Most talk about life extension centers around some kind of bio-hacking that restores a youthful or "robust" adult state to the human body. But suppose that turns out to be a very tough problem to solve, and it happens that aging is unstoppable and irreversible (at least in the near term). Would it still be worth living on for a very long time in a very old and frail body?
I think it helps to organise speculation about bio-hacking for longer life around a five way split. Any science fiction author trying to write about life in 3000 A.D. will have to commit to one of these five options. Describing the current situation as 60 years of vigor and 20 years of decline they are<p>1) Reduced decline: 80 years of vigor, 15 years of decline<p>2) Fixed decline: 100 years of vigor, 20 years of decline<p>3) Subproportional decline: 120 years of vigor, 30 years of decline<p>4) Proportional decline: 180 years of vigor, 60 years of decline<p>5) Superproportional decline: 240 years of vigor, 120 years of decline<p>You have come up with a 6th option, crappy extension: 60 years of vigor, 200 years of decline. Well, maybe, but why do you suspect that bio-hacking is going to turn out to be so very disappointing?