What the 2050 deadline allows that 2030 does not: a human lifespan trial started by about 2029 in 65-year-olds would reach its median-survival readout around 2050, so convincing human evidence by then is possible but only for something that enters trials within the next three years. The gate for that is the dog data: the first placebo-controlled lifespan trials of anti-aging drugs in any species outside the lab are TRIAD (rapamycin, NIH-funded through 2029) and Loyal's STAY study (LOY-002, 1,300 dogs), reading out around 2029 to 2031, and the FDA's veterinary center has already accepted lifespan extension as an indication for dogs. If those come back positive, the human trials that could satisfy this market start in the early 2030s; if they come back null, the field's best-supported candidates fall out before any human lifespan trial exists. Side-by-side numbers with sources (mine): https://w0lph.github.io/k9/why-dogs.html?v=2

Why the path to human longevity runs through dogs

Computed from the cited life tables and trials: a lifespan answer takes 4.6 years in dogs and 21 in people; dogs share our environment and diseases, lifespan has already been extended in dogs, and a regulator has accepted lifespan extension as an indication for dog drugs.

In view of all this, it is patently absurd to suppose that the technological world-system is ever going to provide seven billion human beings with everything they need to stay alive indefinitely. If the projected immortality were possible at all, it could only be for some tiny subset of the seven billion—an elite minority. Some techies acknowledge this. One has to suspect that a great many more recognize it but refrain from acknowledging it openly, for it is obviously imprudent to tell the public that immortality will be for an elite minority only and that ordinary people will be left out.

@dragosteadintei Why do you think it is absurd to suppose that ?

The world is currently providing for more than seven billion, at the cost of some limited resources (like oil), but we are also replacing them.
Also if the world can’t provide for seven billion, then there will be less than seven billion people, but it is still possible they are all immortal.

Add rules

@Nocuddles What kind of trolling is this. Wanna buy more at a better price?

@Bayesian i'd buy some NO if the definition was a bit clearer

@Bayesian not a troll lol, just a fly by on a market I saw LO's on and I wasn't sure if there was more appetite, apparently there is! Sorry if I damaged something important

Hmmm maybe? I sense that there's a hazard in "markets I'm confident in, but have outrageous ratios and people who are smarter than me are willing to put lots of play money against me very quickly if I bid them down"

Like, I feel like I could lose a lot here lol

That said, put the limit orders up and I'll chomp them up if I'm feeling it, and once diversify a bit more so people don't nag me about Kelly criterion. Lots of my bets seem to be different ways of asking (AGI when)

@Odoacre that's a big one. The criterion are a bit vague and I have to put lots of faith in shared common definition

Does doom count?

No

Large limit at 25 for anyone who wants to buy if down

@JimHays I would if I could

@JimHays hey Jim, if you are cashing out to donate, you can get a loan from manifold instead and don't have to go through the trouble of selling positions.

@Odoacre Hmm… I’ve already nuked a lot of my best positions

@JimHays yeah, it's not well communicated that this is an option. Still it might be better to go forward with it for what's left.

@Odoacre Thanks for the heads up, I really wish that had been better advertised, I was mostly planning to quit manifold over the change

@JimHays you can get the loan, donate and then quit. it's easier than selling everything

@JimHays Better odds for you on the other market.

Some arb here:

@Daniel_MC only a 3-4% chance of him living to 120 in this market.

Is it considered cured if all humans are dead or otherwise exist in a form not subject to (the same) age-related diseases?

no, yes

@Bayesian you're saying aging is cured if we still die of other age related diseases?

I'm saying it's not considered cured if all humans are dead, but it is considered cured if humans exist in a form not subject to aging

(^my opinion of what the title should be interpreted as)

@Bayesian "exist in a form not subject to (the same) age-related diseases" implies the possibility of "exist in a form subject to (different) age-related diseases", no?

good point, i rephrased it in a way that was accurate