment might change if two-hundred years old becomes young.

    Though, after such a long time one would likely gather experience and wisdom, even by accident, that can't be ignored. Young body, old soul.

    This relates to reducing footprint in terms of wisdom. I'd hope many of us would feel the need to reduce all kinds of things– stress, fear, anger, hate, suffering– should we live long enough to realize they are unnecessary. If you ask for peace, then peace is with you immediately.

    Then again, thousand-year longevity was never a prerequisite for being wise.

    But I am not wise.

    I can only hope to become so.

    Reply
  32. Hahaha "popliticians"! Love it lol. Will watch the video when I get home, thanks. ^_^ Thanks for the explanation, makes sense!

    Yah, zombies are honestly one of my go-to for horror other than vampires. But both of them could, in context, represent a negative aspect of stopping the aging process in its tracks. Of course neither were created for that purpose, but culture certainly makes them both an exceedingly useful warning in that regard.

    Reply
  33. If you charge a "user fee", and use the proceeds to remedy the problem, many of the problems with *tax* go away. Not quite everybody is excited by taxation.

    Reply
  34. I highly prefer zombies. They seem the common populace more than the popliticians, no? I just accidentally coined a very good word!

    Reply
  35. It is in the Bezos 1 hr Blue Origin spiel, a tape of Azimov and O'Neill on a talk show. Must see tv. The assumption is questioned by this: "Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding tech civ?" Also, at the time of this, the 60s term "Male chauvinist (optional: pig)" was everywhere. So you did not have to look up the word when Azimov used it.

    https://youtu.be/GQ98hGUe6FM

    Reply
  36. They are not exclusive! I am getting a lot more satisfied with the better coverage of alternatives, a requirement of correct decision is knowing the alternatives!, but the unquestioned small world outlook of planet chauvinism is WHY it is called chauvinism.

    Reply
  37. Different countries will have different regimes of distribution. And those that completely forego antiaging will simply Darwin themselves out of competition.

    Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Amish aren't necessarily unhappy with their lives, and no one really minds them either.

    Reply
  38. Memento mori is arguably the foremost cause for the personal and social ills of people. Today and basically forever ago. Removing that burden will completely change almost everything. For better or maybe for worse — but right now there's nothing but speculation for just what most people will be like in a world of multi-century lifespans. In the short term and in the long term of aging no longer being an obligation.

    There'll be an intermediate period of adjustment (disbelief etc) then a few steady states, but in the long term there isn't merely 1 reality that no one alive today can do more than speculate about, but also billions of different lifestyles multiplied by however many times each person decides to themselves try one of those alternative lifestyles.

    We live in a foreshortened and low bitrate version of what arguably is what humans are truly supposed to be. Today is to people who don't have to die basically unless they choose to, as grotesque as Logan's Run is to us today.

    Reply
  39. The science of age reversal is sound.

    The mindset of financial elite globalists is the problem. They would prefer to kill the people of the world and replace them with machines.

    Reply
  40. Yah, I can foresee the possibility of people being unable to reduce footprint based on resources provided to them in a heavily class-based society. Then again, I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that. Easy to understand in my own head, not so much when I try to write it.

    Reply
  41. Yo dawg, we heard you liked planets. So we put a fake planet inside a fake star system so you won't have live on real planets anymore. I don't think for a hot second that humanity will always be only planet-bound. In fact, that's boring af, I think. I love the idea of building worlds instead of… what was it that everyone got their blood pressure up about a couple weeks ago… "colozing" other planets with "settleMENts" (I thought that was cute, but weird).

    I didn't know what planet chauvinism was until like thitry seconds ago. Interesting use of the word, though, I like it. Need to read more Asimov and Sagan, don't I? Is that idea purely based around humans only preferring Earth, or just any world?

    I just like to inwardly romanticize personally arbitrary age limits and exploring distant worlds, because it does sound like a lot of fun. Also, I like vampires. A LOT. Which I'm sure figures into my thought process, to some degree.

    Read all this as: I just like to have fun. 😀

    Reply
  42. He did say more and there's nothing that special about it: We already have rampant NIMBY and "more" doesn't specify how much more.

    Reply
  43. …then more would be motivated to reduce their eco footprint by 30-50%

    I was referring to just that part of your statement.

    Humans already have issues with long term thinking, most people will not go out of their way to reduce their eco footprint, especially if it involves inconveniences.

    Reply
  44. You can always educate people using taxation…An eco footprint tax that invest half money on earth tech R&D and another half on space colonization. We already have similar type of tax today, there is no motive to think this kind of policy will not expand in the coming years. Musk is probably already counting which this kind of incentive for all his future space projects, just like he did and still do with Tesla

    Reply
  45. So the solution would be purposely delay superior medical treatment? So we should delay COVID vaccination. Delay HIV treatment. But then the problem is increased mortality – particularly child mortality increases family sizes.

    Reply
  46. I think his hope is there will be some small breakthrough that will trigger a panacea in the lack of public funding, and that will power the next leg up.

    I just dont see that happening, not in this diseased culture.

    Reply
  47. When did a Lord of the Rings extra become an expert on anti-aging?

    Also, just a note. Overpopulation will most likely NOT be a problem, even if his predictions come true. Once a society becomes highly industrialized/advanced/educated/competitive, child-bearing numbers drop precipitously. Western Europe and Japan are examples. If not for large immigration numbers, the same with the U.S. Korea and China are starting to worry about this.

    The only way I see these trends reversing (when anti-aging therapies become common), is if people become bored with their endless life and decide to have more kids just to break the monotony…

    Reply
  48. Your post, Brian's comment, and your response show the depressed outlook of planet chauvinism. O'Neill sez to expand the ecosystem/environment, not adapt to less of it, or just a little more if you add in Mars/other stuff. Huge difference!

    Reply
  49. If antiaging by 2035 and broad deployment by 2050 makes a difference that means a 30% shift in global population would put the world's ecosystem at greater risk by 2100. If people believe they will live to 120-180 instead of 60-90, then more would be motivated to reduce their eco footprint by 30-50%.

    Reply
  50. The only thing we really have, and the most important item of our lives is just that: time for living.

    This is a technology that, if it pans out, would really show we are in a different time and age.

    But it's far from being easy and done. Well, we shall see if Aubrey D. turns out to be right, if we are lucky.

    Reply
  51. I'm all aboard for this stuff, being as I am unpardonably vain and have been unhealthily obsessed with halting aging at an arbitrary point ever since I first realized I was aging (which, as one might imagine, is something children realize quite young). At least I'm aware of my faults. 😉

    I'm dreadfully interested in Aubrey's work, as well as the work of George Church and David Sinclair, etc. I'm not entirely certain that Aubrey's prediction of national medical apparatuses becoming too expensive to maintain without giving away anti-aging will play out in exactly that way; I think there may indeed be a need to keep it under wraps (much as I hate saying that) until we figure out how to become a multi-planet species.

    Though, it might play out differently: perhaps biological age-reversal will become so accessible to everyone that we will be forced to figure out how to live elsewhere, whether we like it or not. I may, however, be giving the human desire (not the want, the desire) to survive long-term, too much credit.

    Things will be getting interesting, I wot.

    Reply

Leave a Comment