On a side note I am very surprised people are so positive about anti-aging medicine prospects so early on. 2040 is like 16yrs away.

@ftkurt I don't believe aging will be cured before the 2060s, but Longevity Escape Velocity may be attainable to some lucky individuals by the 2040s

@JosefMitchell Furthermore, there will almost certainly not be one "the cure" to aging.
but rather an array of various therapies, treatments, medicines etc. which attack various mechanisms of aging.

Later iterations of aging treatment and prevention will of course have the aim of consolidating into fewer treatments, but short of mechanical nanotechnology as described by Eric Drexler, I am uncertain that these will be refined into one treatment.

@ftkurt https://manifold.markets/acouturi7/will-the-singularity-occur-by-2040?r=cm9ibQ

https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-there-be-a-superintelligence-b-ebf6057128a0?r=cm9ibQ

Collectively we have some big expectations for 2040.

@robm This is ironic. Imagine we finally beat aging but robots decide to wipe us out.

IMO the criteria here are bad because 'DNA aging' may be reversable without actually reversing the major negatives of aging

@jacksonpolack Our current understanding is that DNA and chromatin model damage accumulation are the reasons for aging. So if they are reversed we should be in principle reversing the aging as well. But if research comes out indicating that this is not necessarily true, I will not resolve this to YES in scenario where such solution is out there. But the fact is these solutions are already showing quite positive results on mice.

@ftkurt do you have any source for that that doesn't include David Sinclair? With no disrespect to him or anyone else working in this field...

He's never made a mouse live any longer than usual in a lab. He does stuff to artificially age a mouse, along a single dimension that's well understood, then he does stuff to reverse that artificial aging. Then all the mice are euthanized before actual old age.

@jacksonpolack Yeah i think it is him. I didnt know that about him. Good point then. I think we will need more proof than that. Anyway, if there are more credible methods that come along the way, I will be adding them to the criteria. The idea is any intervention that will extend human life considerably. Assuming they wont change their lifestyle significantly.

@ftkurt I must add. Not only human lifespan but also fitness. So both should be improving. Living like a 90yr old for another 100 years is hardly an improvement.

@ftkurt Repairing/reversing/preventing DNA information loss is necessary, but not sufficient to cure aging.

Sinclair's work is important, but not the whole picture (even if he says it is in order to garner more funding).

At the very absolute least, it is (also) necessary to devise new proteins which expel heavy metal ions from inside neurons where they (naturally) collect to concentrations which result in killing the neuron.

I've closed my position based on the update to the description. I thought it was more clear before. "Approved" was the key word for me. If the FDA* approved a treatment for aging, that would be a big deal, and have a pretty clear resolution.

>We already know that aging is actually combination of things that are embedded in our DNA

This seems to be a popular research direction today, I wouldn't be surprised if 2040 anti-aging tech came from this direction, but I also wouldn't be surprised if our understanding is completely different at that time. I'm not going to bet if the criteria is tied to DNA markers primarily.

*Or pick some international equivalent

@robm Thats a good point and indeed would make it very easy to measure and close. But honestly afaik, FDA mostly cares about if the treatment is safe for humans. And doesn’t focus too much on how effective it is. I wouldn't be surprised to hear some anti-aging treatment being approved and having mildly marginal impact.

@ftkurt I think that's true of Phase I trials, but Phase II & III have an efficacy component. Idk, I'm not an FDA expert.

Feels like some of the other comments are asking you to take on a research project though, which also doesn't seem like the best.

@robm I know; but this will be such a huge news I am pretty sure a lot of organizations would want to take on it and verify the data is reliable.

How much of anti-aging this treatment needs to be? How will it be measured? There are many treatments claiming they are ani-aging…

@BP17b6 There are solutions that claim that slow down aging by slowing metabolism etc. But these are of questionable results. I am looking into genetic intervention solutions. That will either stop aging all together or reverse aging during the treatment. There are already breakthroughs for both of these on animal testing.

@ftkurt You mean no transcription-translation process? Or no telomer shortening? You expect that the average death age will rise? What are the criteria?

@BP17b6 Any solution that has proven results and does that through intervention with genetics will count. There should be > 99% confidence in results. Meaning at least 99% of patients reports slowing or reversing aging compared to a control study.

@ftkurt Btw; intervening with telomers is still genetics as its part of chromosomes.

@ftkurt you are not answering to BP's question. From your statement it seems you are considering only the treatments that reverse aging or prevent it altogether, not only slow it down. But there should be a clear measure to assess whether aging is happening or not. There is no definite consensus on what aging means besides that at some point we die. BP suggested to measure it through telomere shortening or average death age, but you should pick one measure. Otherwise we would need to wait forever to assess whether aging has really been prevented and not only slowed a lot

@SimoneRomeo it's hard to put definitions around everything; the reason I put slow aging is because a treatment focused on young patients doesn't have to reverse aging; but the one for old folks would be expected to reverse aging. Ofc we should also accept that these two could happen at different times. However, it's safe to assume that treatment for old people will be prioritized. For this question specifically, I would either focus on

1- a treatment that slows aging significantly (2x+ slower)

2- a treatment that reverses aging one time (making patients 10y+ younger) this should be measurable through DNA aging. (telomers/DNA damage/non-functional cell percentage in tissues)

3- a treatment that slow-reverses aging

any one of the above will count.

Treatments like skin care; or that make your body feel more energetic etc will not count. Living longer through healthy choices was always an option.

I'm adding above description to the question

@ftkurt the description is now much more precise. Thanks!

Some doubts still remain though:

• There's still no measure for point 1 (how to understand if we are aging more slowly)

• Remove etc. from the description of point two, only clearly state all the measures that make sense to you.

• There's also no measure for point 3 (how to define if we are reversed aging - imaging that we found a cure for Alzheimer's, would that could as "reversing aging"?)

@SimoneRomeo For point 1, there should be measurable indicators presented in study. For instance if a study claims they slowed aging by telomere lenght. We should be able to measure telomere length shorters twice slower on a large enough group. Or whatever other generic feature they are targeting. If its combination; respective measures will be considered. Though this will be harder to determine by what percentages we should be tracking each indicator.

@ftkurt the problem is that a study can claim whatever and it doesn't mean it's true. I can make a study an publish it on arxiv saying that my dinner improves aging. What does "large enough mean"? If criteria are vague we'll never manage to agree about a resultion of this question.

@SimoneRomeo In general for each option; i would measure target impact the study is focusing on. We already know that aging is actually combination of things that are embedded in our DNA. Those I already know:

1- telomere length

2- chromatin modeling is getting misarranged through consecutive multiplication.

3- tissue recovery after certain damage is backfilled with non-functional cells.

4- micro-cancer through tissue.

I am guessing most studies will focus on those things. Whatever the treatment is targeting I would focus measuring them on patients taking them. Comparing to control groups.

@SimoneRomeo I would expect independent research on patients taking the treatment. The effects should be measurable by third parties as well.

@ftkurt I think the description is still a bit abstract and difficult to measure. I made a market that is connected to the XPRIZE healthspan competition, for semplicity. Check it here: https://manifold.markets/SimoneRomeo/will-any-company-successfully-devel?r=U2ltb25lUm9tZW8

@SimoneRomeo I like the criteria:

HOW TO WIN

The winning team of the $101M XPRIZE Healthspan must demonstrate that their therapeutic treatment restores muscle, cognitive, and immune function by a minimum of 10 years, with a goal of 20 years, in persons aged 65-80 years. The therapeutic treatment must take 1 year or less.

@SimoneRomeo I can ypdate the criteria of tjis question to that contest as well. Hence it will be clearer how that will work