Billionaire Longevity Escape Velocity (B-LEV): Is this going to be an Issue?

And what of it? The wealthy have always had some health advantages, and the sky hasn’t fallen. Look at the pathetic spectacle of Bryan Johnson. Sorry, I know he’s some kind of hero to some longevity enthusiasts - inexplicably - but if this is the best the wealthy can do, that’s not even a molehill out of a mountain. Random thrashings and lurching all over the place chained to offputting rituals all day long, no thank you. To the average person out there he’s a freak, not an enviable look, and to those really in the know (like Matt Kaeberlein), he’s a joke. There’s absolutely no evidence that he’s extending his lifespan or doing better than a well informed middle income bloke or blokette. There is nothing of value available in life extension to a billionaire that’s not available to average joe (not talking about the underprivileged, hungry or homeless). No, we have not settled on Mars. And we won’t for a goodly while. In the meantime the truly petty advantages in longevity that a billionaire has presently over the middle class (though well informed) person is a distinction without a difference. One day - one very, very distant day - when truly meaningfull LE becomes a reality, it will be available to all via government action.

This whole thing is not even a tempest in a teacup.

Peter Diamandis, among others, anticipates that AI could reach human-level intelligence within 1–2 years, and surpass collective human intelligence within 3–5 years .This rapid expansion could lead to widespread automation, especially in data-rich sectors like finance, logistics, and customer service. We’ll probably see mass unemployment in all sectors soon.

@RapAdmin

Mostly I disagree with disproportionate and diverge. The gap in technology and healthcare available to the plebs and the elites has only reduced over time thanks to mass production and the incentives of capitalism. Today we have the same vaccines and drugs as the elites do through this mechanism. It is more equal than ever before in that respect, and there is no reason to believe that dynamic will change.

Regarding biotech development taking too long and being uncertain for longer. That’s a huge issue, I agree. That’s why all of us discussing here will probably die at a typical age, and discussion of “longevity escape velocity” by those used to computer technology advancement rates are wildly over optimistic. But it applies the same to the elites and the plebs.

@LaraPo

What happens when human labor value zeros is a different discussion. One that is actually scary, though there is reason for optimism and it may actually be tremendously good by providing abundance to all humankind. Longevity treatments don’t really change the situation there in my opinion.

Regarding “soon”. I like Peter and his optimism. He’s wrong on this. For better or for worse we are going to need human labor for a while longer. We are in the upper half of an S curve for current technology and a new breakthrough is needed for AGI. Progress is becoming incremental and more difficult. There is no way to forecast when that breakthrough will occur - it could be tomorrow, it could be in 20 years. Tech leaders are heavily disincentivized from being honest about this.

1 Like

An exception to the progress slowing is robotics. That’s just getting started and we’re going to see some amazing tech come up over the next 5 years. But it won’t be the AGI takeoff thing people like to talk about.

1 Like

Another take: Kamil (in Brian Kennedy’s lab) response to this issue:

3 Likes

I can agree in theory, that “the gap in technology and healthcare available to the plebs and the elites has only reduced over time”, but the key word in that sentence is “available”. It doesn’t seem to be really available. (I guess just like full-body MRIs for cancer detection are not truly “available” for everyone). Otherwise the gap in growth of life expectancy would not be getting larger, as it currently is.

The best evidence is that the gap in growth of life expectancy is not “reduced” - it’s large and getting larger. The rate of increase in lifespan for the top 5% is already ~10X faster than that for the lowest 5%. And the gap (in annual growth of life expectancy) is getting larger, not smaller.

So things are currently trending to be more disproportionate (not less) and are diverging rapidly already. The question is what would change these current trajectories? With even better longevity technologies - why would the gap not grow even faster?

In the United States between 2001 and 2014, higher income was associated with greater longevity, and differences in life expectancy across income groups increased over time.

Source:

1 Like

As a general point on the graph… in am exponentially developing world such simple extrapolations are likely to prove naive. For example one exponential curve ball is the impact of AI drug development

In a superintelligent AI world, patent law may become obsolete/superfluous. Medical advance may become so rapid that patents no longer provide meaningful economic value (what’s the point of holding a medical patent for 10 years when the treatment is obsolete with 1 year, or less… would Eli LIlly have developed mounjaro if an equally effective tablet form was only months behind?)
The risk is that capital seeks out a return though secrecy rather than patent protection. In that world cutting edge medicine will take place in one of the few nations outside the current IP framework. Or maybe the whole IP system will collapse.
The proposed curve above could ultimately depend on cyber security. One breach of the secret formula and suddenly everyone’s on it

Straightline projections are the bane of forecasting since time immemorial. The famous anecdote of how it was projected that with increased population and traffic in NY, there will be increased need for horse carriages, but given the space limitations of streets, the city will inevitably drown in horse manure. Of course, they didn’t count on automobiles. But this straighline projection is literally everywhere. Never is any thought given that we live in a dynamic system, and any development is not simply going to go on blithely trees growing to the sky. There is interaction in a dynamic system, so complex, that most of the time forecasting is literally impossible except in very constrained circumstances - the earth will keep revolving tomorrow. Science fiction writers are an example. Jules Verne thought that since a bigger cannon can shoot higher a BIIIIIG cannon can shoot a man into the moon. Not taking the impact on a human body into account. If I put one brick on top of another, I might eventually reach a considerable height, but our straight line projection fans are already talking about the bricks reaching Mars and eventually other galaxies. The equivalent of this straightline projection is a hallmark of all these forecasts, panics and predictions. Just look at the history of what people thought - often the most eminent scientists of the day - the future would look like… it’s straightline projections all the way and of course laughably wrong, never panning out.

Same here. We live in a dynamic system. Straighline projections fundamentally are flawed in principle. Stop. You can only be wrong. This applies abundantly to AGI. The projections bandied about AGI are so laughable, but at the same time depressing, because apparently humanity learns nothing from the march of technology and the past mistakes of straightline projections - and in the case of AGI augmented with almost a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter by the so-called “experts”. Depressing.

Meanwhile, look at reality. Do you really have to be a billionaire to get a full body MRI? What secret super expensive longevity treatment is available to billionaires that is not available to anyone on this site? Provable longevity intervention - CR… only available to billionaires? I’ve been on it for 8 years and never during that time have I managed to accumulate a $billion, not that I’ve tried or cared. And then we have the only other maybe LE, rapamycin - I wonder where my billions are, as I feed rapa to my cat.

Chemical synthesis processes are only getting cheaper - I don’t think you have to be a billionaire to manufacture any molecule. Tools to manipulate genes only getting cheaper. Remember when it took hundreds of millions to get the genome sequenced? The cost of getting your genome data is now affordable to any trailer park resident. Technology is all about dropping costs.

Now we are supposed to imagine how there is this liquid unobtainium mined in the deepest gold mines on a diamond encrusted planet that only billionaires can afford to prolong their lives. What a silly idea. If it’s available to billionaires, it’s available to almost anyone.

The problem is, as always, information. Billionaires have to be able to know what they’re getting. It doesn’t look like Bryan Johnson has a clue. Through history, there have always been kings and magnates and quacks who promised them health and longevity. How would the king know a quack is a quack? And no king or magnate got to cash in on their quack investment. The billionaire is in no better position than you or me when it comes to judgment and information.

I don’t fear billionair “health gaps”, seeing as billionaire after billionaire croaks at a disgracefully early age. The limit and deciding factor is not money, but information, and that is available to all.

2 Likes

Yes, you know what they say… :wink:

But really, we’re talking past each other. I’m not saying any single drug or therapeutic will be unaffordable to all but the billionaires. I’m saying that in totality, the billionaires (as a category of consumers) will have the ability to adopt therapies earlier, repeat them more frequently, and mitigate risks through intensive monitoring, with better and more medical professionals to help… and this will likely drive the gap in annual growth in lifespan between them and the rest of society.

So far I’ve seen no good argument with this hypothesis. These are not so much “forecasts” as statements on human nature.

2 Likes