It's really more "by physics." You can pick how you want to run a tungsten filament and end up with either a long life bulb, or a high(er) efficiency bulb, but not both. The ~1000 hour goal was, at the time, an attempt to optimize the total cost of lighting - bulb and power combined. As your bulb lasts longer, you get rather fewer lumens per watt.
A typical 1000 hour rated 60W incandescent (an old one, not the new halogen "efficient" ones - 28% less power for 28% less light) will put out around 850 lumens. I have a 20k hour rated bulb with the same output - but it pulls 75W. Over the lifetime of the bulb, that increased power use is quite a bit more expensive than replacing bulbs would be - but they're designed for places that are harder to access, or that are high vibration (typically, long life incandescents also have more supports, so they work better in higher vibration environments).
There's no magical tungsten filament, 60W, 850 lumen bulb that will last 10k+ hours. It's simply not possible within the normal constraints.
Running the filaments hotter makes the bulb more efficient but also shortens the lifespan due to faster filament evaporation. You could get very long life by under-powering the bulb but then the low efficiency of incandescent lighting would go lower. That's the other remarkable thing about this paper. They use a ceramic instead of tungsten as the hot emitter, and calculate that it should have a very long lifetime.
