How long will you live?

[Cageyone]

Hi Liberty!

 

Thanks for your post and the links.  Although the life expectancy calculator says that my wife and I both have a good shot at making 90, that's only 17 years from now.  So any ideas of how to live well longer are of more than just academic interest to us!

 

When I was 32 I was in the 3rd year of what became a 30 year management consulting career.  Our one kid was 2 and we opened our first tax-sheltered savings plan and started saving for retirement.  Thanks to some solid investments like FFH we're not concerned about out-living our retirement savings.  So we're keen to go on living "healthily" as long as possible!

 

Cheers!

Cageyone

[Liberty]

Interesting interview by Rhonda Patrick of Aubrey de Grey, two very smart people who know the topic of the biology of aging:

 

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/foundmyfitness/dr-aubrey-de-grey-and-dr-rhonda-patrick-talk/

 

It's already a couple of years old, so there's been developments since, but it's still very interesting and I'm sure most outside the field can learn a lot from it.

[Paarslaars]

Current age: 30

 

Life Expectancy: 96 years

Lower Quartile: 87 years (75% chance you will live longer than this)

Median Lifetime: 95 years (50% chance you will live longer than this)

Upper Quartile: 101 years (25% chance you will live longer than this)

 

Damnd, next generation is going to pay a shitload of taxes for my pension. ^^

[oddballstocks]

The calculator is interesting.

 

Life expectancy of 99

75% change of living to 90

25% chance I'll live to 105

 

That is a long time...

[Jurgis]

Retirement/SS age just has to go up.

[rukawa]

The calculator is interesting.

 

Life expectancy of 99

75% change of living to 90

25% chance I'll live to 105

 

That is a long time...

 

Try never married and see what the life expectancy goes to. Its amazing the difference marriage makes.

[Alekbaylee]

Just thought I would re-post the original link that predicts participant's expected lifespan since some may have missed it

 

http://gosset.wharton.upenn.edu/mortality/perl/CalcForm.html?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Personal%20Finance%20Reader&utm_type=text&utm_content=PersonalFinanceReader&utm_campaign=123555881

 

I think the following tool is more comprehensive, hence more reliable and/or predictable: http://archive.projectbiglife.ca/

[LC]

According to that I will live to 83. Better start saving

[Liberty]

1-hour podcast interview with biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey, mostly about biomedical research into aging:

 

http://mindandmachine.libsyn.com/life-extension-human-longevity-with-dr-aubrey-dr-grey

[SharperDingaan]

I'm pushing to become the actuarial abnormality

SD

 

[John Hjorth]

I'm pushing to become the actuarial abnormality

SD

 

That's the correct spirit. It's all about mindset. Even Mr. Munger sometimes stumbles when it's about this:

 

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, and I just won't go there"? - What does that imply, if your dearest wish is to pass away between the legs of the Lady of the House?

[meiroy]

I hate to be pessimistic but you guys that think you may live to see 150 or 200 are really, really optimistic.

 

How optimistic people are depends on how old they are right now. I'm 32, and I think that the chances that medical science advances a lot over the next 50 years is very high.

 

What people miss is that to benefit, we don't have to go from zero to a perfect therapy for the diseases of aging. We just have to do enough to allow you to live long enough for these therapies to be improved enough in the meantime so that by the time you would need them, there are developped.

 

I like your explanation, it's somewhat like the situation with self-driving cars.  There's a lot of discussion on how when cars will be truly autonomous and ubiquitous, fatalities numbers would drop dramatically.  As it happens, right now, there's already technology using AI and other means installed in various cars which significantly increases safety.  It gets better year by year.

 

 

OK now write on the singularity.

 

[DooDiligence]

I hate to be pessimistic but you guys that think you may live to see 150 or 200 are really, really optimistic.

 

How optimistic people are depends on how old they are right now. I'm 32, and I think that the chances that medical science advances a lot over the next 50 years is very high.

 

What people miss is that to benefit, we don't have to go from zero to a perfect therapy for the diseases of aging. We just have to do enough to allow you to live long enough for these therapies to be improved enough in the meantime so that by the time you would need them, there are developped.

 

I like your explanation, it's somewhat like the situation with self-driving cars.  There's a lot of discussion on how when cars will be truly autonomous and ubiquitous, fatalities numbers would drop dramatically.  As it happens, right now, there's already technology using AI and other means installed in various cars which significantly increases safety.  It gets better year by year.

 

 

OK now write on the singularity.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mohammed-bin-salman-gold-rush-singularity-180522101213108.html

[Liberty]

https://medium.com/@arielf/finally-rejuvenation-is-a-thing-910d48aa6c6e

[Cigarbutt]

Submitted for constructive purposes.

Disclosure: I have not read everything about Mr. De Grey.

Opinion: This is fringe science but parts of fringe science are essential and transformative discoveries have sometimes come from the fringe.

 

A lot of the rejuvenation research involves the mitochondria, a structure which is absolutely fascinating and for which remains a large number of unanswered fundamental questions. The accepted theory now is that the eukaryotic cell, during the evolution and before integrating the mitochondria within its structure, developed a symbiotic relationship with a bacteria. But not everybody agrees as some underlying assumptions don't fit with the data.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/61/8/594/336975

The reference is from 2011 but does a good informational job for those interested.

[JanSvenda]

Hoping for a cure to aging (or a substantially longer life span) is a double-edged sword in my mind.

 

Sure, people that are self-aware and are able to reflect upon their actions and that of others will be a benefit to the society. On the other hand, people that are complete opposites will live to spread their misconceptions long after society would be without this burden.

 

I am ambiguous about living longer. Death is so far the only other sure natural catalyst for change apart from technology.

[Liberty]

I am ambiguous about living longer. Death is so far the only other sure natural catalyst for change apart from technology.

 

Don't worry, nobody will force you to get the rejuvenation procedures.

 

Human lifespans have already been increasing rapidly since the industrial revolution, and I'll stay that's been a very good thing and few people are in favor of going back (or those that do because of romantic ideas probably wouldn't like that reality if they could actually live it).

[JanSvenda]

From my amateur knowledge, I believe child mortality is the major change here. Thus people living to their 90s are certainly many more, but the difference might not be that staggering. My post is predominantly about people living longer than 100 years etc.

 

Just a random tidbit of info from wiki;

 

Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:[27]

 

1200–1300: to age 64

1300–1400: to age 45 (because of the bubonic plague)

1400–1500: to age 69

1500–1550: to age 71

 

Interestingly enough men from Glasgow, for example, have a similar life expectancy to that of the English aristocracy in the 16th century - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_effect

 

 

[Liberty]

From my amateur knowledge, I believe child mortality is the major change here. Thus people living to their 90s are certainly many more, but the difference might not be that staggering. My post is predominantly about people living longer than 100 years etc.

 

Just a random tidbit of info from wiki;

 

Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:[27]

 

1200–1300: to age 64

1300–1400: to age 45 (because of the bubonic plague)

1400–1500: to age 69

1500–1550: to age 71

 

Interestingly enough men from Glasgow, for example, have a similar life expectancy to that of the English aristocracy in the 16th century - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_effect

 

Cherry-picking members of the aristocracy, eh?

 

I doubt you'd love going back to a period before antibiotics and anesthesia and vaccines and insulin and heart stents and pacemakers and epipens and EKGs and MRIs and Xrays and modern dentistry and optometry and cataract operations and chemotherapy/immunotherapy/radiation treatments and such...

[Cigarbutt]

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/07/Survival-Curves-UK.png

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

The shapes of the curves show 1-improving life expectancy which is typical across all geographies and which has been mainly due to improved infant and childbirth mortality and improved sanitation (sewage, access to reasonably clean water etc) and the more recent improvements have been characterized by decreasing marginal returns and 2-relative stubbornness for lifespan potential which has increased but a lot of that is due simply to larger pools of people making it through childhood.

 

If death is seen as a bond maturity date, the phenomenon (religion, scientific or whatever explanation) that leads to life's conclusion results in a set of significant conditions that seem to offer a lot of resistance concerning refinancing.

 

NB Conclusions are limited but it seems that medieval aristocrats (at least those that made it to adulthood) lived longer but it took a while for the elite to realize the deleterious effects of inbreeding.

 

On a more optimistic note, the life expectancy increases have been correlated with longer healthy and productive lives with a median ultimate corridor lasting about ten years which remains not so rosy, at least typically.

 

If interested in data:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

[Liberty]

Area under the curve much higher, and people under-estimate the size of the change. Oh, just 20 extra years? What have you been doing in the past 20 years personally?

 

Healthspan matters a lot too. Living long and healthy is the goal.

[Cigarbutt]

Area under the curve much higher, and people under-estimate the size of the change. Oh, just 20 extra years? What have you been doing in the past 20 years personally?

 

Healthspan matters a lot too. Living long and healthy is the goal.

"What have you been doing in the past 20 years personally?"

 

In the last twenty years, every day, I've woken up thinking how wonderful life is. :)

This is an investment board so I won't elaborate much but here's a follow-up article that "frames" the debate well:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05582-3

Also, you may want to follow what this guy is up to, to complement your research:

http://hekimilab.mcgill.ca/