I cannot conceive of a worldline resultant from the here-and-now that would not include the datapoint that within fifty years from today, antiagapics research had extended human lifespans by at least another fifty years.
So I can sort of see how you might assign a high probability to this sort of thing. I'm puzzled by claims that one can't conceive of other end results. You can't conceive of for example some parts of the aging process just turning out to be much more complicated than we anticipated?
At this point, almost all the work we've done improving lifespan has been improving the average lifespan. We've done very little in improving the maximum lifespan. The oldest person in the world died at age 122 in 1997. That's not much beyond historical oldest people.
(For some reasons to be a bit more pessimistic, see this earlier Less Wrong thread.)
I can understand assigning this a high probability. But I'm puzzled by strong claims like not being able to conceive of a world-line.
You can't conceive of for example some parts of the aging process just turning out to be much more complicated than we anticipated?
They already have. But at least they are now being researched whereas in the past they did not. We also already know of several potential viable antiagapic techniques, and simply need to determine their safety and delivery systems.
At this point, almost all the work we've done improving lifespan has been improving the average lifespan.
Yes. But up until two or so years ago no one in any mainstream capacity was doing any a...
In a comment on his skeptical post about Ray Kurzweil, he writes,
I wonder how people on Less Wrong would respond to that poll?
Edit: (Tried to) fix formatting and typo in title.