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

First Person to Live to 1,000 Years of Age


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

Poll: 1,000 Years of Age (43 member(s) have cast votes)

When was/will the first person to live to 1,000 be born?

  1. Pre-1940s (5 votes [11.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.63%

  2. 1940s (2 votes [4.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.65%

  3. 1950s (2 votes [4.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.65%

  4. 1960s (3 votes [6.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.98%

  5. 1970s (2 votes [4.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.65%

  6. 1980s (10 votes [23.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.26%

  7. 1990s (7 votes [16.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.28%

  8. 2000s (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. 2010s (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  10. 2020s - 2030s (3 votes [6.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.98%

  11. 2040s - 2060s (1 votes [2.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.33%

  12. 2080s - 2100s (2 votes [4.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.65%

  13. 2100 - 2150 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  14. 2150 - 2200 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  15. 2200 - 2300 (1 votes [2.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.33%

  16. 2300 - 2400 (1 votes [2.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.33%

  17. 2400 - 2500 (2 votes [4.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.65%

  18. 2500 - 3000 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  19. After 3000 (1 votes [2.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.33%

  20. Nobody will ever live to 1,000. (1 votes [2.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts

In 2004, Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey claimed that the first person to live to 1,000 could be in their 60s already. This would suggest that the first person to live to 1,000 would have been born around the 1940s. But how accurate do you think this prediction is?



#2
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 679 posts

If I have anything to say about it, there will be people to reach age 1,000 dating back to at least 1948 (my father). I want my family to undergo cryogenic freezing if we don't reach the era where curing the aging process is possible.


  • Kabe Ayofe likes this

#3
Fatalbert911

Fatalbert911

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Locationusa, east coast

i'v seen some of his videos man if he's right ill be like what 30? i want him to be correct more time to enjoy life awesome!



#4
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts
If I have anything to say about it, there will be people to reach age 1,000 dating back to at least 1948 (my father). I want my family to undergo cryogenic freezing if we don't reach the era where curing the aging process is possible.

 

if you want this to happen join cryonic movments to spread the technology.

 

http://www.longecity.org/forum/


  • SG-1 and Casey like this

#5
midnightr

midnightr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

I'm going to say 1980's. I mean even if Aubrey is correct about when we'll have life extension technology capable of extending our lives so far, at the start only limited numbers of people will be capable of using it. It will be 10 years+ before Joe Public gets his hands on it. Plus 1000 years is a long time, plenty of time to die from causes other than natural death. 



#6
Russell's teapot

Russell's teapot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • LocationNorway

My personal goal is biological immortality, and I'm going to do everything that I can in order to prolong my life as much as possible.

 

But to be honest I think that everybody who's alive at this point will die without reaching longevity escape velocity, unfortunately. I think that science will probably find ways to slow down the aging process somewhat by 2050, and that better methods/drugs will be developed in the latter half of the century which will enable us to slow down the aging process quite substantially. The thing is, however, that I think many of the current predictions is too optimistic, and I don't think that the development will be fast enough to keep, say, a 120 year old in the year 2105 alive until more extensive rejuvenation-therapies arrives later. Also, there's the possibility that we will run into hitherto unseen and difficult medical problems - for example when it comes to brain-maintenance/repair in the extremely old (120+?), that will take a long time to solve - even with far more advanced technology than what we have today. I do think, however, that the first person(s) to live to 130 and 140 are already born. I also think it quite likely that the first 150 year old is born. The first 1000-year old? Maybe. Personally, I would put the chance of him/her already being alive at about 50 %. If this individual is already born, I think that he/she will make it because of some kind of preservation-technique, for example better ways to cryopreserve people - that will presumably be developed later this century. If a brain cannot be cryopreserved in an extremely good condition by 2100, I will be very surprised indeed. Aging is a very complex problem, and it's going to take a lot of hard work to solve it.

 

My predictions are approximately like this:

2030-2050: Some drugs/therapies that can extend life by a decade or so. Also cures for many common age-related ailments, like Alzheimer's disease - which will increase life-expectancy.

2050-2100: Better drugs and other treatments that can extend life further. Major advances in fields like regenerative medicine and biotechnology. Most illnesses that are now uncurable and/or fatal, will be curable.

Some point in the next century, probably after 2150, but before 2200: The complete scientific defeat of aging, making indefinite lifespans possible.

 

Personally, I recommend signing up for cryonics - which I plan to do myself as soon as I have a job and a stable economy.


  • Kabe Ayofe likes this

Theorem: It is always too soon for despair. Proof: We do not know our fates.

- Robert C. W. Ettinger


#7
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,271 posts
  • LocationCanada

Too bad we won't know at earliest until 2,897 if the world's current oldest person lives to 1000. I for one don't think I'll be alive until then so I won't be betting on seeing it in my lifetime. ;)


Edited by MarcZ, 21 March 2013 - 04:05 AM.

  • Cody930 and EpochSix like this

#8
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 679 posts
If I have anything to say about it, there will be people to reach age 1,000 dating back to at least 1948 (my father). I want my family to undergo cryogenic freezing if we don't reach the era where curing the aging process is possible.

 

if you want this to happen join cryonic movments to spread the technology.

 

http://www.longecity.org/forum/

 

Thanks, I'll register on those forums in a bit. :) I think that at the moment the idea of cryonics might seem a bit too futuristic and out there for my family to be comfortable with, but I do plan to raise the issue some day. I hope none of my family members will be against the idea on religious grounds... I will probably come to hate religion altogether if they do. Were it not for religion, nobody (or much fewer people, anyway) would have any reason to be against cryonics or life extension, because there would be no God for it to 'go against.' sigh

 

Russel, that timeline you've outlined is probably the bleakest that I would (sadly) consider to be realistic. Things very well might proceed in the manner you describe. It's important to remember that medicine is becoming (or has become?) an information technology, though, and that human beings will - in addition to being augmented to possess greater intelligence themselves - have technology that is godlike compared to what's available today. If computers continue to double every year, that means computers of 2105 will be over four nonillion times greater than computers of today - a number so huge that most people don't even know it exists (since there's not many instances where someone needs a number that is one trillion multiplied one quadrillion times). The actual difference might be greater since exponential progress itself is exponential, but let's just say the rate of growth remains a constant for the sake of simplicity. Who knows how much of that computational power will even be needed; Aubrey de Grey insists that the aging process actually isn't such a terribly complex thing, that there's believed to be 'only' seven causes with no new ones discovered since the 1980s (I know that each of those seven are probably rather complex in their own right, but still). The timeline also isn't the only source painting a rosy picture; there are many, many groups and individuals that believe the aging process will have a solid dent put into it by the end of the 2030s or 2040s, and I would be surprised if their predictions prove to be wrong by over a century. It's also worth mentioning that rats had their remaining lifespan increased by over 300 percent last year. I'm just as clueless as the rest of the human race when it comes to this issue, honestly... but I really, truly don't think the issue will take as long as you do.

 

Thanks to cryonics, though, I'm not as worried about the issue as I once was. If things do progress at a slow speed, I can just go "Whatever, time to go to sleep. You guys wake me up once you figure all this shit out."


  • Italian Ufo likes this

#9
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts
If I have anything to say about it, there will be people to reach age 1,000 dating back to at least 1948 (my father). I want my family to undergo cryogenic freezing if we don't reach the era where curing the aging process is possible.

 

if you want this to happen join cryonic movments to spread the technology.

 

http://www.longecity.org/forum/

 

Thanks, I'll register on those forums in a bit. :) I think that at the moment the idea of cryonics might seem a bit too futuristic and out there for my family to be comfortable with, but I do plan to raise the issue some day. I hope none of my family members will be against the idea on religious grounds... I will probably come to hate religion altogether if they do. Were it not for religion, nobody (or much fewer people, anyway) would have any reason to be against cryonics or life extension, because there would be no God for it to 'go against.' sigh

 

Russel, that timeline you've outlined is probably the bleakest that I would (sadly) consider to be realistic. Things very well might proceed in the manner you describe. It's important to remember that medicine is becoming (or has become?) an information technology, though, and that human beings will - in addition to being augmented to possess greater intelligence themselves - have technology that is godlike compared to what's available today. If computers continue to double every year, that means computers of 2105 will be over four nonillion times greater than computers of today - a number so huge that most people don't even know it exists (since there's not many instances where someone needs a number that is one trillion multiplied one quadrillion times). The actual difference might be greater since exponential progress itself is exponential, but let's just say the rate of growth remains a constant for the sake of simplicity. Who knows how much of that computational power will even be needed; Aubrey de Grey insists that the aging process actually isn't such a terribly complex thing, that there's believed to be 'only' seven causes with no new ones discovered since the 1980s (I know that each of those seven are probably rather complex in their own right, but still). The timeline also isn't the only source painting a rosy picture; there are many, many groups and individuals that believe the aging process will have a solid dent put into it by the end of the 2030s or 2040s, and I would be surprised if their predictions prove to be wrong by over a century. It's also worth mentioning that rats had their remaining lifespan increased by over 300 percent last year. I'm just as clueless as the rest of the human race when it comes to this issue, honestly... but I really, truly don't think the issue will take as long as you do.

 

Thanks to cryonics, though, I'm not as worried about the issue as I once was. If things do progress at a slow speed, I can just go "Whatever, time to go to sleep. You guys wake me up once you figure all this shit out."

 

Yes but lets get moving....people always some day i will something and time flys ! trust me! i am a bit older then you.

 

we just talk here but we dont take actions. peraphs you may join in our movment. Either the International logenvity alliance or the longevity party.

 

We are trying to recruit people in the US.  Check for both groups  on facebook or to our website.

 

http://longevityalliance.org/

 

This worths for you but also for everyone else on here.


  • Casey likes this

#10
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

personally i think in a range between 1980's to 2020's

 

around the 1980s if the technology goes very well and advances well, and 2020's if it faces many setbacks, some of which are unprecidented which we see happen alot with technology. who knows; at first it may only be possible to attack the problem of aging if you catch it early, with problems being tweaked out over time. also i feel the technology may be insanely expensive when it starts out, such as sequencing your genome to improve your health, but could decrease over time for the general public. but who knows.

 

the tech is still in its infancy and i see the only way  people born really early (around 1950s - 60's) to stay alive is to come near death again and again and then be given technology to expand their lifetime again and again until age escape velocity is reached


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#11
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

2080



#12
Alric

Alric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,055 posts
If I have anything to say about it, there will be people to reach age 1,000 dating back to at least 1948 (my father). I want my family to undergo cryogenic freezing if we don't reach the era where curing the aging process is possible.

 

That is the first thing I thought as well. With the way the question was worded, anyone revived with cryonics would count if they were legally dead for some point in between.

 

Even if we don't count cryonics though, people do live a 100 years even today. Not many but people do make it. So a person born in 1940 could live to 2040. It is pretty much a given that someone born in the 40's will make it to that age. By 2040 I think we will have the technology to extend life. So it is possible for sure.


  • Casey likes this

#13
Time_Traveller

Time_Traveller

    Master of Time Travel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,158 posts
  • LocationThe Sol System, 7 Billion C.E.

I'm going to say between 2400-2500 definitely.


“One, remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Two, never give up work. Work gives you meaning and purpose and life is empty without it. Three, if you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is there and don't throw it away.”

 

Stephen Hawking


#14
StanleyAlexander

StanleyAlexander

    Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 975 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon, USA, Earth, 2063

Longevity and life extension are especially tough predictions to make because there's no precedent.  As some people mentioned above, there may be unforseen complications when we start to see people reach 140, 150 and beyond.  No one has ever dealt with a body and brain that old.

 

Stepping back for a moment, though, I tend to agree with Casey that the continuing exponential increase in the power of technology will be more than we need to combat aging.

 

I was born in 1984; I think I will be able to live indefinitely, even without resorting to cryonics.


Edited by StanleyAlexander, 21 March 2013 - 08:06 PM.

  • Casey likes this
Humanity's destiny is infinity

#15
Malgidus

Malgidus

    Four Lefts From Reality

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • LocationCanada

TL;DR version (Predictions) First person to live to 150: Born before 1920. (This prediction can be falsified before 2035, unlike the pessimists above. xD) First person to live to 1000: Born before 1930. (25% chance it's the same person)

Chance someone alive today will live to be 150: >99%. Chance someone alive today will live to be 1000: >98%. Chance somone alive today who "dies" and preserves themself will "live" to be 1000: 100%. Well, let's consider the number of people born around 1950 (63 years ago) that are alive today: about 75% (possibly more) in developed countries. Considering life expectancy was about 68 years at this time [Canada], it seems like we've done pretty well in this time. Also, from 1950 to 2007, a span of 57 years, we added 13 years to life expectancy--23% of the time frame [Canada]. Usin Wolfram Alpha, the average 63 year-old has a 1% chance to reach the age of 103, around the year 2053. This 1% is still a significant number of people, and is eight years (read: eons) beyond Kurzweil's estimation of the Singularity. However, we may assume a small subset of these people will live to be 115 around the year 2065, with 1950's technology. There is perhaps a chance one of them will live beyond 122 (the longest verified human lifespan) in 2072. If we assume that technology can only change our life expectancy at the same rate as the previous century, this still adds (2072 - 2007) * 23% = ~15 years to life expectancy. Which seems like a low estimate to what we will be able to add to life spans by technologies are emerging today--personalized medicine and Quantified Self, 3D-printed/stem-cell-grown replacement organs, bionic limbs.

 

I would say there is a good chance someone born in 1950 will live to be  >137, barring no crypreservation or mind uploading, etc. among the most pessimistic analysis of finally using our technology to better ourselves. However, between now and 2087 there is 74 years of technological development. Even if no Singularity (advanced AGI) occurs before the end of the century, the exponential progress in computing power alone will allow us to simulate clinical trials of drugs and medical treatments at a completely incomprehensible scale. We've already crushed the processing power of the human brain with our best super computers, and if the current rate holds, we can expect this machine to be 700 trillion times more powerful with the same density and power consumption. Even with one of these things (and we will likely have many), we could simulate every molecule of your body subject to every conceivable drug and environmental pressure imaginable, and then some. Even if Moore's law dies in 2022 with the 5nm silicon transister (it most likely won't, there are at least four major options to go from here: DNA/molecular, optical, graphene or other non-silicon basis, and then Quantum), it's conceivable we would find a solution to prolong ourselves, in the next 74 years, for someone born in 1950. If we don't discover a useful medical technology in this way, what would that mean? 1) None exists -- the likelihood of this is about 0%--there are many lifeforms which have biological immortality.

2) Existential risk -- possible, but the trend is that life always gets better, safer, longer. 3) This solution cannot be solved with computation -- Very hard to argue this point... already we use supercomputers to find drug treatments for various diseases. 4) Divine intervention.. to quote my grandmother, "We should just die and go to heaven like the Bible says". -- I think we can do better than God and his "heaven". 5) Ethical choice -- we all choose not to use these technologies (unfathomable, as I have a 100% desire to not die, and I sure think I am not alone). I say it is conceivable, even with present day technology and concepts on the horizon that someone born in the 1940s (maybe Kurzweil himself if he's lucky) will attain biological immortality. Regarding crypreservation, anyone alive today can expect to live forever if they have money and we are so inclined as to fix them (also must include the aforementioned problems). There are perhaps philosophical implications of consciousness to this, as well as to mind uploading (digital immortality). Regarding "unforseen circumstances with people 150 and beyond", a company genuinely wishing to offer a great life extension technology, would be monitoring their oldest clients intensively. Any unforseen circumstances would certainly be seen quickly... and solutions found as quickly as possible... on the order of billions and billions of dollars lost or gained. Regarding the fact that "it would be too expensives" or "it would take too long to get to everyone", even though this isn't the question (as it only requires 1 person to live to 1000), the world doesn't work that way anymore. This will be a game-changing technology. How much would you spend on it? I would be willing to spend more on a longevity treatment than on a house, without hesitation. Many multi-millionaires would be willing to spend massive portions of their entire fortunes...some even liquidate every asset they have. One has infinity to pay it off. Some scary thoughts are that there will be "20 year treatments" that will take a person more than 20 years to pay off. However, the next treatment would be much, much less expensive.

But, if the treatment can be made, it can likely be made relatively inexpensive, and with the interconnectedness of the world, it can be distributed world wide quickly (maybe even downloaded with a 3d printer if such a treatment is a drug). Imagine the strife is such a technology were kept up lock and key. What if someone with 1000 soldiers wanted it for themselves? People are crazy, and would go to extreme lengths to obtain it.


Edited by Malgidus, 22 March 2013 - 04:15 AM.

  • Casey, Cody930, StanleyAlexander and 1 other like this

My mind has been torn into Oblivion, is there a way to tear that too? Reach into the Oblivion, and through Zen, tear the Universe anew.

Tradesman by day, [game] programmer by night. Philosopher all day long. @Malgidus |Forest Bear Studios


#16
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

http://www.wardsbook.../15november.htm This is probably the first person to live to 150. I'm Just Saiyan.

 

 

TL;DR version (Predictions)
First person to live to 150: Born before 1920. (This prediction can be falsified before 2035, unlike the pessimists above. xD)

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


#17
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,034 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

http://www.wardsbook.../15november.htm This is probably the first person to live to 150. I'm Just Saiyan.

 

 

TL;DR version (Predictions)
First person to live to 150: Born before 1920. (This prediction can be falsified before 2035, unlike the pessimists above. xD)

 

I would take it with a grain of salt. But of course, we know that.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#18
José Andrade

José Andrade

    Waiting for Immortality and FIVR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • LocationPortugal

I voted 1940's.

 

Russell's teapot, i think you are being very pessimistic.

 

I have born in 1993 and other than an accident, diseases, getting killed, etc i think of myself reaching 200, 300, 400, indefinite life span.


"In this world, a single blade can take you anywhere you want to go. It's a virtual world, but i still feel more alive here than i do in the real one." Kirito - Sword Art Online


#19
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

I'm born 1995,

 

I too would say the 80s. I predict that aging can be halted in the 2070s. Based on the past and correcting for infant mortality and based on today's life expectancy the average person would have 100 year life span born in the 80s and will likely look old. Once they hit 2070, near immortality will be achieved. I am really hopeful that it will be available around 2040/2050 so my parents could also have a shot at it.


What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#20
razer1994

razer1994

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
If I can I will live forever. If I can't, I'll glady die.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users