“Although [Zoltan] Istvan’s general pessimism is understandable, the Senescence Inference takes the pessimism too far for a number of reasons.”
Zoltan Istvan, a prominent figure in the transhumanist movement, recently wrote an article at Merion West explaining why many in the transhumanist community are “overly optimistic about the pace of life extension research.” Despite recent advancements in this field, Istvan’s down-to-earth assessment is most likely correct. There remains a vast chasm between lab studies that extend the lifespan of mice and the goal of extending the lifespan of humans—let alone the objective of reversing the aging process and unlocking immortality. Even as an overly-zealous proponent of the life-extension movement, I have to admit that the current pace of progress does not seem sufficient to warrant anything beyond cautious optimism. As Istvan writes, “biological humans are likely to be mortal for centuries more unless a dramatic increase in both resources and life extension scientists is marshaled.”
Istvan’s pessimism is grounded in a concept he developed called “the Senescence Inference,” which he describes as a kind of Moore’s Law for longevity. Just as Moore’s Law observes that the number of transistors in a chip doubles every year, the Senescence Inference, properly calibrated, would observe how the human lifespan expands as medical technology improves. To quote Istvan’s figures, someone born in 1901 had a life-expectancy of roughly 48 years, while people alive today can expect to live roughly to 72. This, Istvan writes, is a 1.5x lifespan expectancy gain from 1901 to today. Projecting this forward, someone born in 2021 can be expected to live to 110. This estimate is wildly out of step with life-extension proponents, who often make the claim that “the first person to live to be 1,000 years old is alive today,” or, as futurist Ray Kurzweil asserts, if one can live to 2030, he might be able to live forever.
Although Istvan’s general pessimism is understandable, the Senescence Inference takes the pessimism too far for a number of reasons. At a basic level, there is an obvious rebuttal to any argument that is pessimistic about technological advancement: In-the-moment predictions about technological advancements often wildly underestimate the prospect of unprecedented breakthroughs. For example, in 1903, a writer for The New York Times predicted that airplanes would not be functional for 10 million years. In reality, the Wright Brothers accomplished this only nine weeks later. And despite all odds and predictions to the contrary, humans set foot on the moon a mere 65 years after the Wright Brothers took flight. Similar overly-pessimistic predictions were made regarding atomic energy, the Internet, the adoption of the personal computer, and the Human Genome Project. So, when someone writes that scientists will not radically extend the human lifespan for centuries, there is quite a lot of precedent to shrug this view off as overly pessimistic.
More to the point, while the Senescence Inference is an intriguing concept, it may not be the correct approach for predicting progress in the longevity field. The current state of life-extension science is analogous to the moment in time before the Wright Brothers built their successful airplane. The Wright Brothers’ progress could not be determined by a formula or a “law.” They did not need incrementally to improve; they needed to go from zero to one, from “impossible” to “the sky is the limit.” Which is to say, there may not be a Moore’s Law equivalent for the longevity field.
Consider that gains in life expectancy over the past few hundred years have largely been due to advances in sanitation, Pasteurization, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, and vaccines—powerful tools for keeping people alive but tools that have literally nothing to do with the project of turning back the clock on senescence at the cellular level. Once science achieves the ability to stop, reverse, or at least meaningfully slow down cellular aging, this will instantly open up a new reality for our species.
Longevity researchers have described clear milestones that need to be achieved in order to turn back significantly the aging process. According to SENS Research Foundation, “decades of research…has established that there are no more than seven major classes of such cellular and molecular damage” that cause aging. SENS has developed specific programs to tackle each of these classes of damage. Each of these seven classes of damage can, again, be thought of most coherently as a Wright Brothers-style problem—a problem requiring a clear breakthrough, a zero-to-one moment.
Regardless of the nature of the problem, and whether or not the Senescence Inference is applicable, Istvan is correct to bemoan the lack of resources being directed toward life-extension research. Despite the growing interest in the longevity movement, sufficient resources are simply not being marshaled in order to make real progress on a decades-not-centuries timescale.
I once saw Aubrey de Grey, the founder of SENS, speak about longevity research in Berkeley, California. His talk quickly turned into an elaborate explanation for why it all comes down to money. Nothing will get accomplished without the proper funding. This is a common theme in Grey’s online talks and writings as well. In a relatively recent interview, he suggests that the field as a whole could easily spend “tens of billions per year” in order to cover the costs of both early-stage research and clinical trials.
Notably, billionaires have begun pouring money into life-extension research in recent years. As Business Insider reports, Peter Thiel invested $7 million in the Methuselah Foundation, Sam Altman invested $180 million in Retro Bioscience, Larry Page helped launch Calico Labs under Google’s umbrella, and Larry Ellison dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars to anti-aging research. Virtually every technology billionaire seems to be involved or interested in the project (with Elon Musk being the rare exception). But all of this combined comes nowhere near the tens of billions per year figure that de Grey believes is required for major progress.
According to de Grey, life-extension funding is difficult to obtain due to a widespread lack of understanding about the fundamental problem of aging. “There is a profoundly deep-seated belief that aging is untreatable,” he explained in an essay for the Life Extension website. “This has been reinforced, I am afraid to say, by the short-sighted protestations of past gerontologists who mistakenly claimed ‘aging is not a disease.’ These grossly inaccurate proclamations also reinforce their audience’s tragic misconception as to whether aging is in fact a bad thing at all!”
As a result, the vast majority of the world’s medical funding goes to treating age-related diseases rather than to treating aging itself. Alzheimer’s alone consumes an outrageous amount of money every year—and the figure is growing quickly. According to the Alzheimer’s Impact Movement, in 2020, direct costs of caring for Americans with Alzheimer’s came to $305 billion. In 2020, 5.8 million Americans aged 65 and older had Alzheimer’s. By 2025, the number is projected to be 13.8 million. Continuing the current practice of caring for Alzheimer’s patients is not sustainable. Rather than throwing $305+ billion per year at caring for Alzheimer’s patients, allocating a fraction of this toward a solution for the underlying cause of Alzheimer’s (aging) would make perfect sense. As de Grey puts it, redirecting funds to “preventative geriatrics” would be “staggeringly cost-effective.”
Advocating for a Manhattan-style project to cure the disease of aging should not be a hobby for fringe figures in the transhumanist community. It should be front and center for every American who does not want to see loved ones slowly succumb to memory loss during their last years of life. It should be the primary objective of every voter who does not want a majority of their tax dollars going to fund Medicare for the elderly. It should be an obvious political movement that brings together fiscal conservatives and big-government liberals.
However, the chasm between what “should be” and what “is” is about as vast as the chasm between life-extension lab studies with mice and clinical trials with humans. Until that chasm begins to narrow, pessimism is indeed warranted.
Peter Clarke, a Merion West contributor, is a writer in San Francisco and the host of the podcast Team Futurism. He can be found on X @HeyPeterClarke
