See 56:40 − 58:45+. The short version is: sometime in the near future (“could easily happen in the next 3 to 5 years”), there will be an extremely sudden shift in the public perception on aging through which the alleged fact that it can be reversed becomes common knowledge. At that point, there will be enormous pressure towards funding the field, and you won’t get elected without promising to throw money at the problem.
A relevant reference class here could be something like “expert in a field predicting a massive near-term shift of awareness about something related to their field.” Predictions in this class probably come true about 0% of the time. On the other hand, there are some reasons to think Aubrey is unusually credible.
My questions are
How seriously do you take this claim? Aubrey didn’t specify a testable criterion in this conversation, but a reasonable one could be something like “a candidate in the 2024 presidential general election lists fighting aging as a campaign issue on their official website.”
Suppose Aubrey is correct, and there is a massive shift within the next five years. Is there a way for a normal person to benefit financially out of knowing this now?