Futurist Ray Kurzweil claims that within just four years, medical advances will let humans achieve “longevity escape velocity”—meaning each year, science will add more than a year to our life expectancy. In a recent interview, Kurzweil points to rapid progress in fields like mRNA vaccines and simulated biology as evidence that this milestone is close.
The article explores what longevity escape velocity really means: it’s not immortality, but a point where, for those with access to cutting-edge medicine, life expectancy could keep increasing faster than we age. Of course, the piece also notes the many caveats—like the difference between average life expectancy and actual lifespan, and the persistent risks from disease and accidents.
Is this prediction realistic, or just another case of tech optimism? What breakthroughs (or obstacles) do you see on the path to radically extended lifespans?
Personally I see great advances ahead but do wonder if extending lifespans will result in better quality of life for longer otherwise what's the point?
In particular: cells accumulate genetic damage over time. Each cell receives a different set of mutations. So it's not just the problem of correcting an inborn genetic error across all cells, it's the problem of specific patches for every cell in the body.
If you can't do this, I don't care what other advances are made, the cells (including neurons which aren't replaced) will eventually stop working.
He's a brilliant self publicist, but less brilliant at biology.
Futurist Ray Kurzweil claims that within just four years, medical advances will let humans achieve “longevity escape velocity”—meaning each year, science will add more than a year to our life expectancy. In a recent interview, Kurzweil points to rapid progress in fields like mRNA vaccines and simulated biology as evidence that this milestone is close.
The article explores what longevity escape velocity really means: it’s not immortality, but a point where, for those with access to cutting-edge medicine, life expectancy could keep increasing faster than we age. Of course, the piece also notes the many caveats—like the difference between average life expectancy and actual lifespan, and the persistent risks from disease and accidents.
Is this prediction realistic, or just another case of tech optimism? What breakthroughs (or obstacles) do you see on the path to radically extended lifespans?
> just another case of tech optimism
Personally I see great advances ahead but do wonder if extending lifespans will result in better quality of life for longer otherwise what's the point?
I want you to consider the scale of the problem.
In particular: cells accumulate genetic damage over time. Each cell receives a different set of mutations. So it's not just the problem of correcting an inborn genetic error across all cells, it's the problem of specific patches for every cell in the body.
If you can't do this, I don't care what other advances are made, the cells (including neurons which aren't replaced) will eventually stop working.
that's a sensible comment worth considering. The problem of aging is very complex of course!
My Inner childs first thoughts were;
Ive heard some bollocks in my time
what if you get ill or have a heart attack
do you still die?