A treatment that gives another 20 years and breaks the 120 barrier is many times more interesting and full of potential than a treatment that only gives 10 years and respects the old longevity barrier.
I agree that 20 more years is more interesting than 10 more years. What I find confusing is the probability on living past 100 without CR that’s implied by the longevity barrier being relevant.
I agree that 20 more years is more interesting than 10 more years. What I find confusing is the probability on living past 100 without CR that’s implied by the longevity barrier being relevant.