>>13138932there's no reason to believe we wouldn't be able to afford it, if these therapies are in drug form then economies of scale will mean they will become available to everyone pretty quickly, especially since the great demand for it will guarantee those economies of scale
>>13140323The number is 9, at least according to a publication in 2013 which is one of the most cited papers in biology from the 2010's. De grey named 7 in his book, and claims now that the two additional in the 2013 paper have overlap with his original 7. Either way, none of these "hallmarks of aging" are recent discoveries (most were discovered in the mid 20th century) and given that the number is unlikely to change. Even if it does, addressing the problems we are aware of is likely to buy us enough time to get to the next set of therapies. LEV doesn't mean we'll reach immortality by 2035 or anything like that, it just means we might get the first set of therapies by that point. I won't deny that de grey is a bit guilty of shilling his own foundation though, but he's obviously not the only researcher in the field and the private sector has seen an enormous explosion in investment.
>>13142361I'm a bit skeptical of kurzweil and his predictions, but luckily I don't think that antisenecence is predicated on us reaching the "singularity" at all, advancement in AI are going to help, but it's still perfectly possible without it.
>>13138889based.
