Financial Advisor into life extension

[Michael108]

Hello:
Have enjoyed looking around here so it's time to introduce.

I am a 58 year old Retirement Advisor and asset manager working in Canada (over 30 years) - but a US citizen.
[MOD EDIT]

I have a keen interest in the advances in science and technology - especially as it applies to healthy life extension. It seems to me quite possible that if we are around in about 15 - 20 years, we will then be around for a lot longer.... say to age 120. The immediate reaction is usually "No way!" but things are changing pretty fast... so best to have an open mind IMO. [MOD EDIT]

Look forward to learning and helping out here.
Cheers,
Michael108

 

[donheff]

Welcome to the board. I find the topic interesting as well and have read a few books on the topic. But, yes, color me skeptical

 

[Sarah in SC]

My entire understanding of this sort of thing is based on a single article I read about John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix.
Wired 12.02: John Sperling Wants You to Live Forever

I think it is all really cool, idea-wise, and the brief mention of it in Kurzweil's book on Abundance was intriguing, but I guess it may just be all "woo woo" to me at this point.

I tend to work harder on trying to live each day as if it might be my last, while balancing the savings we need to do for longevity risk. I'm not sure I even want to live to 120. The music might really suck worse than it did in the 90s, you know?

 

[Michael108]

My entire understanding of this sort of thing is based on a single article I read about John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix.
Wired 12.02: John Sperling Wants You to Live Forever

I think it is all really cool, idea-wise, and the brief mention of it in Kurzweil's book on Abundance was intriguing, but I guess it may just be all "woo woo" to me at this point.

I tend to work harder on trying to live each day as if it might be my last, while balancing the savings we need to do for longevity risk. I'm not sure I even want to live to 120. The music might really suck worse than it did in the 90s, you know?

I find your reply intriguing. Could you say a bit more about what you mean "I'm not sure I even want to live to 120." What were you imagining about how your life would be when you thought/ wrote that?
Thanks,
Michael.
P.s. that is a not uncommon statement and i hope to understand what that means to you

 

[Nords]

What were you imagining about how your life would be when you thought/ wrote that?
Thanks,
Michael.
P.s. that is a not uncommon statement and i hope to understand what that means to you

Welcome to the board. I have some questions on the subject, too.

What's the difference between "healthy life extension" and the other types of life extension? Would some other type of life extension be suitable as well, or is there a preferred life-extension mechanism?

If you're a retirement advisor & asset manager who believes that he's barely even lived half of his life expectancy, then what's your asset allocation?

 

[Michael108]

Welcome to the board. I have some questions on the subject, too.

What's the difference between "healthy life extension" and the other types of life extension? Would some other type of life extension be suitable as well, or is there a preferred life-extension mechanism?

If you're a retirement advisor & asset manager who believes that he's barely even lived half of his life expectancy, then what's your asset allocation?

"Healthy Life Extension" is a phrase meant to counter the ingrained association of old age with frailty/ill health. I would not be too excited about living to 120+ assuming 4 decades of Alzheimer's and dementia and 18 prescriptions. The preferred life extension method for me is stay healthy, and be able to take advantage of rejuvenation therapies when they become available (15-20 years it seems).

My asset allocation? ( have to say I am reminded of the line in ghostbusters "...so who does your taxes?"). Using a blend of dividend paying stocks, biotech and tech stocks, variable annuity and cash reserves. But if you accept age 120+ the best investment is in your own human capital.

 

[M Paquette]

What's the difference between "healthy life extension" and the other types of life extension? Would some other type of life extension be suitable as well, or is there a preferred life-extension mechanism?

If you're a retirement advisor & asset manager who believes that he's barely even lived half of his life expectancy, then what's your asset allocation?

Within the Singulatarian/transhumanist community, life extension has a really broad interpretation. Really, really broad. There is extension of your life in you own healthy, possibly technologically maintained and repaired body. Then there are some (slightly nightmarish, IMHO) scenarios where your brain and select accessories are healthy, interacting with the world through some mechanism or other. At the far end, there is what they call uploading, running "you" as software on some hardware or other. Virtual life...

"Oh, Nords just crashed again. Someone want to reboot him?"

Practical implementation is a detail left to the reader. Being "alive" with no body is going to do wonders for those TOD assets in the old portfolio...

 

[Nords]

Within the Singulatarian/transhumanist community, life extension has a really broad interpretation. Really, really broad. There is extension of your life in you own healthy, possibly technologically maintained and repaired body. Then there are some (slightly nightmarish, IMHO) scenarios where your brain and select accessories are healthy, interacting with the world through some mechanism or other. At the far end, there is what they call uploading, running "you" as software on some hardware or other. Virtual life...
"Oh, Nords just crashed again. Someone want to reboot him?"
Practical implementation is a detail left to the reader. Being "alive" with no body is going to do wonders for those TOD assets in the old portfolio...

I understand the singularity literature, but I didn't understand the OP's preferred definition of "healthy". What would he do if the proffered option was deemed "unhealthy"? "Screw it, that's not healthy, take back all this broccoli and just kill me now..."

My personal definition of "healthy" would be "OS X Saber-toothed Tiger". I'd even pay extra for iCloud!

Being given unlimited "access" to a virtual copy of Siri? That'd be an unexpected bonus...

"Nightmarish"? As in having to interface with my family through a mobile version of Win8 on a generic smart phone?

 

[Midpack]

I tend to work harder on trying to live each day as if it might be my last, while balancing the savings we need to do for longevity risk. I'm not sure I even want to live to 120.

I find your reply intriguing. Could you say a bit more about what you mean "I'm not sure I even want to live to 120." What were you imagining about how your life would be when you thought/ wrote that?

I'm not Sarah, but I am sure I don't want to live to 120 unless your definition of "healthy" is wildly different than I imagine. If "healthy" means as physically and mentally capable as in my 40's I'm interested. I'm 57, and I've been active my whole life (marathons, century rides, sail racing, etc.), and it's already mildly disappointing what I can't do anymore at my age. My parents are both 90, they took good care of themselves, but they're not enjoying their physical age at all.

And as was mentioned in another thread, early retirement will be completely out of the question if we all start living to 120-150...something to consider especially for members here.

I am a 58 year old Retirement Advisor and asset manager working in Canada (over 30 years) - but a US citizen.

I'll have to keep this in mind, as you probably know this group (self included) are mostly not big users of financial advisors and the like...it's a largely DIY crowd.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Midpack reminded me to reply, and not surprisingly, my answer is pretty much the same.
I'd rather focus on the here and now, than a future that may or may not come to pass. Odd to think like that, considering I'm in the biz, but I guess a longer life would mean just what Midpack said, that I'd have to work longer to afford my retirement!

And MPaquette's description doesn't sound all that awesome to me, even at the lowest levels of medical/technical intervention.

I mean, I only get my hair cut quarterly, if that...I'm pretty sure I couldn't keep up with some kind of complicated hormone replacement therapy to keep me younger!

 

[Michael108]

Midpack reminded me to reply, and not surprisingly, my answer is pretty much the same.
I'd rather focus on the here and now, than a future that may or may not come to pass. Odd to think like that, considering I'm in the biz, but I guess a longer life would mean just what Midpack said, that I'd have to work longer to afford my retirement!

And MPaquette's description doesn't sound all that awesome to me, even at the lowest levels of medical/technical intervention.

I mean, I only get my hair cut quarterly, if that...I'm pretty sure I couldn't keep up with some kind of complicated hormone replacement therapy to keep me younger!

Thanks for your thoughts. It is quite true that living beyond age 100 seems mostly undesirable given degeneration of physical/mental health. But this is the current state of things...and the times, they are a changing' methinks.

One of the difficulties in imagining healthy life extension is that we don't have much to go on in terms of experience and example (since the changes have not yet occurred). However, in the same way I am pretty sure the iPhone8 will be quite a bit different and more advanced then the current iPhone4, there is much support for the idea that medical science is about to radically change - due to the notion that it has only recently become a digital information-technology driven discipline. It is the exponential growth of information tech that will be transformative and we do have experience with that so we can make some projections based on those trends.

The implications to "retirement" and retirement planning are profound IMO. Retirement planning IS about the future, but I also feel that having the ability to fully be in the here and now is an important part of meaningful life. I am a long time meditator and martial artist, and smeller of flowers! But if a train is coming down the track, I will anticipate a bad 'meeting' and step off the track. However in this case, the train is still out of sight but is about to round the corner and may catch us by surprise if we don't listen carefully.

 

[Michael108]

I'm not Sarah, but I am sure I don't want to live to 120 unless your definition of "healthy" is wildly different than I imagine. If "healthy" means as physically and mentally capable as in my 40's I'm interested. I'm 57, and I've been active my whole life (marathons, century rides, sail racing, etc.), and it's already mildly disappointing what I can't do anymore at my age. My parents are both 90, they took good care of themselves, but they're not enjoying their physical age at all.

And as was mentioned in another thread, early retirement will be completely out of the question if we all start living to 120-150...something to consider especially for members here.

I'll have to keep this in mind, as you probably know this group (self included) are mostly not big users of financial advisors and the like...it's a largely DIY crowd.

Hi:
My response to Sarah's response would apply here too.
Early retirement may need to be rethought IMO, unless there is a very large capital surplus. I think we as a culture will (in the future) Need to redefine retirement as a period of fun and exploration before moving onto another livelihood. I.e. cycles of education/livelihood/retirement. VS just one cycle.

 

[donheff]

Hi:
My response to Sarah's response would apply here too.
Early retirement may need to be rethought IMO, unless there is a very large capital surplus. I think we as a culture will (in the future) Need to redefine retirement as a period of fun and exploration before moving onto another livelihood. I.e. cycles of education/livelihood/retirement. VS just one cycle.

This seems true but the idea that it is right around the corner strikes me as over off the mark. Digital technology experienced exponential growth because of physical advances in electronics. But not everything that makes use of digital technology advances at that same rate. Take sound systems. We have tiny devices but the quality of sound in audiophile systems has barely progressed. Medicine is progressing but not at mind blowing rates. We can't even figure out what maters in heart disease (read some of the low carb threads).

I am still convinced that the advances will be incremental. We will likely see increasing numbers of 90 and 100 somethings in the next few decades and higher rates for SPIAs when our kids are looking at them. But they will still be futzing around with unproven supplements and shaky theories, albeit with some very useful prosthesis. I would also expect that it may be possible to image and upload something like a mind before it will be possible to keep a human healthy to 150 or 200 (because of the growth in digital technology).

 

[Chuckanut]

Live to 120? Only if I can be reasonably healthy and active. I would rather they added to the quality of my remaining years than simply pile on more years.

 

[Midpack]

There have been quite a few reputable articles in the past few years claiming life expectancy has already

• declined slightly in the US recently U.S. Life Expectancy Declines : Discovery News,
• has fallen relative to other industrialized nations http://diabetescure101.com/images/life_expectancy.jpg,
• and will decline even more if we don't get our health/obesity issues under control.

So there may be some headwind too.

I'd much rather have 70 really good mental/physical years than 90 years with a long stretch in mental/physical decline...YMMV

 

[Nords]

This seems true but the idea that it is right around the corner strikes me as over off the mark. Digital technology experienced exponential growth because of physical advances in electronics. But not everything that makes use of digital technology advances at that same rate.
I am still convinced that the advances will be incremental.

One of the tenets of the book "Abundance" is that society's tech advances have very small year-to-year improvements, which is a time period that humans are very keenly focused on.

However the book says that human perception and brainpower essentially sucks at estimating exponential growth, instead preferring to extrapolate linearly. We also suck especially badly at estimating progress that happens over many years or decades, because we're focused on the annual calendar.

So something on an exponential curve could hit the tipping point and come out of "nowhere" to be a stunning advancement.

I think lifespans will experience a dramatic extension somewhere during the next 50 years, but I'm skeptical that any of it will do more for me than to give me a really really good backup copy of "me". And if that blessed day is a bit late then I'm not ready to fork over the bucks for a cryogenic storage facility to preserve my corpse, either.

Before I have my life extended, I want tech to follow through on some of its other promises:
1. Electricity too cheap to meter.
2. [-]Affordable solar power.[/-] OK, I guess that one's good.
3. Flying cars.
4. Personal jet packs.
5. Holodecks.
6. Orbital space-station homes.
7. Lunar and Martian colonies.

Once the rest of that list is finished then I'll be ready to decide whether it's worth sticking around longer to enjoy the benefits...

 

[Bestwifeever]

I want to be a fly on the wall in the staff meetings with the 100 year olds.

 

[Mulligan]

I think my opinion agrees with a lady a few years ago in a paper I read who was celebrating I think her 104th birthday. The reporter asked if she had any birthday wishes. She replied," not to be alive for my 105th"! If they do come up with extreme life extension inventions (which I am a little skeptical, I'll admit), they better figure out how to rejuvenate skin at the same time, or we will be one wrinkly ugly old society. I must admit I occasionally admire the looks of a younger female in her 20s and 30s with a quick glance. If I got caught looking at her with my 125 year old skin, I quiet frankly might scare the hell out of her!

 

[JOHNNIE36]

Very interesting thread and posts on how we all feel on this subject. At 76, I know I will not be a candidate for extended life on this planet. Even if I live to 90 like my father, I would hope to have some resonable sense about myself in order to communicate effectively, watch and understand 24/7 news so that you aren't living in a vacuum. If not that you might as well be coma induced and then pass on.

That being said, I think one of the biggest areas of development for future longevity is in the regrowth/regeneration of our organs through our own DNA and snips of body parts. I am thinking that is a great area for investment so that our money can keep up with our bodies. Next on the agenda is the regrowth of brains through DNA regeneration. However, it's got to the regrowth of my own brain and not some goofball crazy with killer instincts.

 

[rgarling]

Do you have a favorite web site with regard to healthy life extension?

 

[Mulligan]

I will be the first to admit if society was dependent on me for technological improvements, we would still be riding a horse, maybe with a bear skin as a saddle for transportation. With that being said, I am fearful more of the near term abilities of life extension. I wonder what Ariel Sharon (former PM of Israel) would say about life extension technology. When I was reading about the current medical concerns of the former Egypt PM, they mentioned Mr. Sharon and his health issues. I was stunned to read he is still alive in a persistent vegetative state, kept alive by machines since 2006.

 

[pb4uski]

Interesting thread in that there is very good longevity on my mother's bloodline, but two great aunts in that bloodline are in nursing homes (in their early 90s). They are living in that there hearts beat, but not "living" in my sense of the word.

While I realize that as I age there will be certain things that I will not be able to do in my 90s that I can now do in my 50s, just like there are things that I can't do now that I could do in my 20s. But when it gets to the point that I can't take care of myself and can't even wipe my own a$$, then I think it will be time to go. Easy to say now though.

That said, I visited a neighbor today who is in his 90s, you can converse with and is still living on his own (though his wife is in assisted living because he is no longer able to care for her).

 

[Michael108]

Do you have a favorite web site with regard to healthy life extension?

There are many. Here are a couple;
http://singularityhub.com/longevity-and-health/
http://www.fightaging.org/

P.s. also see my blog (see my profile)

 

[Michael108]

Live to 120? Only if I can be reasonably healthy and active. I would rather they added to the quality of my remaining years than simply pile on more years.

Well, the idea is, that improving the quality of life (I.e. optimized health and regenerative medicine) you also as a by-product increase longevity. It's like an old volkswagen beetle where you keep it in great running condition and repair it by changing/upgrading the parts. Already. Starting to happen with humans...
See http://singularity.org/regenerative-medicine/

 

[Michael108]

There have been quite a few reputable articles in the past few years claiming life expectancy has already

[*]declined slightly in the US recently U.S. Life Expectancy Declines : Discovery News,
[*]has fallen relative to other industrialized nations http://diabetescure101.com/images/life_expectancy.jpg,
[*]and will decline even more if we don't get our health/obesity issues under control.
So there may be some headwind too.

I'd much rather have 70 really good mental/physical years than 90 years with a long stretch in mental/physical decline...YMMV

Very good chance with diabetes and obesity to see a temporary drop ... Then as those illnesses and others get fixed, healthy life extension becomes a true phenom.
Check out the news on one obesity drug that seems to be near approval ( there will be more). http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/health/fda-diet-drug/index.html