Few people seem terribly interested in noting the opportunity costs of aging, for all that a great deal of work goes into trying to build models for the direct costs. Insurers, government program administrators, and so forth, are all eager to put numbers to their potential future outlays - but they have fewer incentives to work on better numbers for the lost ability to earn that comes with advancing age. Here are some figures from a recent paper on dementia in the US, for example:

The estimated prevalence of dementia among persons older than 70 years of age in the United States in 2010 was 14.7%. The yearly monetary cost per person that was attributable to dementia was either $56,290 (95% confidence interval [CI], $42,746 to $69,834) or $41,689 (95% CI, $31,017 to $52,362), depending on the method used to value informal care. These individual costs suggest that the total monetary cost of dementia in 2010 was between $157 billion and $215 billion. Dementia represents a substantial financial burden on society, one that is similar to the financial burden of heart disease and cancer.

If you go digging around in US census data on income, or the quick summaries thereof, you'll see that median income sits somewhere a little under $40,000/year in the prime earning years of life. It tapers off to a little more than half of that for surviving members of the 75 and older demographic. So while one of seven completely median older people incurs costs of roughly $40,000/year for dementia, all seven completely median older people suffer an opportunity cost of roughly $20,000/year as a result of becoming old. A range of income that might have been earned if still healthy and vigorous is no longer within reach.

These are very rough and ready comparisons, but you can see that even piling in a bunch of other direct medical costs for the rest of the population - cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and the other common foes - the opportunity costs of being old still look sizable in comparison. In another study that gives average medical costs over time for people in Japan aged between 40 and 80 followed over 13 years, the average yearly expenditure was in the ~$3,500 range, rising to more like ~$25,000 in the last year prior to death. The error bars for casual use of any of the numbers mentioned in this post is large - probably a factor of two, given all of the oddities and politics that goes into medical expenditures and recording of income, and especially when comparing data between different regions on the world. But you can still draw very rough conclusions about relative sizes.

Lastly, I should note that all of the above only considers the living. Once you get to the age 75 demographic in the US, half of the original population is dead, give or take. The dead accrue even higher opportunity costs than those mentioned above, as they have (for the most part) lost all ability to earn or contribute to building new things.

So aging causes a largely unseen cost to go along with what is seen, the cost of what might have been but for disability and death. As is often the case, the cost of research and development to build the means of rejuvenation is small in comparison to what is lost to aging - and also in comparison to what is spent in coping with the aftermath of loss rather than trying to prevent it.

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/04/on-costs-and-opportunity-costs-of-aging.php

It is worth keeping an eye on progress towards the creation of artificial cells and cell-like structures, as they are potentially useful in a very broad range of biotechnologies relevant to longevity science, regenerative medicine, and so forth. The first swarms of medical microrobots will quite likely be modified cells or artificial cells, packed with specific forms of molecular machinery to achieve some sort of effect in the body - such as manufacturing signaling compounds in response to local conditions, so as to steer the activities of surrounding cells.

A custom-built programmable 3D printer can create materials with several of the properties of living tissues. The new type of material consists of thousands of connected water droplets, encapsulated within lipid films. Because droplet networks are entirely synthetic, have no genome and do not replicate, they avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to creating artificial tissues - such as those that use stem cells. Each droplet is an aqueous compartment about 50 microns in diameter. Although this is around five times larger than living cells the researchers believe there is no reason why they could not be made smaller. The networks remain stable for weeks.

"We aren't trying to make materials that faithfully resemble tissues but rather structures that can carry out the functions of tissues. We've shown that it is possible to create networks of tens of thousands of connected droplets. The droplets can be printed with protein pores to form pathways through the network that mimic nerves and are able to transmit electrical signals from one side of a network to the other."

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404142457.htm

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/04/another-step-towards-early-artificial-cells.php

This article looks past the immediate challenges of aging and early medical biotechnologies aimed at extending human longevity, and into the future of merged molecular manufacturing and biotechnology, when it will become possible to replace our biology with far more robust and long-lasting machinery:

If we're talking far-future, non-biological approaches to life-extension will win out over biological approaches, due mainly to their comparative advantages (e.g. ease of repair and modification). [I] think that the distinction between non-biological and biological systems (especially if Drexlerian nanotech - that is, using mechanosynthesis - is implemented with any ubiquity) will increasingly dissolve. If a system exhibits the structural, functional and operational modalities of a biological cell, tissue, organ or organism, yet consists of wholly inorganic materials, is it not closer to a biological system than to what we would typically consider a non-biological system? Either the distinction between the two will eventually dissolve, or we will use the term "biological" to designate systems exhibiting the structural, functional, and/or operational modalities of biological systems.

I make a distinction between life-extension therapies and indefinite-longevity therapies, and I'd like to elaborate more on this distinction here. Life-extension therapies extend longevity, but for various reasons fail to make it necessarily indefinite or unlimited. Often this is because such therapies aren't comprehensive - a given therapy solves one contributing factor of aging, but not all of them. Others, like SENS (which I'm in no way discounting), fix the major causes of damage, but use a different methodology for each respective source of damage or aging; the drawback of this approach is that if previously overshadowed causes of aging now begin to make a non-negligible impact on aging, in the absence of the more predominant causes, then we have no methodology to combat it. Because each strategy is tied intimately to the cause it seeks to ameliorate, the techniques often cannot be applied to the new source of molecular damage.

Indefinite or unlimited longevity therapies, on the other hand, use one comprehensive approach to mitigate all sources of aging. One example is Drexlerian nanotech (and to a shared but somewhat lesser extent Robert Freitas's nanomedicine - only because it has specifically-tailored strategies not dependent on the feasibility of Drexlerian molecular assembly or "mechanosynthesis", in addition to the more comprehensive ones). This approach fixes not the source of the damage but the damage itself, iteratively, and can thus be used to combat any source of molecular damage using the same tools, technologies and techniques. With such therapies we wouldn't need to come up with a second wave of strategies to combat those sources of aging that might crop up in the future, and which remained unnoticed until such a time only because their impact couldn't be seen (or allowed to take effect) while the first wave of sources was still predominant.

I'm not totally convinced that this last point is the case; I think it's more that a designed replacement for tissue can be made to have far fewer and more comprehensibly understood forms of aging (which can be repaired on an ongoing basis). But there will still be the unknowns, pushed into an ever-smaller corner, and ever less important. Yet by the time it is possible to build artificial tissue and cell replacements in this way, will we not have come to understand biology so well that the unknowns in biological aging are already equally small?

Link: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/04/longer-life-or-unlimited-life

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/04/longer-life-or-unlimited-life.php

Without the biotechnologies of human rejuvenation that could be created over the next twenty years given a fully funded crash program of development, we and our descendants will all die due to the effects of aging, exactly as did our ancestors. Aging to death has never been a choice - but now it is, and every needless day of delay comes at a cost of 100,000 lives. Everyone presently alive will suffer greatly due to aging and age-related conditions unless new medical technologies of the sort envisaged by the SENS Research Foundation are developed to repair and reverse the low-level biological damage that causes of aging. So why isn't this front and center on everyone's list of concerns? Why does longevity science and the elimination of age-related suffering barely even register in public eye?

Here is a talk on this subject given at the Stanford Advancing Humanity Symposium last month by Maria Konovalenko of the Russian Science For Life Extension Foundation, an advocacy initiative:

In this talk I am sharing our wonder about why haven't the ideas of life extension won. It is not clear why isn't every person on Earth concerned with their longevity. There are several serious reasons that I mention in my presentation, but even all of them combined don't give the answer to this question. I am also looking at different possible scenarios of how the extending longevity ideas could rise to power.

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/04/why-isnt-longevity-science-the-worlds-greatest-concern.php

Without the biotechnologies of human rejuvenation that could be created over the next twenty years given a fully funded crash program of development, we and our descendants will all die due to the effects of aging, exactly as did our ancestors. Aging to death has never been a choice - but now it is, and every needless day of delay comes at a cost of 100,000 lives. Everyone presently alive will suffer greatly due to aging and age-related conditions unless new medical technologies of the sort envisaged by the SENS Research Foundation are developed to repair and reverse the low-level biological damage that causes of aging. So why isn't this front and center on everyone's list of concerns? Why does longevity science and the elimination of age-related suffering barely even register in public eye?

Here is a talk on this subject given at the Stanford Advancing Humanity Symposium last month by Maria Konovalenko of the Russian Science For Life Extension Foundation, an advocacy initiative:

In this talk I am sharing our wonder about why haven't the ideas of life extension won. It is not clear why isn't every person on Earth concerned with their longevity. There are several serious reasons that I mention in my presentation, but even all of them combined don't give the answer to this question. I am also looking at different possible scenarios of how the extending longevity ideas could rise to power.

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/04/why-isnt-longevity-science-the-worlds-greatest-concern.php

You might look at this research on size and longevity in the context of what is known of growth hormone and aging. The presently longest lived mice, for example, are those in which growth hormone is removed or blocked, and they are small in comparison to their peers. Also worth considering are analogous rare human lineages with non-functional growth hormone receptors, such as those exhibiting Laron-type dwarfism.

Large body size is one of the best predictors of long life span across species of mammals. In marked contrast, there is considerable evidence that, within species, larger individuals are actually shorter lived. This apparent cost of larger size is especially evident in the domestic dog, where artificial selection has led to breeds that vary in body size by almost two orders of magnitude and in average life expectancy by a factor of two.

Survival costs of large size might be paid at different stages of the life cycle: a higher early mortality, an early onset of senescence, an elevated baseline mortality, or an increased rate of aging. After fitting different mortality hazard models to death data from 74 breeds of dogs, we describe the relationship between size and several mortality components. We did not find a clear correlation between body size and the onset of senescence. The baseline hazard is slightly higher in large dogs, but the driving force behind the trade-off between size and life span is apparently a strong positive relationship between size and aging rate. We conclude that large dogs die young mainly because they age quickly.

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535614

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/04/within-a-species-larger-size-tends-to-mean-a-shorter-life.php