“We need more visionaries and integrated fields…because just as the human body is a complex interplay of atomic, molecular, cellular, and systemic processes, so too must be our approach to increasing healthy lifespan.”
While reading Zoltan Istvan’s perspective on what he calls the senescence inference, I found several key points to be insightful, though some aspects could benefit from further clarification. If the goal of his senescence inference is to develop an objective system for calculating or predicting life expectancy, with the aim of attracting more resources, research, and effort toward extending healthy lifespans, then this is undoubtedly a worthwhile and necessary endeavor. However, the current perspective on senescence inference relies on two well-known concepts that, while adaptable, may not be entirely aligned or effective in achieving the optimal outcome for this goal.
These two well-known concepts in question are (1) Moore’s Law, which suggests an exponential increase in computation rates over time as an example of doubling growth, and (2) the applied use of Period Life Expectancy at Birth (Period LEB) as a measure for quantifying life expectancy.
Let us begin with Moore’s Law. While drawing a comparison between senescence inference and Moore’s Law is clever and ambitious, it is fundamentally flawed from the outset. Moore’s Law is an observation developed in 1975 for predicting the doubling of transistors on microchips every two years, applicable to computational machines. This observation was—at one time—considered to be highly effective, but it is less effective today due to the laws of physics and to physical limits, as well as maintaining energy efficiency amid increasing complexity. Briefly put, a tenfold increase in the number of scientists working on the problem of aging paired with a tenfold increase in the amount of money spent on anti-aging does not necessarily mean that there will be 10 times more positive outcomes. Multiplying the number of scientists working on a problem will not produce the same increase in output if, for instance, the additional scientists are less skilled. Multiplying the amount of money will not produce the same increase in output if the promising areas for using that money are shrinking.
Further, we might prioritize artificial intelligence (AI) as a means for massive acceleration of outcomes. For instance, a tenfold increase in AI capabilities could potentially become a hundredfold or a thousandfold leap forward, generating new insights that challenge and reshape our current assumptions about life expectancy and the aging process.
The second point I would like to make is that Istvan’s senescence inference perspective seems to rely on a snapshot—that of Period LEB. While this has value, an increase in life expectancy from birth in a given period can shift with irregular outcomes due to the effects or unintended consequences of scientific breakthroughs and/or technological accelerations. Likewise, the fact that global life expectancy has more than doubled over the past two centuries is the result of a complex interplay of factors. Today, lifestyle choices—things that we can do every day—play a pivotal role in life expectancy, affecting genetic sequences and chemical signaling that can be activated or suppressed, thereby influencing the aging process. Emerging fields like epigenetics reveal that active lifestyle choices can modify gene expression and biological systems, potentially altering the course of senescence. Nutrition, exercise, quality sleep, stress reduction, and a strong sense of community and love, once dismissed as less scientific or too “woo-woo,” are now each recognized by researchers and innovators as crucial factors in life extension.
To achieve the optimal outcome of attracting more scientists and funding to advance the fight against disease and extending human lifespan, we need to engage more entrepreneurs and advocates from beyond the traditional biomedical scientific community. The messaging around extending healthy life should resonate with the fundamental needs of humanity: promoting a healthier and longer life for all. Fields such as philosophy, psychology, physics, law, governance, economics, and the arts—which have significant influence and reach—play a crucial role in driving social and cultural change. These disciplines can inspire and mobilize public interest and investment, thereby fueling the progress needed to overcome challenges in longevity science. In my view, the field of life extension cannot (and should not) depend solely on scientists or the notable billionaires whose advocacy and investments are indeed valuable. To elevate truly the field of life extension to its full potential—encompassing a greater number of researchers, increased funding, and the most favorable outcomes—it must be approached with a 21st-century moonshot mentality while also grounded in facts rather than false hope, untested therapies, or fleeting trends.
Over the years, I have observed that the life extension field often lacks an integrated futurist focus on technological advancements and strategies for AI and nanorobots, and even cryonics as a safety net. There is often more emphasis on marketing quick-fix therapies than on understanding evolutionary biology of humans and the foundational work in theories of aging. We need more visionaries and integrated fields (as mentioned earlier) because just as the human body is a complex interplay of atomic, molecular, cellular, and systemic processes, so too must be our approach to increasing healthy lifespan.
There is a need for new perspectives to help us understand the importance of being healthy today to live long enough for tomorrow’s cures. Theories bring new ideas that can be built upon such as has taken place with the cross-linking molecules, oxidative stress, free radical, grand biological random error, integrated theory of aging, or aging clock. These led to identifying the hallmarks of aging, and the work we continue to do will result in new approaches, combined approaches, and rehashing approaches to solve the problem of limited lifespans.
Within this work, there is also a need to distinguish clearly between correlation and causation, to avoid oversimplifying complex processes, and to recognize the dangers of drawing conclusions based on presumptive thinking. After all, the aim is to advance a healthy lifespan. This is a very pressing imperative.
I salute Istvan for his own contribution to the field with his senescence inference, which enriches the perspectives necessary for evaluating longevity as we decelerate the decay of once-gleaming bodies and accelerate the regeneration of resilience.
Natasha Vita-More, Ph.D. co-pioneered the philosophical world movement of transhumanism, created the first artificial intelligence-driven nanorobot biocompatible body prototype, and established a scientific discovery in long-term memory in the field of cryobiology. She has been featured in numerous media outlets, and her works have been honored at Telluride Film Festival, London Museum, Vigeland Museum, and Brooks Memorial Museum. She can be found on X @NatashaVitaMore
