The NO case is that we'll not have improved longevity technology by the time we're in 2119 ?

Seems dubious

@deletedaccount001

Actually, considering how sluggish treatment-based approaches have actually been in increasing lifespan, having no cure for aging within the next 50-100 years is more likely than you think. Lifespan extension in mice, regardless of the approach, does not outperform 40% calorie restriction; neither drug-based nor epigenetic-based approaches have outperformed 40% calorie restriction in this regard, and we have been stuck in this situation for more than 10 years.

As for the telomere-based approach, it appears to be workable in mice since there's a claim that mice undergoing telomere therapy had their lifespan increased by a whopping 41%[2]; however, there are reasons to believe that this approach would not work in humans. Long telomeres in humans are known for causing cancer more often at an earlier age, even though people with long telomeres show signs of aging later. [1][3] And these people with long telomeres do not seem to have a longer lifespan compared to the general population. Besides, animal model shows that long telomeres promote cancer-related mortality in mice. [3]

Even worse, the paper that claims a 41% increase in lifespan has been retracted[2]; therefore, the 41% record should not be trusted, and the extension of lifespan claimed, and the figures provided by other papers are more modest and again do not outperform 40% calorie restriction.

Besides, what if curing aging is not worth it, i.e., what if we cure aging but the life expectancy actually gets shortened? Don't think this is unlikely; this might actually be the case, since, as stated above, people with extraordinarily long telomeres are way more cancer-prone despite showing classical non-pathological signs of aging(like grey hair) later than most people. [3]

[1] DeBoy, E. A., Tassia, M. G., Schratz, K. E., Yan, S. M., Cosner, Z. L., McNally, E. J., Gable, D. L., Xiang, Z., Lombard, D. B., Antonarakis, E. S., Gocke, C. D., McCoy, R. C., & Armanios, M. (2023). Familial Clonal Hematopoiesis in a Long Telomere Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine, 388(26), 2422–2433. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2300503

[2] Jaijyan, D. K., Selariu, A., Cruz-Cosme, R., Tong, M., Yang, S., Stefa, A., Kekich, D., Sadoshima, J., Herbig, U., Tang, Q., Church, G., Parrish, E. L., & Zhu, H. (2022). RETRACTED: New intranasal and injectable gene therapy for healthy life extension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(20). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2121499119

[3] McNally, E. J., Luncsford, P. J., & Armanios, M. (2019). Long telomeres and cancer risk: the price of cellular immortality. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 129(9), 3474–3481. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci120851

curious that sentiment has gone up for this over 2023-2025

I just got a news that gene therapy got problem again, and it is expected that gene therapy will be a necessary part of an effective anti-aging treatments.

A 16-year-old boy died after receiving Elevidys, an AAV-based gene therapy used to cure Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Below is the relevant news:

https://investorrelations.sarepta.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sarepta-therapeutics-shares-safety-update-elevidys

It seems that gene therapy got another bad news...

Human life becomes exponentially less sustainable after about the 95-year mark. There are some 500,000 living people over 100, a few hundred over 110, and only one person has ever lived past 120. The exact biological process of aging is not well understood, but it is a cumulative process. The ends of human chromosomes get shorter to a point in old age where cells cannot replicate quickly enough, and death from natural causes becomes increasingly unavoidable. Damage to DNA, oxidative stress, and mutations all accumulate over a lifetime.

The only feasible chance of a human over 150 is one genetically engineered from conception, substantially different from any person living today.

I'd love to see the purchases on this question stratified by older/younger than 24

I don't want to invest in a market that will resolve after after I die

The preference for "real" time over "simulated" time, but also for "alive" time over "cryonic" time is completely inconsistent. As soon as anyone is uploaded all that's required is for the hardware to perform one computation, survive until 2150, and then do at least one more computation for this to resolve YES? Meanwhile if someone is revived from cryonic storage, they have to keep living for this to resolve YES? Is there some minimum simulated time to real time ratio or something?

@ForTruth The computations have to be ongoing.

@IsaacKing I have no idea what this means. At least one computation must happen per year? per day? per minute? per second? per millisecond? per nanosecond? per picosecond?

Or do you mean the hardware that runs the computation must have a constant source of power?

@ForTruth I will go by vibes. Does it feel like they're really alive?

Since I don't think one year makes much difference these two markets can be arbitraged.

It's very likely that ASI will happen within our lifetimes. Aging is very likely to be cured a few years before or after ASI, if it doesn't kill us.

@Nikola In 2025, "Rationalist" is the term for the group that most fervently believes in the coming rapture in our lifetimes

@JonathanRay what % do you put at this, considering it's never happened?

@firstuserhere 30%

@JonathanRay cool, thanks (I'd put something in that range too, +- 5%)

The year is 2150. All actively alive people born before 2000 are dead. But there are a lot of stockpiled cryopreserved such people, and it's still uncertain if they can be resurrected. How this market should resolve?

@Lavander It doesn't resolve, since we don't know the correct resolution yet.

@IsaacKing Can you give me any scenario in which this market resolves NO? I don't see any reasonable way. All humans being wiped out doesn't mean that it's impossible to simulate humans.

This makes the title of this market bad/misleading.

@FlorisvanDoorn If all humans experience information-theoretic death, this resolves NO.

I'm born around 2000.

So it can't resolve NO in a timeline when I'm still alive. I'm willing to transfer mana from hypothetical timelines where i'm already dead to timelines where I'm still alive.

It's just as AI apocalypse market for me in this regard, mana is practically worthless in NO-resolution world.

@Lavander Sure, but that won't be the case for other people, so the market probability has a force towards accuracy here, unlike the AI market.

@IsaacKing

Well, (a guess) 60% of people here have incentive to bet it to 100% then.

And the others have just a bit weaker incentive, but they still do, because i think it has strong correlation with their continued lives too.

And loans make it kinda tempting

@Lavander my god, mana is practically worthless??