# Mati_Roy comments on A general framework for evaluating aging research. Part 1: reasoning with Longevity Escape Velocity

• Thanks for writ­ing this!

Look­ing for­ward to a re­view of char­i­ties in that area.

I in­vite peo­ple in­ter­ested in this topic to join the Effec­tive Altru­ism & Life Ex­ten­sion Face­book group.

I sug­gest you add a sum­mary at the top of the post.

Here’s a sum­mary of LEV lev­er­age points: Bring­ing the date we solve ag­ing for­ward by one year could ex­tend the life of 36,500,000 by 1000 years (un­der con­ser­va­tive as­sump­tions^1). But if Longevity Es­cape Ve­loc­ity (LEV) is reached be­fore that (and main­tained un­til we solve ag­ing), then it’s bring­ing the LEV for­ward by 1 day that will be the cru­cial point. Note that solv­ing other causes of death (than ag­ing) near the LEV point would also bring the LEV point for­ward. Other lev­er­age points would be in­creas­ing the prob­a­bil­ity that LEV is main­tained un­til we solve ag­ing, and in­creas­ing the speed of dis­tri­bu­tion of LEV tech­nol­ogy (note that this doesn’t im­pact the value of the other lev­er­age points).

1. a) Prob­a­bly more than 36,500,000 ac­tu­ally given that—ac­tu­ally in the short term—pop­u­la­tion will in­crease, and the frac­tion of death from ag­ing will also in­crease.

1. b) prob­a­bly more than a 1000 years in ex­pec­ta­tion given a 1000 years might be enough to solve the other death causes, and rad­i­cally in­crease that number

Mus­ing: I won­der if it would be tech­ni­cally more ac­cu­rate to call it Death Es­cape Ve­loc­ity. And while solv­ing ag­ing is the cru­cial point in the model, solv­ing other death causes near LEV could also ex­pe­d­ite when LEV is achieve. And once we solve ag­ing, the LEV model stays rele­vant: we could (re­al­is­ti­cally) still in­crease life ex­pec­tancy by more than a year per year by re­duc­ing the rate of the other causes of death, such as ac­ci­dents, un­til we stop adding a year ev­ery year, and even­tu­ally reach a max­i­mum lifes­pan (or we get com­plete im­mor­tal­ity).

Edit: pre­vi­ous ver­sion was mis­tak­enly say­ing 36,500,000 lives per day in­stead of year

• I sec­ond the sug­ges­tion to add a sum­mary at the top of the post.

The Fo­rum has a fea­ture that it took me a while to no­tice: On pages that show lists of posts, each post has an es­ti­mated read­ing time. The time for this post, for ex­am­ple, was “20m”. If some­one is think­ing of in­vest­ing 2o min­utes in a post (and that num­ber is likely con­ser­va­tive if they need to pause, think, go back, etc.), giv­ing them a sum­mary can be re­ally valuable in helping them make that de­ci­sion.

• Thanks Mati_Roy and aarongertler for the sug­ges­tion of adding a sum­mary. Now there is one!

Maty_Roy, thank you for the points made! I would like to cor­rect what I think are a cou­ple of mi­s­un­der­stand­ings and I would like to elab­o­rate on your idea about us­ing Death Es­cape Ve­loc­ity, in­stead of Longevity Es­cape Ve­loc­ity:

Mi­sun­der­stand­ings:

1) 36,500,000 are the peo­ple dy­ing of ag­ing in a year, so bring­ing LEV closer by one year (and not by one day) would save this num­ber of lives.

2) If Longevity Es­cape Ve­loc­ity doesn’t hap­pen, bring­ing the date in which ag­ing is cured com­pletely closer could sim­ply do noth­ing. This be­cause peo­ple liv­ing at that time could have already a re­ally low risk of death, that can’t go much fur­ther down with an ad­di­tional im­prove­ment on treat­ments for ag­ing. This be­cause if Longevity Es­cape Ve­loc­ity doesn’t hap­pen, then I would ex­pect the “very slow sce­nario” or the “dire road­blocks” sce­nario to be true, and ag­ing would be erad­i­cated re­ally slowly, pos­si­bly in cen­turies.

The points about why my es­ti­mate is con­ser­va­tive are sum­marised well, thanks for do­ing that :)

Re­gard­ing the idea of us­ing “death es­cape ve­loc­ity”: I didn’t use it be­cause tech­nolo­gies that would de­crease the risk of death by other causes other than ag­ing are sub­stan­tially differ­ent from the ones brought about by ag­ing re­search. So it would be an­other cause area com­pletely! I also would ex­pect them to be­come more rele­vant in the fu­ture. I think there is not much use of think­ing about them now and they wouldn’t make po­ten­tial EA in­ter­ven­tions to fund, since our ideas will be prob­a­bly be made use­less by po­ten­tially much bet­ter tech­nol­ogy ex­ist­ing af­ter ag­ing gets erad­i­cated (that is the first step). “Death es­cape ve­loc­ity”could be brought about, for ex­am­ple, by friendly AGI, if that ever comes about. I think this in­put is valuable though, since it’s an ex­ist­ing re­lated con­cept that is not talked about much.