The market's 2057 lines up with the trial clocks rather than with discovery dates, which is the right way to read it. The first placebo-controlled lifespan trials of anti-aging drugs in any species outside the lab are in dogs (TRIAD with rapamycin, NIH-funded through 2029; Loyal's STAY study with LOY-002, 1,300 dogs), reading out around 2029 to 2031. A positive result there is what would justify human lifespan trials, and those take about 21 years from enrolment at 65 to a median-survival readout, so the earliest "widely and credibly reported" human evidence of a drug that slows aging is the early 2050s, and a cure, meaning the hazard stops rising with age, which no intervention has achieved in any mammal, would come after that. Two things would pull the date earlier: a validated surrogate endpoint accepted by regulators (none exists yet; TAME never enrolled) or a dog result so large that regulators act on it. 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.

Well, the current prediction as of 30th May 2025 is 2051, which is a time I'd still alive and well, so to avoid the trap of the notorious Maes–Garreau law in predicting longevity, I can only predict a time much later, say maybe 2100 or 2150 at very least.

Also the very case in the “Failed attempts to verify Maes-Garreau” section cited by Wikipedia may not really contradict the original findings that lead to thee Maes–Garreau law. See here:

https://aiimpacts.org/the-maes-garreau-law/

"The hypothesized reason for this relationship is that people would like to believe they will personally avoid death. If this is true, we might expect the relation to apply much more strongly to predictions of events which might fairly directly save a person from death. Human uploading and the singularity are such events, while human-level AI does not appear to be. Thus it is plausible that this law does apply to some technological predictions, but not human-level AI."

I don't think we all have the same definition of cure for aging

@Simon1551 Yes, so it resolves when an intervention exists that meets most people’s definition

If I buy this, then my money get locked up forever.

But this needs to be wayyyyyyyyy lower.

@Alana You get a loan back from Manifold proportional to your locked up money every day, so don't let that stop you

@akrasiac Specifically, 2% of the amount you invested that hasn't yet been loaned.

Guess what? Cure for aging is already here!
https://lewishowes.com/podcast/harvard-scientist-reveals-the-surprising-secrets-to-age-in-reverse-with-dr-david-sinclair/
/s

@AmmonLam From the article: "Considering the average life expectancy in the USA is in the late seventies (it did dip a little bit due to COVID), those five things could add an extra five, 10, or 14 healthy years."

Cancer is also cured -- there are many drugs in development that could add 5, 10, or 14 healthy years! Same for heart disease, diabetes, every disease really.

Definitely before 2100 if we don't get all wiped out in a nuclear war before then, or from overpopulation, or because we couldn't stop climate change from rapidly make most places inhabitable, or because all the researchers, scientists and best doctors migrated to Mars so we won't ever know about it or someone will find a cure for it but they will make the cure illegal somehow to avoid overpopulation.... I'm just rambling