Baseline and the honest case for YES. On the SSA 2023 period table, of US men alive at 23 about 1.0% reach 100 and 2 in 100,000 reach 110; past 105 the annual probability of death flattens near 50% (Barbi et al., Science 2018), so 150 on today's biology is effectively zero and the record stands at 122. What your cohort has that older ones do not is time: born around 2003, you reach 65 in 2068, decades after the current pipeline resolves. The first placebo-controlled lifespan trials of anti-aging drugs in a mammal that lives with us (TRIAD and Loyal's STAY study in dogs) read out around 2029 to 2031; human lifespan trials that follow a positive result take about 21 years from enrolment at 65, so land in the 2050s. So the question for you is not what the table says but whether that pipeline delivers, and the dog results are the first real signal. 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 when the question is about general public i.e. "Will anybody born before 2000 live to be 150?" and such, there's a high probability; but when it comes to individuals among them, the probability gets much lower...

I intend to continue living even if I foresee my utility being net negative for the foreseeable future, but that may change in the future

Do you currently foresee your utility being positive or negative?

@TheAllMemeingEye very positive

How will you resolve when dead?

@RutgerDeMaeyer My child can resolve the market.

@justifieduseofFallibilism will you get married and have a child?

@k1234567890y yes