Sure, observing record-breaking longevity is the direct way to find out that life extension works. It’s also the slowest.
Life extension is an unusual technology in that it matters much more whether it will be available in your lifetime than whether it’s available right now. I think there are plenty of people who will look at trends and try to make that prediction rather than having no opinion, or a strict negative opinion, until they see someone live to 122 years and 165 days.
I’m sure the early adopters will look like early adopters: more likely to be in tech, be involved with AI, own a whoop, watch podcasts about emerging technology. And, more likely to be relevant decision makers for technology development timelines. That’s part of why I care about the question—they might be the ones who decide whether we race full-speed to ASI or slow down, and their opinions about radical life extension might affect their choices.
Life extension is an unusual technology in that it matters much more whether it will be available in your lifetime than whether it’s available right now
Well, no. It matters if there are choices/interventions that you need to make right now in order to gain the benefits. It matters a little whether it’ll be available decades from now (presuming you still live) only to the extent it changes your retirement/savings decisions, but for the VAST majority of people “being healthy for 20+ years and living another 15+” is very similar in terms of financial planning to “being healthy for 110 years and living another 50″. It’s just not possible for reasonable long-term plans to diverge that much.
It matters a little whether it’ll be available decades from now (presuming you still live) only to the extent it changes your retirement/savings decisions
I care about whether it’s true whether or not it means I need to do anything now, certainly enough to think about it.
But, it matters concretely for decision making if you think there’s a chance you might make it to a point where we reach longevity escape velocity, and that that depends on the trajectory of technology like AI.
I think it’s very unlikely that my personal health choices will make a difference for me catching the boat for LEV, but I think it’s only unlikely that it will make a difference for my parents, and that’s enough for me to care a lot. I think that position might not end up being uncommon.
[thanks for the interesting discussion, I’m likely to bow out after this—I’ll continue to read, but probably not respond.]
I’m curious what change or behavior you or your parents would undertake if LEV is somewhat likely, which wouldn’t benefit you if it’s very unlikely. My model of most people (including myself) is that “unknown remaining lifespan between 20-60 years” is unlikely to differ much from “unknown remaining lifespan between 50-200 years, or longer”.
For individual decisions, most long-term horizons get rather flat before 20 years.
If your parents are old enough that they’re retired and probably have < 25 years remaining, it could matter, but that also massively reduces the likelihood they’ll be able to take advantage of any breakthroughs.
My parents are in their mid-60s, and I think they have a lot of direct control over whether they make it to 90 or 100, maybe 110 but AFAIK there’s a lot of genetic factors after ~90. In practice they’re already healthy people doing most of the most important stuff, specifically lots of exercise, so there’s not a ton for me to intervene on there.
One of the main scenarios I’m planning for is just making sure that if there are early treatments available, I’ll be able to talk to them about it. I think it’s possible that there will be treatments available when they’re 75, which will seem early and weird, which would put them on an LEV track, that would not work if they waited until they were 85, or had an acute health crisis. So we talk about this stuff now, I talk about the supplements I take, the research I see, etc.
Functional life extension treatments in ten years is definitely an optimistic world. If it happens, though, I don’t want the people I care about to miss the bus.
Sure, observing record-breaking longevity is the direct way to find out that life extension works. It’s also the slowest.
Life extension is an unusual technology in that it matters much more whether it will be available in your lifetime than whether it’s available right now. I think there are plenty of people who will look at trends and try to make that prediction rather than having no opinion, or a strict negative opinion, until they see someone live to 122 years and 165 days.
I’m sure the early adopters will look like early adopters: more likely to be in tech, be involved with AI, own a whoop, watch podcasts about emerging technology. And, more likely to be relevant decision makers for technology development timelines. That’s part of why I care about the question—they might be the ones who decide whether we race full-speed to ASI or slow down, and their opinions about radical life extension might affect their choices.
Well, no. It matters if there are choices/interventions that you need to make right now in order to gain the benefits. It matters a little whether it’ll be available decades from now (presuming you still live) only to the extent it changes your retirement/savings decisions, but for the VAST majority of people “being healthy for 20+ years and living another 15+” is very similar in terms of financial planning to “being healthy for 110 years and living another 50″. It’s just not possible for reasonable long-term plans to diverge that much.
I care about whether it’s true whether or not it means I need to do anything now, certainly enough to think about it.
But, it matters concretely for decision making if you think there’s a chance you might make it to a point where we reach longevity escape velocity, and that that depends on the trajectory of technology like AI.
I think it’s very unlikely that my personal health choices will make a difference for me catching the boat for LEV, but I think it’s only unlikely that it will make a difference for my parents, and that’s enough for me to care a lot. I think that position might not end up being uncommon.
[thanks for the interesting discussion, I’m likely to bow out after this—I’ll continue to read, but probably not respond.]
I’m curious what change or behavior you or your parents would undertake if LEV is somewhat likely, which wouldn’t benefit you if it’s very unlikely. My model of most people (including myself) is that “unknown remaining lifespan between 20-60 years” is unlikely to differ much from “unknown remaining lifespan between 50-200 years, or longer”.
For individual decisions, most long-term horizons get rather flat before 20 years.
If your parents are old enough that they’re retired and probably have < 25 years remaining, it could matter, but that also massively reduces the likelihood they’ll be able to take advantage of any breakthroughs.
[appreciate the engagement!]
My parents are in their mid-60s, and I think they have a lot of direct control over whether they make it to 90 or 100, maybe 110 but AFAIK there’s a lot of genetic factors after ~90. In practice they’re already healthy people doing most of the most important stuff, specifically lots of exercise, so there’s not a ton for me to intervene on there.
One of the main scenarios I’m planning for is just making sure that if there are early treatments available, I’ll be able to talk to them about it. I think it’s possible that there will be treatments available when they’re 75, which will seem early and weird, which would put them on an LEV track, that would not work if they waited until they were 85, or had an acute health crisis. So we talk about this stuff now, I talk about the supplements I take, the research I see, etc.
Functional life extension treatments in ten years is definitely an optimistic world. If it happens, though, I don’t want the people I care about to miss the bus.