The argument life extenders make is that in 20 years, we'll cure all the ailments that may cause death for another 20 years and then within that time, another set of cures will evolve until eventually, we've cured everything that could kill a person.
The trend supports them, somewhat. Lifetimes centuries ago were 30-40 years on average. Only a handful of people lived 60 or more years. Today, many people live to 100, many more to 80... so we are getting better at preventing death.
At some point, if this trend continues, we'll be almost perfect at it.
>Lifetimes centuries ago were 30-40 years on average. Only a handful of people lived 60 or more years. Today, many people live to 100, many more to 80
The average in previous centuries was heavily skewed by infant/childhood mortality. Plenty of people lived into their 80's back then. It's just that half of their brothers and sisters died before age 10, which dragged the average down. Still more succumbed to disease and infection before even middle age.
The average isn't going up because people live longer, it's going up because fewer people die young.
if we figure out how to cure diseases that kill us off around a median 90 years, why wouldn't we find cures for those conditions that kill us off at the "imaginary" boundary of 1,000 years?
Yes. Even today, people occasionally live to 120 years. Therefore on the principle of mediocrity, in 2130 there are likely to be people who were born on or before 2010. And it's very likely IMO that immortality will be a given by then, either using uploading, or via careful repair of damage caused by aging.
It's very likely that we know all of the mechanisms of damage associated with aging. (Looks like there are only 7.) It also seems very likely we can cure all of them. There are two sticky problems, however.
Damage in Mitochondrial DNA might be a difficult problem. Replacing the function with nuclear DNA may not be an option in cells like nerve cells, which can be very long on cellular scales.
Cancer may be an insurmountable problem. Cancer is not a singular disease. It's more of a consequence of the laws governing evolution. However, if the problem were reduced to just cancer, we would still achieve considerable life extension. (Ending with a very bad disease.)
so you think our life expectancy will be well beyond 1,000 years by then? how will actuaries calculate life expectancy in 2130 (which is less than 1,000 years from now)?
