The equation needs technology available in 2040 that adds more than the remaining life expectancy of a 30-year-old, about 50 years on today's tables, so a 30-year-old would have to be projected past 130. Largest controlled effect in any mammal: rapamycin at the top ITP dose, 23 to 26% more median lifespan in mice (Miller 2014), which on a human scale is roughly 10 to 12 added years, not 50. Outside the laboratory there is no drug lifespan result in any mammal yet; the first ones are the pet-dog trials (TRIAD with rapamycin, Loyal's STAY study) around 2029 to 2031, and whatever they show would then have to be dosed into people and read against mortality, which a cohort enrolled at 65 takes about 21 years to deliver. The human record is 122 years 164 days and hazard after 105 sits near 50% a year (Barbi et al., Science 2018). 14% is still generous for a 2040 doubling; the thing to watch for an early signal is whether any dog gets an extra year, because that is the first mammal outside a lab where the answer can be measured by 2031 (mine): https://w0lph.github.io/k9/trials/

I think this is a really tricky one because lifespans will be longer in 2040 than they are today, but it’s not clear by how much. On the other hand, this could be resolved instantly today by postulating that the 30 yo has a terminal disease with 6 months to live but gets a cure like that gene editing cure for cancer that the FDA approved that lets him live a normal lifespan (more than 30 more years).

Very interesting question but I think there a too few many hidden variables to put a large amount on this.

@Broseph The lifespan of a 30yo if he doesn't use any technology won't be much different from now. Also, for more specificity, I've added an equation by which I will resolve the market to the description.

@PatrikCihal Hmmm not sure I agree with that but thank you for the specificity.