Biological immortality is an absence of aging. Specifically it is the absence of a sustained increase in rate of mortality as a function of chronological age.
A cell or organism that does not experience aging, or ceases to age at some point, is biologically immortal.
Resolves YES in 2046 if we have made significant progress in this area to reliably have first instances of induced biological immortality evidenced in animal subjects and first trials in humans have commenced.
Resolves NO in 2046 if we have found no means to induce biological immortality, animal testing is inconclusive and human trials have not commenced and are not projected to commence within the end of the year 2046.
1,000People are also trading
Base rates for the "induced biological immortality in animals" half of the criteria: the best-replicated anti-aging drug result in a mammal is rapamycin in the NIA Interventions Testing Program, where the highest dose raised median lifespan by 23% in males and 26% in females (Miller et al. 2014). That is a slowdown, not an absence of aging; no intervention has flattened the age-related rise in mortality in any mammal (the naked mole-rat's near-flat hazard is natural, not induced). On the "human trials commenced" half: the first placebo-controlled lifespan trials of drugs against aging outside the lab are in dogs (TRIAD, and Loyal's STAY study), and a human cohort enrolled at 65 reaches its median survival about 21 years later, so a human lifespan trial started today would read out around 2047. The arithmetic with sources (mine): https://w0lph.github.io/k9/why-dogs.html?v=2
The techies of course assume that they themselves will be included in the elite minority that supposedly will be kept alive indefinitely. What they find convenient to overlook is that self-propagating systems, in the long run, will take care of human beings—even members of the elite—only to the extent that it is to the systems' advantage to take care of them. When they are no longer useful to the dominant self-propagating systems, humans—elite or not—will be eliminated. In order to survive, humans not only will have to be useful; they will have to be more useful in relation to the cost of maintaining them—in other words, they will have to provide a better cost-versus-benefit balance—than any non-human substitutes. This is a tall order, for humans are far more costly to maintain than machines are.
This would require dramatically successful breakthroughs immediately. Come bet on one: https://manifold.markets/ArunJohnson/will-300-lifespan-extension-in-roti?r=QXJ1bkpvaG5zb24
@PhoAI heat death of the universe, quantum fluctuations, ... This market is indeed underspecified, so different people will interpret it differently.
@Entropy Reading the explanation I understand that the probability of dying at any given age is the same as that at every other age (with the exception perhaps of childhood). It seems hard to interpret it any other way. However this does not mean people would live forever: they would have a half life, like radioactive decay.