Who could qualify: 150 by 1 January 2072 means a birth date in 1921 or earlier, so someone already 105 or older today. Past 105 the annual probability of death flattens at about 50% (Barbi et al., Science 2018), so on current biology the chance of any given 105-year-old reaching 150 is 0.5 to the 45th power, and even the record holder, Jeanne Calment, stopped at 122 years and 164 days. A YES therefore needs an intervention that cuts the hazard of people already past 105 by an order of magnitude and arrives within a decade or so. The first evidence on whether any drug changes mortality hazard in a long-lived mammal outside the lab comes from dog trials reading out around 2029 to 2031; the human lifespan trials that would have to follow take about 21 years from enrolment at 65 to a median-survival readout. The arithmetic 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 general I don't like when markets like this one don't include digitized humans. If the thing the market is trying to capture is whether we can expect to be around in a particular year, or live up to a particular amount, based on how much technological development there is, it's weird that at a certain level of technological development (being able to digitize humans), the resolution "wraps around" from YES to NO.

@Nikola Like, it's pretty plausible that in post-singularity, it will be "too expensive" or "too wasteful" to be biological instead of digital, and so this market inadvertenly is capturing uncertainty around market dynamics around sustaining biological humans post-AGI, even conditioning on getting aligned AGI. But this doesn't really matter if the thing we're trying to capture is whether we can expect to live up to a certain point. Maybe it matters for people who are hell-bent on staying biological.

@Nikola

Simulations are not what they simulate.

The map is not the territory.

@cloudprism I don't understand. Are you saying it's impossible to copy people into different substrates?

@Nikola You don't understand the basic definition of a simulation?

@cloudprism digital humans will not be simulations.

@MartinRandall Is there a Godwin's Law for the dualism/monism debate?

@Nikola Even if you can copy say Noam Chomsky’s connectome (currently 90yo) into a suitable digital storage he will say that it’s “just plagiarism” and not the real deal. The copy might agree, too.

I would like to see a group of markets like this with variable endpoints. I expect delaying aging to come before we can rollback the clock. It's probably too late for a current centenarian to get that much benefit from even massive breakthroughs.

health advancements aren't just about treatment technologies but also detection technologies

Life expectancy on the rise,
But immortality we surmise,
Science may advance and try,
But death will always say goodbye.

The United Nations estimates that currently there are 573,000 centenarians, almost quadruple the estimate of 151,000 made in 2000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian

So is there a chance that one of these people lives 50 more years...? Hmm

Why is this so high? I'm confused.

Do Yes holders believe the singularity will happen <2040 and then save all the oldest people from dying without freezing them?

@NoaNabeshima Yep, or life-extension technology improves without a singularity.

@NoaNabeshima yeah either singularity by 2028 or extinction by 2028. no real possibility of anything else, though that might not be obvious to everyone right now, and currently I'm the only one betting yes on my "will we be completely surpassed by 2028" market.

@NoaNabeshima I guess I don't anticipate/believe this with 30% probability atm

I'll be 117.

@BruceGrugett good luck

How does this resolve if they were cryogenically preserved and then reanimated before 2072? Amount of time spent animated? Amount of time from moment of birth to 2072?

@Nikola Ted Williams was born in 1918 and is currently cryopreserved. If Ted was reanimated in 2071, would this resolve YES? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams#Death

@Nikola https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-williams-frozen-head-mistreated-in-alcor-cryonics-facility-says-book/
If they actually played baseball with Ted's frozen head that might have caused irreversible damage. Poor Ted.

@Nikola
> Amount of time spent animated?
Let's use this one, I wouldn't consider myself 1031 years old if I died and were reanimated at 3022. People are not living while cryogenically preserved, so it is also consistent with the description "someone that is now 100 years old will live 50 years more". Long comas count as living though

If that's not enough, we can use some medical definition like brain death. Reversed brain death counts as reanimated, so the aging count paused during the brain-dead period

@GustavoMafra so for digital people, this would resolve based on subjective time experienced, I assume? If a digital person experienced more than 150 years of subjective time in the year 2070, would this resolve YES? Or would it be a sum of their objective time spent having subjective experience, both physical and digital?

@Nikola Any links on where I can read more about digital people?

@GustavoMafra https://nickbostrom.com/papers/digital-minds.pdf

@Nikola I think subjective time experienced is very subjective, and would not work well for non-digital people who are sleeping, for example.

@Nikola Let's make this market only for biological humans and measure time by objective standards, like UTC or Earth rotations around the Sun