Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How Long Will Generation X, Y and Z Live


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1
REQUIREDINFORMATION

REQUIREDINFORMATION

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

I do not know if this topic has been made before, so excuse me if there were another like this. Also, just to keep things simple, assume that Singularity never happens or has a significant effect on anti-aging research/products; and that mind uploading isn't a thing.

 

Here are my guesses:

 

BORN | DIED

------------------

1960   |  2040 - Probably won't get to use significant anti-aging drugs.

1980   |  2075 - With the exponential growth, the people born in 1980s will barely miss "immortality".

2000+ |  2200? - Natural deaths don't occur by this point, so it's most likely that the person died because of an accident or an unexpected natural disaster.

 



#2
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

2000+ |  2200? - Natural deaths don't occur by this point, so it's most likely that the person died because of an accident or an unexpected natural disaster.

barring some global apocalypse, without natural aging, we will take a hell of a lot longer than 2 centuries to die.


Love and let live


#3
REQUIREDINFORMATION

REQUIREDINFORMATION

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

There is no way for any of us to guess 2 centuries ahead, and I was just making some rough-ish estimates of my own. The point is, though, that Gen Z will live a lot longer than 122 years(the longest life time right now afaik).



#4
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,595 posts
  • LocationLondon

BORN | DIED
------------------
1960 | 2040 - Probably won't get to use significant anti-aging drugs.
1980 | 2075 - With the exponential growth, the people born in 1980s will barely miss "immortality".
2000+ | 2200? - Natural deaths don't occur by this point, so it's most likely that the person died because of an accident or an unexpected natural disaster.


As somebody born in 1979, it sucks to read this. :(

#5
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,179 posts

Life expectancy at birth for Generation Z is probably a little over 100--there was a NextBigFuture article with the data, but I forget where it is. Keep in mind that this is an average, a few people could make it as high as 135-140, so some people in GenZ could see 2140. Life expectancy will probably on average increase by a few years per decade. People born in a century might last this long on average with outliers going to 160 or 170. Beyond that, the problems get even harder.

 

One thing is for sure--there is no hard limit to how long we can push this, but we will have to fight very, very hard for every year past 125. We can't beat the Grim Reaper, but we can last longer and longer in the ring.



#6
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,999 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

As someone born in 1994, I cannot say one way or another what will happen by the time I am near my natural death date (around 68-70 years of age, though my relatives have held out for up to 95 years). This is because there are just so many variables.

 

  1. Ability to extend lifespan at all. There's a possibility that mammals like us simply can't live indefinite lifespans barring cybernetic upgrades because our bodies are far too complex compared to, say, lobsters or jellyfish.
  2. Technological ability. Biotechnology is always advancing, but it's still primitive, so both cybernetics and genetic engineering are still a ways off. But when we do develop the ability, will it be enough?
  3. Age of a generation. Exactly what it says.
  4. State of society. Feeds back into #2, but there's also the possibility that life-extension/youth restoration is restricted to a certain class, caste, or group of people, or that primitivists or fundamentalists come to power and viciously bar anyone from using the technology. It's also possible that the future is perfectly neo/post-liberal but the world is so fucked up that there's laws to prevent people from our generation from using life extension or youth restoration either out of revenge or because it's too wasteful.

In the end, I still have to say that artificial intelligence is the key to all this. Without AI, aging will be a disease plaguing us for centuries, if not millennia. I can't argue that AGI is what's necessary because we could probably do it with narrow AI. But I'll assume AGI is the basic requirement.

 

In an optimistic scenario, human civilization suffers no major setbacks and technology keeps on progressing at a healthy or even accelerated pace. Thus, we get AGI sometime in the 2030s or 40s, and human level AGI not much longer afterwards, meaning that escape velocity could be reached by the 2040s.

 

Now you have to realize what that entails— the first people who would benefit are those from the Silent Generation who still wish to live. Imagine we reached escape velocity today and the oldest living person decides to use biotech for life extension.  The current oldest person is 117-year-old Nabi Tajima, born August 4th, 1900. Assuming a creeping advancement year over year with the oldest living person always being 117, the oldest person in 2045 will have been born in 1928. Baby Boomers will still be around, though they'll definitely be dying off en masse— 2045 is the 100th anniversary of the start of the Baby Boomer generation, and it doesn't really fizzle out until you get to 1965, so the youngest Baby Boomers will be 80 years old. Generation X starts around there as well and peters out by 1982 or so (though it's debatable when it actually ends), so the youngest members of Gen X will still be younger than the retirement age. I'm a Millennial, but I'm pushing it, and I'll be 51.

 

Will was born in 1979, so he'd be a bit older than retirement age— 66. That's still relatively 'young' as far as geriatrics go, so long as he doesn't contract some disease or cancer (which, as possible to expect, might be curable by then). 

 

By the time I'm near my natural death, it will be ~2065. If we haven't developed AGI or life extension tech by then, I'll be very surprised. And that's the lead-in to the pessimistic end of it— something happens between now and 2100 (when the start of Gen Z will be turning 100) that pushes life-extension tech back so critically far that no living person ever gets to use it. Whether that be something like environmental collapse, nuclear war, or an astronomical catastrophe a la asteroid impact. 

Or maybe we don't develop AGI because it's genuinely impossible or much harder than we ever could have imagined and thus things like cybernetic augmentations or advanced genetic engineering progress exponentially for a time before slowing to a linear and incremental growth. Or we prove something about biological aging that makes life extension orders of magnitude more difficult to solve, meaning that even if we did have AGI it'd take many decades to reach escape velocity.

 

 

It's possible that there's a maximum lifespan for every mammal, so without biotechnology, even all the medical tech we have won't prolong our lives. Some suggest this may be 125 or 130.

 

 

 

But once we reach the point where life extension is possible, that's it. Because now a person who would have died at 115 will instead die at 180, but by the time they reach that age, technology has progressed much further so that their lifespan could be 400 years, and so on and so on.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#7
Maximum7

Maximum7

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

I don't know about X,Y and Z but all people born after 2010- Generation Alpha- will  probably live forever. People like me (born in 1993) will probably end up in the weird limbo of being old and looking our age. Example: Me at 120, looking like a raisin and an 80-year old looking like he's 40. Although, I probably won't care. I don't want to live that long anyway.



#8
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

Depends on your class as the current political system in America will make it very expensive to afford any anti-aging treatment that comes down the pike.



#9
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Depends on your class as the current political system in America will make it very expensive to afford any anti-aging treatment that comes down the pike.

That's just America. You're not taking into consideration other, more progressive countries.



#10
bgates276

bgates276

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Funny, I previously read an article saying that life span has actually decreased in the last year or two in America. Not a good sign, but hopefully just a blip in the data.



#11
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,135 posts

Well at the moment it depends where you live. Do you live in Sierra Leone or Japan? If you live in the former country you might not live long enough to see even the most conservative of these estimates, but if you live in the latter country then you've practically reached longevity escape velocity.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#12
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,517 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

For the umpteenth time, don't FORGET the safety net we all have if we don't reach the longevity escape velocity in time - CYROPRESERVATION!!!

 

It is almost a guarantee that the technological efficiency one is cryopreserved will be sufficient by 2040s so it will be possible to maintain cell viability after being frozen for hundreds of years. It's a much easier technology to improve than finding the cure to aging.

 

We don't have to be buried in some coffin. We don't have to be turned into dust and thrown out into the ocean. We don't have to reach information death when our hearts stop beating.

 

It's time for a paradigm shift in our thinking when it comes to death.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#13
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,135 posts
Take into account that 50% of the top 10 oldest people in recorded history lived/died this decade and it might inspire a bit more hope.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#14
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

I hope the ones born at 1960 can reach scape velocity, because my mother was born at 1962, with AI , we can have nanobots that will fix us from inside within 20 years, so, its possible.



#15
REQUIREDINFORMATION

REQUIREDINFORMATION

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

I hope the ones born at 1960 can reach scape velocity, because my mother was born at 1962, with AI , we can have nanobots that will fix us from inside within 20 years, so, its possible.

I doubt if nanobots will be that efficient in just 20 years. First, they have to be secure: nobody would want machines inside them go Skynet and kill them. That alone would take years and years of testing and experimenting, but that's not the only problem. There are still the technological and economical limitations preventing this; even if such technology were possible, it would take at least a decade to have a viable price for the majority - even in the most developed countries.



#16
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Testing and experimenting can take 5 years,  security can be tested  within that time, AI is advancing exponencially.



#17
bgates276

bgates276

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 456 posts

 

I hope the ones born at 1960 can reach scape velocity, because my mother was born at 1962, with AI , we can have nanobots that will fix us from inside within 20 years, so, its possible.

I doubt if nanobots will be that efficient in just 20 years. First, they have to be secure: nobody would want machines inside them go Skynet and kill them. That alone would take years and years of testing and experimenting, but that's not the only problem. There are still the technological and economical limitations preventing this; even if such technology were possible, it would take at least a decade to have a viable price for the majority - even in the most developed countries.

 

 

I second this. Even if it is available within that time, it will probably only be available to the very wealthy. Just as another example, artificial hearts have been on the market for almost a decade. Last time I checked, they were going for $100-250 k, and they arn't even that effective yet.



#18
REQUIREDINFORMATION

REQUIREDINFORMATION

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Testing and experimenting can take 5 years,  security can be tested  within that time, AI is advancing exponencially.

Even though AI is advancing exponentially, it's still on its infancy stages right now. And there is no way such technology would go from "not secure at all" to "actually viable" in just 5 years using the current technology. And that's not counting how long the development of such technology would take(hint: it's not coming any time soon). 



#19
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Maybe 10 years for it to be developed enough to tests begin, + 5 years for tests, + 10 years for prices become avaiable? 



#20
REQUIREDINFORMATION

REQUIREDINFORMATION

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Maybe 10 years for it to be developed enough to tests begin, + 5 years for tests, + 10 years for prices become avaiable? 

If everything goes right, I'd say it would be available in 30 years. But this is real life, and nothing has ever constantly gone right through 30 years.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users