These 4 tech breakthroughs could help people live to 200 years old


We live in a unique time when for the first time in human history there is a real opportunity to extend our lives dramatically. Recent scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs that soon will translate into affordable and accessible life-extending “tools” will let us break the sound barrier of the current known record of 122 years. I am talking about breakthroughs in genetic engineering, regenerative medicine, healthcare hardware, and health data.

Very soon, slowing, reversing, or even ending aging will become a universally accepted ambition within the healthcare community. Technology is converging to make this a certainty. Developments in the understanding and manipulation of our genes and cells, in the development of small-scale health diagnostics, and in the leveraging of data for everything from drug discovery to precision treatment of disease are radically changing how we think about healthcare and aging.

When I speak of the Longevity Revolution, what I really mean is the cumulative effect of multiple breakthroughs currently underway across several fields of science and technology. Together, these parallel developments are forming the beginning of a hockey-stick growth curve that will deliver world-changing outcomes.

THE GENETIC ENGINEERING BREAKTHROUGH
Completed in 2003, the Human Genome Project successfully sequenced the entire human genome—all 3 billion nucleotide base pairs representing some 25,000 individual genes. The project, arguably one of the most ambitious scientific undertakings in history, cost billions of dollars and took 13 years to complete. Today, your own genome can be sequenced in as little time as a single afternoon, at a laboratory cost of as little as $200.

The consequences of this feat are nothing short of revolutionary. Gene sequencing allows us to predict many hereditary diseases and the probability of getting cancer. This early benefit of gene sequencing became widely known when Angelina Jolie famously had a preventative double mastectomy after her personal genome sequencing indicated a high vulnerability to breast cancer. Genome sequencing helps scientists and doctors understand and develop treatments for scores of common and rare diseases. Along with advances in artificial intelligence, it helps determine medical treatments precisely tailored to the individual patient.

Longevity scientists have even identified a number of so-called longevity genes that can promise long and healthy lives to those who possess them. Scientists now understand far better than ever before the relationship between genes and aging. And while our genes do not significantly change from birth to death, our epigenome—the system of chemical modifications around our genes that determine how our genes are expressed—does. The date on your birth certificate, it turns out, is but a single way to determine age. The biological age of your epigenome, many longevity scientists now believe, is far more important.

Best of all, however, science is beginning to offer ways to alter both your genome and epigenome for a healthier, longer life. New technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 and other gene-editing tools are empowering doctors with the extraordinary ability to actually insert, delete, or alter an individual’s genes. In the not terribly distant future, we will be able to remove or suppress genes responsible for diseases and insert or amplify genes responsible for long life and health.

Gene editing is just one of the emerging technologies of the genetic revolution: Gene therapy works by effectively providing cells with genes that produce necessary proteins in patients whose own genes cannot produce them. This process is already being applied to a few rare diseases, but it will soon become a common and incredibly effective medical approach. The FDA expects to approve 10 to 20 such therapies by the year 2025.

THE REGENERATIVE MEDICINE BREAKTHROUGH
Another major transformation driving the Longevity Revolution is the field of regenerative medicine. During aging, the body’s systems and tissues break down, as does the body’s ability to repair and replenish itself. For that reason, even those who live very long and healthy lives ultimately succumb to heart failure, immune system decline, muscle atrophy, and other degenerative conditions. In order to achieve our ambition of living to 200, we need a way to restore the body in the same way we repair a car or refurbish a home.

Several promising technologies are now pointing the way to doing just that. While it is still quite early, there are already a few FDA-approved stem cell therapies in the United States targeting very specific conditions. Stem cells—cells whose job it is to generate all the cells, tissues, and organs of your body—gradually lose their ability to create new cells as we age. But new therapies, using patients’ own stem cells, are working to extend the body’s ability to regenerate itself. These therapies hold promise for preserving our vision, cardiac function, joint flexibility, and kidney and liver health; they can also be used to repair spinal injuries and help treat a range of conditions from diabetes to Alzheimer’s disease. The FDA has approved 10 stem cell treatments, with more likely on the way.

It’s one thing to replenish or restore existing tissues and organs using stem cells, but how about growing entirely new organs? As futuristic as that sounds, it is already beginning to happen. Millions of people around the world who are waiting for a new heart, kidney, lung, pancreas, or liver will soon have their own replacement organs made to order through 3D bio-printing, internal bioreactors, or new methods of xenotransplantation, such as using collagen scaffoldings from pig lungs and hearts that are populated with the recipient’s own human cells.

Even if this generation of new biological organs fails, mechanical solutions will not. Modern bioengineering has successfully restored lost vision and hearing in humans using computer sensors and electrode arrays that send visual and auditory information directly to the brain. A prosthetic arm developed at Johns Hopkins is one of a number of mechanical limbs that not only closely replicate the strength and dexterity of a real arm but also can be controlled directly by the wearer’s mind—just by thinking about the desired movement. Today, mechanical exoskeletons allow paraplegics to run marathons, while artificial kidneys and mechanical hearts let those with organ failure live on for years beyond what was ever previously thought possible!

THE HEALTHCARE HARDWARE BREAKTHROUGH
The third development underpinning the Longevity Revolution will look more familiar to most: connected devices. You are perhaps already familiar with common wearable health-monitoring devices like the Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Ōura Ring. These devices empower users to quickly obtain data on one’s own health. At the moment, most of these insights are relatively trivial. But the world of small-scale health diagnostics is advancing rapidly. Very soon, wearable, portable, and embeddable devices will radically reduce premature death from diseases like cancer and cardiovascular disease, and in doing so, add years, if not decades, to global life expectancy.

The key to this part of the revolution is early diagnosis. Of the nearly 60 million lives lost around the globe each year, more than 30 million are attributed to conditions that are reversible if caught early. Most of those are noncommunicable diseases like coronary heart disease, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (bronchitis and emphysema). At the moment, once you have gone for your yearly physical exams, stopped smoking, started eating healthy, and refrained from having unprotected sex, avoiding life-threatening disease is a matter that is largely out of your hands. We live in a world of “reactive medicine.” Most people do not have advanced batteries of diagnostic tests unless they’re experiencing problems. And for a large percentage of the world’s population, who live in poor, rural, and remote areas with little to no access to diagnostic resources, early diagnosis of medical conditions simply isn’t an option.

But not for long. Soon, healthcare will move from being reactive to being proactive. The key to this shift will be low-cost, ubiquitous, connected devices that constantly monitor your health. While some of these devices will remain external or wearable, others will be embedded under your skin, swallowed with your breakfast, or remain swimming through your bloodstream at all times. They will constantly monitor your heart rate, your respiration, your temperature, your skin secretions, the contents of your urine and feces, free-floating DNA in your blood that may indicate cancer or other disease, and even the organic contents of your breath.

These devices will be connected to each other, to apps that you and your healthcare provider can monitor, and to massive global databases of health knowledge. Before any type of disease has a chance to take a foothold within your body, this armory of diagnostic devices will identify exactly what is going on and provide a precise, custom-made remedy that is ideal just for you.
As a result, the chance of your disease being diagnosed early will become radically unshackled from the limitations of cost, convenience, and medical knowledge. The condition of your body will be maintained as immaculately as a five-star hotel, and almost nobody will die prematurely of preventable disease.

THE HEALTH DATA INTELLIGENCE BREAKTHROUGH

There is one final seismic shift underpinning the Longevity Revolution, and it’s a real game-changer. Pouring forth from all of these digital diagnostic devices, together with conventional medical records and digitized research results, is a torrent of data so large it is hard for the human mind to even fathom it. This data will soon become grist for the mill of powerful artificial intelligence that will radically reshape every aspect of healthcare as we know it.

Take drug discovery, for instance. In the present day, it takes about 12 years and $2 billion to develop a new pharmaceutical. Researchers must painstakingly test various organic and chemical substances, in myriad combinations, to try to determine the material candidates that have the best chance of executing the desired medical effect. The drugs must be considered for the widest range of possible disease presentations, genetic makeup, and diets of targeted patients, side effects, and drug interactions.

There are so many variables that it is little short of miraculous that our scientists have done so much in the field of pharmaceutical development on their own. But developing drugs and obtaining regulatory approval is a long and cash-intensive process. The result is expensive drugs that largely ignore rarer conditions.

AI and data change that reality. Computer models now look at massive databases of patient genes, symptoms, disease species, and millions of eligible compounds to quickly determine which material candidates have the greatest chance of success, for which conditions, and according to what dose and administration. In addition to major investments by Big Pharma, there are currently hundreds of startups working to implement the use of AI to radically reshape drug discovery, just as we saw happen in the race to develop COVID-19 vaccines. The impact that this use of AI and data will have on treating or even eliminating life-threatening diseases cannot be overstated.

But that is not the only way that artificial intelligence is set to disrupt healthcare and help set the Longevity Revolution in motion. It will also form the foundation of precision medicine—the practice of custom-tailoring health treatments to the specific, personal characteristics of the individual.
Today, healthcare largely follows a one-size-fits-all practice.

But each of us has a very unique set of personal characteristics, including our genes, microbiome, blood type, age, gender, size, and so on. AI will soon be able to access and analyze enormous aggregations of patient data pulled together from medical records, personal diagnostic devices, research studies, and other sources to deliver highly accurate predictions, diagnoses, and treatments, custom-tailored to the individual. As a result, healthcare will increasingly penetrate remote areas, becoming accessible to billions of people who today lack adequate access to medical care.

I predict that the development of AI in healthcare will change how we live longer, healthier lives as radically as the introduction of personal computers and the internet changed how we work, shop, and interact. Artificial intelligence will eliminate misdiagnosis; detect cancer, blood disease, diabetes, and other killers as early as possible; radically accelerate researchers’ understanding of aging and disease; and reestablish doctors as holistic care providers who actually have time for their patients. In as little as 10 years’ time, we will look back at the treatment of aging and disease today as quite naive.

The Longevity Revolution lives not in the realm of science fiction but in the reality of academic research laboratories and commercial technology R&D centers. The idea of aging as a fixed and immutable quality of life that we have no influence upon is ready to be tossed into the dustbin of history.
 
It seems like it would be easier to figure out how to upload the contents of a human brain to a hard drive, and "live" for a long time that way, than try to figure out how to keep our leaky, aged human bodies going for a hundred more years. I've owned enough knackered old cars to know that that shit never works out. Something vital always breaks in the end.

car and bodies are different things. There are many cells in your body that keep on regen cycle, i.e. skin is one of them. Sharks keep growing teeth. Salamanders can regrow tails and entire limbs. I believe fishes don't even have theoretical age, they just keep growing as long as food is available.
 
Actually, you are very much incorrect on this point. There has been a substantial change in mortality at a given age over time. I'll use the country with the average longest lifespan currently, Japan, as an example. In you were a woman born in 1947 your chances of seeing 95 years of age were 0.2%. If you were born in 1990 your chances of seeing 95 were 9.0%, a relative change of 4500%. For a woman born in 2019, ones chances of seeing 95 were 26.7%, a relative change of 13350% compared to 1947. So, it is more realistic to say that the upper lifespan, as we know it, is closer to ≈100 years of age.

Sauce: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hw/lifetb19/dl/lifetb19-06.pdf

Yes, that's what I meant by "more likely to see 80." But at the upper end, if you get to that age, you're still not going to see much more.

In 1900, as you can see from the table below, an average 80 year old has an average of 4.98 years remaining to live if male, 5.29 if female.

1630097849802.png


Now let's look at the same table for the year 2000. 80 year old males can expect to see another 7.23 years, females another 8.92. So an average person is more likely to make it to 80 in 2000, but they only get 3 additional years of life expectancy beyond 80. But even this is huge compared to the difference for 90 year olds! A male who made it to age 90 in the year 2000 is likely to have only 3.67 years to live -- but in 1900, a 90 year old man would have had 2.8 years to live on average. There's almost no life extension available past 90 other than luck...less than a year of difference between 1900 and 2000.

1630097923163.png


More people are making it to their 80s and 90s, but truly, the "upper end" of human lifespan simply hasn't been extended. Nonagenarians can expect their lifespan to be extended additionally only modestly by modern technologies -- even though their likelihood of making it TO that age is higher than it was in the past. Does that make sense?
 
Yes, that's what I meant by "more likely to see 80." But at the upper end, if you get to that age, you're still not going to see much more.

In 1900, as you can see from the table below, an average 80 year old has an average of 4.98 years remaining to live if male, 5.29 if female.

Ver archivo adjunto 2486000

Now let's look at the same table for the year 2000. 80 year old males can expect to see another 7.23 years, females another 8.92. So an average person is more likely to make it to 80 in 2000, but they only get 3 additional years of life expectancy beyond 80. But even this is huge compared to the difference for 90 year olds! A male who made it to age 90 in the year 2000 is likely to have only 3.67 years to live -- but in 1900, a 90 year old man would have had 2.8 years to live on average. There's almost no life extension available past 90 other than luck...less than a year of difference between 1900 and 2000.

Ver archivo adjunto 2486001

More people are making it to their 80s and 90s, but truly, the "upper end" of human lifespan simply hasn't been extended. Nonagenarians can expect their lifespan to be extended additionally only modestly by modern technologies -- even though their likelihood of making it TO that age is higher than it was in the past. Does that make sense?

Ah, see, the data set you are using is the issue. You can't use American data sets to generalize to humans as a whole. Compared to GDP, and healthcare spending, America's lifespans do not correlate with the rest of the world. That's why it's better to use a country near or at the top of the chart for longevity, and whose GDP and healthcare spending correlate with the rest of the world.

More people getting to a higher average age demonstrates the potential for human lifespan to increase because shifting the mean shifts the associated probabilities. If ~26%, compared to 0.2%, of people make it to 95, there is that much greater potential for a larger number of people to make it to 100, which makes it much more likely that a larger of a number will make it to 105, etc...

This trend is clearly seen on this Wikipedia page (yes, yes, I know, but the data is fairly well referenced, and I can't be arsed to look it up elsewhere): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

Under "Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955". The age of the oldest given person at a given time is slowly increasing from 1955 to now. The trend is undeniable, proving the shift in probability of living to an older age, against an increasing average lifespan for people over time. Once we hit an obvious plateau in increasing average lifespan and there is no longer any increase at the right tail end of the probability curve, we have probably hit the limit, but given the numbers, that hasn't happened yet.
 
Ah, see, the data set you are using is the issue. You can't use American data sets to generalize to humans as a whole. Compared to GDP, and healthcare spending, America's lifespans do not correlate with the rest of the world. That's why it's better to use a country near or at the top of the chart for longevity, and whose GDP and healthcare spending correlate with the rest of the world.

More people getting to a higher average age demonstrates the potential for human lifespan to increase because shifting the mean shifts the associated probabilities. If ~26%, compared to 0.2%, of people make it to 95, there is that much greater potential for a larger number of people to make it to 100, which makes it much more likely that a larger of a number will make it to 105, etc...

This trend is clearly seen on this Wikipedia page (yes, yes, I know, but the data is fairly well referenced, and I can't be arsed to look it up elsewhere): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

Under "Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955". The age of the oldest given person at a given time is slowly increasing from 1955 to now. The trend is undeniable, proving the shift in probability of living to an older age, against an increasing average lifespan for people over time. Once we hit an obvious plateau in increasing average lifespan and there is no longer any increase at the right tail end of the probability curve, we have probably hit the limit, but given the numbers, that hasn't happened yet.

You'll see the Japanese stop holding these records when their period of lost records no longer reflects in age data (i.e. when all the people from the 1940s and before are dead), and the United States when the last Southern incomplete age records drop off (the reason so many US record-holders are given an approximate age). Jeanne Calvert is suspected by many of being a fraud, as are a fairly large number of other supercentenarians. In many cases, someone assumes the identity of a mother in order to continue receiving a pension for decades. An...unusual number of supercentenarians (people over 110) are in receipt of some kind of lifetime pension that has been ongoing for a huge portion of their lifetime, not just a national retirement benefit or similar. Think "confederate widow pensions" and along similar lines.

This is a topic I could sperg about literally all day and I don't mind the interchange, so feel free to keep arguing, I just think the data is not as simple as "the ages keep increasing." I think a lot of the supercentenarians on that list are of, shall we say, dubious provenance (but the media LOVES them and it's not nice to be mean to old ladies, or to try to take their pensions away for fraud, so this is about as popular a cause as "we should drown more puppies").
 
Atrás
Top Abajo