Science, Longevity and Early Retirement

[sloof70]

Step into this topic with an optimistic view on the potential advancements in health technology.  And the hope humanity doesn't destroy itself.

We're a community of people that all want to discard the shackles of financial dependence as quickly as possible.  With the typical life expectancy of 75-80, it makes perfect sense to try elongate the latter, post-work portion of our lives.  Hell, even those of us that take good care of ourselves and have a stellar pair of genes can really only bank on early three-figures.  But what if life weren't as fleeting as we've planned.  What if technology is able to substantially prolong our existence?

There's a lot of talk about what's going to be happening in the coming decades.  Artificial limbs, 3d-printed organs, gene therapy, anti-aging drugs, even full-blown cryopreservation is on the table.  And these are not centuries away; many in the field see them happening in our lifetimes.  (Check out this neato chart of maybes: http://goo.gl/8AuloY.)  For those in their 20s and 30s, maybe even 40s and 50s, we could see some profound changes to how our bodies function into the presumed later years.

Let's tease out this fantasy.  I'm 25, and lets just say I make it to 65 before I have any major medical needs to sustain me.  That year will be 2053.  What if, just what if, by that time, I will be able to start replacing limbs and organs, implanting sensors and all sorts of microchips, and even start taking drugs to slow the rate of decay on my body and brain.  Perhaps I become essentially a cyborg, with my entire humanness derived only from my cognition.  Maybe I cease to require any of the basic needs of humanity, merely being a shell with a brain that need only top off a readily-available slurry of sugars and proteins.  Maybe we go full bore and my brain is fully simulated, turning me into a sentient machine.

You might say this is utter lunacy, but it is really only the combination of technologies that researchers and futurists envision not far down the line.

This gives us some pretty crazy possibilities.  We could easily live to 100, maybe 150, maybe 200.  We could be frozen and stored to be resurrected decades or centuries later.  The nuttiest might even say that science could make man immortal.  (I wonder what 7% compounding for infinity would do to my portfolio.)

Since we're all focused on much longer-term affairs than most of our peers, I'm curious what you fellers think about extreme longevity in relation to early retirement?

[dragoncar]

I think it's great!  Plenty if time to start another career if ER fails.  Or just go into cryosleep for a few thousand years while your stache grows.  As long as you don't wake up in a post monetary society. Even if you did I guess you still will.

[arebelspy]

I guess I don't see the connection.

If anything I'd think living longer one would be fine working for 40 years, rather than trying to work for only 20, say, and having a longer retirement to do whatever you want.  With longer living (assuming you are still healthy and mobile and not physically limited), you get that time anyways, so there's not as much of an incentive to ER. (Though still a lot, to be able to spend your time doing whatever, there's not the ticking clock factor as much.)

In any case, I plan on having my assets continue to grow in ER, rather than drawing down, so just like the article says, First Retire, Then Get Rich: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/14/first-retire-then-get-rich/

Ongoing discussion here: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/continue-the-blog-conversation/first-retire-then-get-rich/

[matchewed]

Extreme longevity, early retirement, and population growth will be incompatible goals IMO. Ignoring the effects on an individual for a moment the cultural and societal effects would be pretty big. These technologies would be available to the rich first which will keep power and resources firmly planted in their "not dying for a long time" hands. This would not be good for those who don't have access to the technologies.

For individuals like us it would be cost prohibitive as it would probably cost as much as a stache. But assuming it got cheap enough to do, for an individual I would believe the idea of multiple careers (which is currently a reality) would expand and either cover longer time frames as society got used to extended longevity, or to cover more careers.

[Luck better Skill]

  One thing for sure.  If people start living to 150 then SS, pensions, and all retirement programs will have to adjust.

[sloof70]

For individuals like us it would be cost prohibitive as it would probably cost as much as a stache.

Would you spend your accumulated retirement wealth on extreme longevity and then go back to work?  Or is it worth more to have a shorter, freer existence?

[matchewed]

For individuals like us it would be cost prohibitive as it would probably cost as much as a stache.

Would you spend your accumulated retirement wealth on extreme longevity and then go back to work?  Or is it worth more to have a shorter, freer existence?

Me personally? I would choose option B. I enjoy the shorter freer existence as it is my reality. Death scares me in some ways but it is unavoidable and an important aspect to life. I'm not going to dodge it just to have to work again. That would be an even more extreme version of living for the future and ignores the fact that I could buy an additional 50 years and still get hit by a bus. I would like to live my life now to the best I can and accept death if I get hit by the bus.

[superhero]

I plan on having enough money saved, and enough extra income through ER that my withdraw rate doesn't affect my principal balance (in fact I hope it improves with inflation). If there are life-extending (w/ quality of life improvements) technologies, I assume I'll continue to do what I do once I hit FI, which is working, but for myself and not too much :)

Anyone ever wonder what kind of crazy safety precautions people would take if they had the ability to live for hundreds or thousands of years? I wouldn't even get in a car. Many of the risks we take are because life is short.

[DoubleDown]

I don't think a greatly extended life expectancy would change my plans. Like Arebelspy, I plan on having enough to last essentially an infinite amount of time. And I'm enough of an optimist to believe that I could adjust plans accordingly to such developments.
 
Really though, I think such premonitions are greatly overstated (not by the OP, but by the futurists who are frequently touting such revolutionary developments). It's like the sci-fi movies from a few decades ago, that had humanity living on Mars or other galaxies by the year 1998. Or any other of 10,000 predictions of a radically different society or world that did not come to pass, or honestly-held beliefs by thought leaders that artificial intelligence would overtake the human brain and become sentient five years ago. I think in the next 50 years, life expectancy for people being born now might be 5 more years if we can defeat the primary forms of cancer. The hurdles to overcome the effects of aging and resource constraints are enormous and likely insurmountable.

[Albert]

I think the most likely form of near immortality is a merger of biological beings with computers. Perhaps we'll be able to simply copy our minds (the only things which really matters) to very powerful computer systems. As for purely biological methods it has already been shown on certain worms and I believe mice as well that 50-100% extension of the normal life span is feasible.

Once upon time the majority opinion was that heavier than air flight for someone as heavy as human would never be possible.

[frugaldrummer]

We might not extend life expectancy beyond 120 years or so, but we already have some of the technology to make those 120 years healthier.  The biggest problem I see is that those treatments are likely to be "optional" i.e. not covered by health insurance and pricey.  So we may see a growing gap in the baby boomers between the haves and have nots in so far as healthy aging goes.

Here's just some of the anti-aging  items currently available but not usually covered by insurance:

 - bioidentical  hormone replacement (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone - insurance coverage is spotty)
 - human growth hormone replacement - pricey (several hundred dollars a month) and not covered for anti-aging purposes
 - anti-aging skin creams
 - vitamins
 - face lifts (I look pretty good for 57, but if I've got another 60 years?  Definitely gonna need a lift at some point)
 - gym memberships (yeah, I know, there are cheaper ways to get a workout, but that's what works for me)
 - laser skin treatments
 
In the future, there may be stem cell therapies, targeted gene modifications,  etc.  Most likely these will also be out-of-pocket expenses.

Imagine, for instance, if there was a stem cell therapy that would keep you healthy for the next 20 years - but cost 100k?

I try to include these possibilities in my retirement planning. 
(But don't forget, exercise, eating your veggies, and getting your sleep go a long way!)

[MrsPete]

While these things might be technically possible, a whole lot of things would have to come together "just so" to allow a person to live to the extreme old ages suggested: 

- The person's have to live in America or another 1st world country.
- The person would have to be born with good genes (meaning a propensity towards good health, no family history of heart disease or cancers -- the less to cure, the better).
- The person would have to be very wealthy to afford these cutting edge technologies (as mentioned in other posts, probably without help from insurance).
- The person would have to have an awareness of these technologies and an interest in putting significant time into the research and the procedures themselves. 
- Because so much is determined in a child's early formative years, the person would have to begin his or her life in a family that emphasized good nutrition -- more vegetables, fewer Happy Meals.
- The person would have to continue a good diet and exercise program throughout his or her life.  This would involve moderate use of alcohol and abstinence from drugs.   
- Ideally the person would work in a job that includes some mobility but not hard, jarring physical labor (perhaps a sales person who'd be in and out of offices, carrying moderate loads . . . as opposed to the worker who's chained to a desk and is too sedentary or the construction worker who gives his body a hard work out every day). 
- And luck would be involved too:  The person would have to avoid accidents. 

Having half these things wouldn't do -- every box'd have to be checked to live to an extremely old age as discussed.  How many people would actually fit all these categories? 

Consider Michael Jackson as an example.  He had money for all the "best" medical treatments and made some rather freaky choices in his attempts to hang onto youth and health, yet he died fairly young anyway.

   

What I do think is that medical technology will help people look better and feel better for a longer period of time, especially if coupled with good nutrition and exercise . . . but eventually aging will just catch up to us all.

[wakkowarner]

While we are engaging in thought exercises think about this: Your brain gets copied to a computer.  It's already been mentioned, but what if this really was possible and actually happened.  Now all your memories, all your thoughts are also in this computer.  It can be turned off and stored for thousands of years if needed.  It could theoretically put in an artificial body, on with parts that could be replaced if needed.  Even if that body were to be destroyed, you could be restored from a backup made each night so the most you would miss out on is a single day of existence.

Not going into the debate about souls or anything, but what about the moment the copy is made?  There is another you, right there.  Let's even say they could make an exactly duplicated body, so it looks like you too.  This "person" would then want to go home.  Live your live.  Sleep with your spouse because they would be in love with them.  What is the organic you going to do?  At the moment the copy is made your memories, your lives will start to diverge.  The copy is a copy but it isn't you.  Well, it is you, and to "it" it is you, but to the original version you are still you.  While you may know how this "person" thinks you don't know their exact thoughts.  And just as our experiences in life shape us, the different experiences this new entity will have will shape it differently.  It will react the same way you would have if you were exposed to those same experiences, but you won't be.

You will have made a clone.  You won't live forever, but your clone might have that ability.

[arebelspy]

Not going into the debate about souls or anything

That seems like exactly what you're doing.

There is another you, right there. 

Is it?

It's an interesting discussion, but one for another thread, methinks.  Living longer and having a clone of oneself (often presented though a teleportation example) are different issues.  Perhaps both ethical, spiritual, whatever, ones, but different nonetheless.

[wakkowarner]

Not going into the debate about souls or anything

That seems like exactly what you're doing.

There is another you, right there. 

Is it?

It's an interesting discussion, but one for another thread, methinks.  Living longer and having a clone of oneself (often presented though a teleportation example) are different issues.  Perhaps both ethical, spiritual, whatever, ones, but different nonetheless.

Well I wasn't intending it as a discussion about souls if you took it as such, guess it depends on how you personally define it.  The whole teleportation thing is sort of what I was thinking about with this too but didn't bring up.  I mean, unless the teleportation process involved the removing of the original matter, moving it along, and reassembling it.  But I'm assuming you are talking about the proposed teleportation where only information was sent about the original, and was constructed into a new body at the other end leaving the old one intact.  The OP talked about replacing body parts, until basically everything was replaced.  Well, this is basically the same thing.  It's just the rate of change that is different.  Only reason I bring the whole thing up is because it was something I happened to be thinking about and seemed very much in line with what the OP was talking about.

I'm a graduate student studying Computer Science.  We've been covering some of these topics in our research.  There is some neat stuff going on with the studies for the human brain.  It's an interesting issue to think about, what will we do once our technology is able to duplicate the human brain.  Of course at first all we would have is the equivalent of an infant.  Something that could learn and develop as a human does but isn't a copy of a specific human.  It would require a lot more to actually COPY a currently living human being.  Even if we were able to duplicate the actual neural connections in a human we have no idea if that would give them the same memories.

But to get specifically back on topic about the issue I'd say I agree with the people that save enough that you actually just earn more each year, allowing your personal wealth to grow forever (or however long you live).  Even if you could keep going from body to newly grown body you could eventually fall into an accident and just die.  Unless of course it was possible to "back up" your brain somehow.  But then how would overcrowding work?  I mean, we already have a lot of people on this planet.  Either it would only be affordable to a few (and so wouldn't really be a concern) or it could be affordable enough for everyone (exacerbating the problem with overpopulation).

But really, who wants to live forever?  I think obsessing over something like that will actually keep you from actually living.  Focusing on the here and now, enjoying that is what I think mustachianism is all about.  It's why I don't want to work forever.  It's also why I don't have to, because I can enjoy life without needing 'stuff'.

[Albert]

I don't dream about living forever, but living say 50 or 100 years longer in a physically sound state would be cool. I bet vast majority of people would sign up for it.

[arebelspy]

The OP talked about replacing body parts, until basically everything was replaced.  Well, this is basically the same thing.  It's just the rate of change that is different. 

You are referring to a Theseus's ship paradox.

Again, somewhat interesting (as much as a problem that's been thoroughly discussed by scholars for 2000 years can be) , but only tangentially related to "longevity and early retirement" and probably worthy of its own thread if anyone wants to discuss the implications or thoughts on that.

[Nords]

This gives us some pretty crazy possibilities.  We could easily live to 100, maybe 150, maybe 200. 
Since we're all focused on much longer-term affairs than most of our peers, I'm curious what you fellers think about extreme longevity in relation to early retirement?

Social Security & Medicare have already been mentioned, but we'd probably have to do something about all of those pensions:  federal, state, municipal, and even civilian industry.  It's going to wreak havoc on the annuity industry too.

There are already military retirees living into triple digits, which implies paying their inflation-adjusted pensions for 50-70 years (plus survivor's benefits).  My pension pays a large portion of my expenses already-- how much more of an inflation adjustment will I need?  I'm already pretty confident of earning more in lifetime pension than I'll earn in paychecks, although the bet is less certain when those numbers are adjusted for inflation.

You'd also have the privilege of informing your great-great-great-great-grandchildren that they'd have to save $25M for retirement, yet you can remember way back when it only cost a million...

[Albert]

The key question is in what state do we get to live to 150 or 200? If it's like a 30-50 year old now then there is no problem, we just work an extra century. On the other hand if it's an extra 100 years of old age then we are in great trouble.

Right now there are no medical options providing a longer life beyond those achievable by a healthy life style. When and if that's possible there will be all kinds of societal effects which are very difficult to predict. The same goes for an artificial increase of intelligence.

[Leisured]

There is more to this than advances in medicine. By mid century there will be advances in automatic production, which will help economies with long lived people. Machines are the equivalent of slave labor, and machines help make other machines. The politics and social aspects are not easy, but it clearly make sense to reorganize the politics of advanced society to allow machines to take over most work. Scientists realized 50 years ago that the laws of nature actually allow automatic production, and it is silly to ignore automation.

There is a book which has explored some of these matters: Remaking Eden by Lee Silver, who is professor of molecular biology at Princeton University. Published 1998, but still relevant. Professor Silver was more concerned with enhancing human abilities than with longevity.

[DoubleDown]

Some scientists think that the aging process may not be as "natural" as we believe, at least not as we commonly think of aging nowadays. They think that aging may be a side effect of solar radiation constantly bombarding our bodies and DNA, causing the breakdowns we see over time. Some experiments have been done to back up this assertion, but of course nothing yet conclusive. If the amount of radiation we experience was reduced, we might see radically longer lives. That view aligns with biblical stories of people many thousands of years ago living to be 400, 600, 800 years old. If there was a sudden increase increase in the amount of radiation given off by the Sun at some point a few thousand years ago, then the pace of breakdowns would increase and life spans all of a sudden could be radically reduced to the upper limit of 120 years seen today. Large changes in solar activity are inevitable, at least on the timescales of a solar system, so it's plausible our Sun did that. And we know of course the harmful effects of radiation, so that's plausible as well.

I don't yet buy into these aging theories since they're untested, but it would be interesting if research shows advances. I guess they could ask for some volunteers to live encased in lead buildings, or 200 feet underground forever like those creepy dudes in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, and see if their lifespans increase dramatically. Won't do much for their tan though.

[matchewed]

You had me until biblical stories were brought in as justification to a scientific hypothesis. I'm sure we could just use mice to test the hypothesis and prove it wrong and although we've probably extended life in mice I'm pretty sure there is much more complicated processes going on here than sun is bad.

Without a doubt sun will increase aging but 400 to 800 year human lifespans documented in a story with no evidence of actually occurring is not evidence in my opinion.

[DoubleDown]

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that the biblical stories were part of any scientific justification -- maybe the other way around (IF the scientific hypothesis was independently shown to be true). The scientists theorizing about aging being primarily a solar thing are doing bona fide scientific research to test their hypotheses that has nothing to do with religion. On the program I saw on this, a different metaphysical/religion guy said that this interestingly enough would align with the biblical stories, and that radically longer ages are not unheard of or impossible.

I guess to argue the other way around, we could say that if science was able to demonstrate that our life spans could be radically increased by reducing solar radiation, and if we had strong evidence of a large increase in solar radiation occurring about 5,000 years ago, then it would be evidence supporting literal interpretation of people's longer ages as reported in the biblical stories, and why we have shorter life spans now. But the biblical stories have nothing to do with proving or disproving the scientific hypothesis.

So on topic of this thread, if it's found to be true and we find a way to shield ourselves from the solar radiation and live for 800 years, then FIRE will have a whole new meaning.

[MrsPete]

While we are engaging in thought exercises think about this: Your brain gets copied to a computer . . . Not going into the debate about souls

I don't think it's possible to discuss this without including the soul.  And it's not the only thing that can't be discounted:  There's also the ability to form new thoughts and to take new actions, and there's free will.

Say your brain is copied into a computer.  It's now a record of everything that you have ever said, done, thought, noticed, felt, etc . . . so the computer is a copy of your life up until this point.  But that doesn't mean it can carry on AS YOU.  It might predict your actions or choices based upon past decisions, but it wouldn't be able to generate new thoughts.  It wouldn't have any creative ability, nor would it feel any emotions. 

[Albert]

While we are engaging in thought exercises think about this: Your brain gets copied to a computer . . . Not going into the debate about souls

I don't think it's possible to discuss this without including the soul.  And it's not the only thing that can't be discounted:  There's also the ability to form new thoughts and to take new actions, and there's free will.

Say your brain is copied into a computer.  It's now a record of everything that you have ever said, done, thought, noticed, felt, etc . . . so the computer is a copy of your life up until this point.  But that doesn't mean it can carry on AS YOU.  It might predict your actions or choices based upon past decisions, but it wouldn't be able to generate new thoughts.  It wouldn't have any creative ability, nor would it feel any emotions.

What makes you say that? One could just as easily imagine a full simulation with ability to generate new thoughts, feel hunger electronically generated food or love for other digital beings. It still wouldn't be fully you as long as the original copy is not destroyed, but it would be very close indeed.

[arebelspy]

While we are engaging in thought exercises think about this: Your brain gets copied to a computer . . . Not going into the debate about souls

I don't think it's possible to discuss this without including the soul.  And it's not the only thing that can't be discounted:  There's also the ability to form new thoughts and to take new actions, and there's free will.

Say your brain is copied into a computer.  It's now a record of everything that you have ever said, done, thought, noticed, felt, etc . . . so the computer is a copy of your life up until this point.  But that doesn't mean it can carry on AS YOU.  It might predict your actions or choices based upon past decisions, but it wouldn't be able to generate new thoughts.  It wouldn't have any creative ability, nor would it feel any emotions.

(Emphasis mine.)

If it was done right we could.  We can handwave those away in a hypothetical anyways.

[prodarwin]

Woah its getting all Vanilla Sky up in here.  I like it.


I can't wait for the day science allows us to live forever. 

[matchewed]

Seems appropriate to the discussion - http://io9.com/would-it-be-evil-to-build-a-functional-brain-inside-a-c-598064996

[prodarwin]

or this:  http://io9.com/5288834/first-real-cyborg-a-robot-controlled-by-a-living-brain

[sloof70]

or this:  http://io9.com/5288834/first-real-cyborg-a-robot-controlled-by-a-living-brain

I want to be a little remote control car!

[JamesAt15]

If you haven't read it, Cory Doctorow has a SF book "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" that you can download and read for free.

I quite liked it. It has takes on longevity and copying your brain, and also how a money-less society that evolves after basic needs and services become essentially free to all might operate.

Well worth the price of admission.

[Gerard]

On a less sci-fi level, we already know a bunch of things that people can do to improve their health (and presumably increase their longevity), and most people don't do them. So we presumably don't have to worry about sustaining a world in which everyone, or even a large proportion of the population, lives to be 120 or older. And most of the people who frantically adopt every life-extending option will eventually leave the stove on, or fall down and bang their heads, or pick fights in bars.

So that'll leave a tiny percentage (larger than now) of people who get up into three digits and maintain their health and awareness. And I guess they'll squeeze a ton of money out of annuity issuers or something!

[sloof70]

...And most of the people who frantically adopt every life-extending option will eventually...pick fights in bars.

I want to meet this non-smoking, kale-munching, doctor's office regular that also happens to start some shit at the local watering hole.

[Kazimieras]

I hate to rain on the sci-fi what-if parade but humans will not be living to 150 anytime soon - even with replacement limbs and cyborg components. Like anything out there, your body, and more specifically your cells wear down over time. As you get older, and each cell replicates your telomeres get shorter, just do to regular error rates that occur. Eventually these get too short and things die. Some plants/animals have the amazing ability to repair this damaged part, but we're still in the early stages of learning how this genetic mess works. So once we crack it, then somehow reprogramming the 50 or so trillion cells on your body will be the next trick. Humans are smart, but we'll take a few years more than likely any of us here have.

Plus - it'd ruin the fun without death. People would become homebodies and never do anything for fear of damaging themselves.