That may be true, but I'm skeptical. Most of the advances we make are in causes of death that would lead you to die before you're at an advanced age - extending someone's life from 45 to 90 is a matter of stopping them dying from a disease or a cancer. Extending life from 90 to 100 is a matter of mitigating ageing processes where your body literally can't support itself any more. The two things (curing disease versus curing aging) are two very different realms of medicine. We've made a lot more progress in the former than the latter.
I don't doubt that it will happen, but I do doubt the timescales involved. Possibly children alive today will benefit from these advances, but 'most people alive today' seems unlikely.
I believe you misunderstood the last sentence of my post, since we seem to be in agreement. I also say that most people alive today will probably not benefit from the advances.
I don't doubt that it will happen, but I do doubt the timescales involved. Possibly children alive today will benefit from these advances, but 'most people alive today' seems unlikely.