This interview seems to defeat the purpose of showing any progress with ending aging for humans: It sounds terribly like the same Aubrey saying the same things for ~25 years, sadly. Keyword here is "saying". Missed opportunity to show any practical results. AKA, ~we'll show progress in 20+ years? It started sounding like religion: It will be great after we're all dead!? Well done Calum for the key questions.
I don't really go by Aubrey's predictions. He helped the field get started, but now it has a life of its own. His model of damage repair seems to have withstood the test of time, as it has been adopted by the NIH for its own explanation of aging. A great deal will depend on how AI will change medicine. The $101 million X-Prize is an interesting test. If it works, well, great!
its a problem of funding . aubrey is trying to accelerate progress . being optimistic that the prospects of this research are not too far off is a strategy to increase support , even if its potential that many (or all) of us may die before we actually escape velocity . only time will tell , its hard to make a prediction in a time like this when there are many complexities and change is occurring at an extreme rate .
@@EkilRevolution That's my problem with him. He makes predictions like "17 years" when so much has changed so fast that he has no way of knowing that. Nobody knows what's going to happen anymore. His reputation as a drunk and the wizard beard don't make him credible to new audiences. He did a huge amount to get the field going but he's been stuck on repeat for 20 years.
