The Long Term Wager on Living to 150

There is a long-standing bet between scientists Steven Austad and S. Jay Olshansky on whether or not someone alive when the bet was made will survive to reach the age of 150. In essence this is a bet on the timing of the process of actuarial escape velocity that has been described by Aubrey de Grey: how soon will new medical technologies, those capable of addressing the root causes of aging to produce rejuvenation, start to extend remaining life span at a faster rate than people age? At some point more than a year of additional life will be added with each year of passing time, but even before then incremental gains in the field will provide enough additional time for older people to be able to survive to benefit from the better technologies ahead. If a partial rejuvenation therapy adds ten years to life expectancy, that is ten extra years of life in which further improvements and other partial rejuvenation therapies can be brought to the clinic. The wager was in the news again recently, following a rather controversial and much misinterpreted paper on observed limits to life:

Two US researchers have doubled their 16-year-old wager on whether anyone born before 2001 will reach the age of 150. The scientists have now staked US$600 on the question - but, if the fund in which the cash is deposited keeps growing at its current rate, the descendants of the victor could net hundreds of millions of dollars in 2150. The friendly rivalry began in 2000, when Steven Austad, a biologist who studies ageing, was quoted in an article with the provocative statement: "The first 150-year old person is probably alive right now." Jay Olshansky, another expert on ageing, didn't think so - and the scientists agreed to stake cash on the debate. On 15 September 2000, the two put $150 each into an investment fund, and signed a contract stating that the money and any returns would be paid to the winner (or his descendants) in 2150. The bet also stipulates that Austad will only win if the 150-year-old is of sound mind.

Then last week, a paper suggested - from an analysis of global demographic data - that there may be a natural limit to human lifespan of about 115 years. Olshansky wrote an accompanying commentary which argues that fixed genetic programs stand in the way of significant human life extension. He says he believes a major breakthrough that will significantly extend human lifespan will occur within his lifetime, but that it will come too late to help those born before 2001 to reach their 150th birthday. But Austad disagrees. "I'm more convinced than ever that I was correct in our original bet," he says. He cites recent studies showing that a number of drugs, such as the immune-system suppressor rapamycin, can significantly extend lifespan in animals. And he points to the imminent start of a clinical trial called Targeting Aging with Metformin, or TAME, which hopes to show that a well-known diabetes drug can slow ageing. Austad and Olshansky have now agreed to stake another $150 each. In 16 years, their original $300 stake has already grown to $1,275 (increasing by around 9.5% per year). If the topped-up fund maintains this average annual return, the winning pot could top $200 million by 1 January 2150. On that date, three scientists chosen by the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science will determine the winner - although neither Austad nor Olshansky expects to be alive to find out.




I believe now it's almost possible if extremely unlikely. That people born from 1960 to 2001 will reach 150 is near 100 % unlikely, but that they reach 120 or even 122 like Jeanne that's possible; if, again, very very unlikely. Reaching supercentenarian age (over 110) remains a rarity while living from 90 to a 100 is becoming a more regular thing. Reaching/going a 100 and up to a 110 is the final test/limit (the 10th decade). But even centenarians remain outliers by their micro-numbers. And that will be about the same roughly despite rejuvenation progress in a few decades. On the entire planet, when factoring 7 to 10 billion people, in 2050, there would be 0.036% centenarians (100-110 years old bracket), 0.0036% supercentenarians (110-115 years old bracket) and 0.000000013% super-supercentenarians (115-122 years old last bracket). As for AdG 1000 year old person alive today claim, that chance is down to 10 zeros or less (0.000000000011%). Basically absolute nill, you have more chance getting hit by lightning, winning the lottery twice, ploughed by a bulldozer, run over by a car, shot, sprayed in acid, crash in plane, get pecked by birds or drown in your bathtub (with the plugged electric toaster in hands on top of that). This means as you approach the Big-O-O-1 for 100, morbidity/mortaly is exponentiallly increased (at any moment, very soon in the coming days, you could drop dead for good. When you reach 110, your chances of dying are 10-Fold (1000%) higher - when you make it alive by miracle to just 5 years later, at 115, your chances of dying are now exponentially up to 3-Million Times Higher (3000000000% assuredness of dying before 122). If, we factor SENS advancement and effect of the next 35 years, the results are more possible still not that much more; because the odds are so slim already (it's a very nano-david VS Ultra-Mega-Super-Astro-Giga-Cosmos-Fun Sized-Goliath. Not even nano-david, but just, 'no-david). But it doesn't mean it's impossible, just very not likely. It's true that in the space of 50 years humans went to the moon and invented marvels, but these small revolutions are rare. We invented tv, planes, internet, PCs, and many electronic technologies, perhaps genetics and rejuvenation in health are next with nanorobots (nano-david hasn't said his last words); or perhaps not, because time is a resource we pre-2001 born people have in scarcity. In 35 years, AdG will be 80 or more; alive ? If he can still be alive to use his then-SENS perhaps.

Posted by: CANanonymity at November 7th, 2016 7:33 PM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.