The issue with high longevity is that an across-the-board 50% reduction in the death rate (which was achieved between the 1960s and now) only buys 8 years. If i

The issue with high longevity is that an across-the-board 50% reduction in the death rate (which was achieved between the 1960s and now) only buys 8 years. If it's only death-rate reduction that's going on, then you only get about 1 year back every 5, which is not bad in absolute terms but disappointing for people who want to live "forever". Additionally, I think there are economic costs associated with death-rate reduction (in lieu of actually slowing or halting aging) that make it unlikely that the 1 year/5 year trend will continue. In terms of actually slowing down senescence, or the 9%/year increase in death rate, we haven't. We don't have the tools yet. At some point, people will. I'm 50-50 about whether I'll "make the cut" but choose to live as if I won't, for obvious reasons. I am not even guaranteed a day; no one is. I think that the tools to slow senescence will be developed a few years before it becomes possible to halt and reverse aging outright. There won't be a period where people have 150-year lifespans, followed by 250, then 1000. The first 150-year-old is probably the first 10,000-year-old (because, with 5000 years of technological progress, most of the accidental death causes will be very rare). The world's oldest person will experience life like this: about 110 years of natural aging, followed by some experimental new treatments that keep that person in a senescent state for about 10-15 years, followed by a reversion, probably returning to the health of an average 20-year-old by age 140. This person may be alive now, or may not be born for a couple centuries. I'd bet on "alive now", though.