Looking at it from an engineering perspective it's a pretty dumb problem to go after. Coming mostly from my experience with minification of electronics. E.g. t

Looking at it from an engineering perspective it's a pretty dumb problem to go after. Coming mostly from my experience with minification of electronics. E.g. the problems you get at 150nm are almost the same you'd get at 140nm or close but going down to 22nm is a whole different story. The effects that you could skim over before begin to matter in a critical way forming a sort of butterfly effect of ridiculous complexity. So I think they'll be able to push it to let's say 120 years. Then after that something that you did 110 years ago, e.g. jumping too much in the bed will be the thing that leads you to develop a certain condition in your 120s. This is of course cascading so your related conditions contribute too even if you've dealt with them. Also we're not talking electronics here, but the human body so the baseline complexity is much much higher. And we're not even counting in *meaningful life* years. AND with that being said I wouldn't take the economist way too seriously. They have had all sorts of Chicken Little style articles before so who knows what they are actually after.