10 ms·

The Expensive Art of Living Forever

39 points by manbartlett 9y ago

wonderwonder 9y ago
"In a world where a growing class of retired Americans are living in poverty and perpetual, insecure, backbreaking labor during what should be their retirement years, transhumanist visions of a future of “infinite abundance” (We’ll just 3-D-print food! Everyone will move to space!) aren’t inspiring, but perverse. Transhumanists are also almost exclusively white, as is borne out by the older, moneyed demographic at RAADfest. " I find this attitude tiresome. The author is attempting to shame his subjects for daring to look beyond today's problems and for their demographic makeup. Everything does not have to be looked at via the lens of societal privilege. Can't we just let people dream of the future without saddling them with current day baggage. “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” ― John Locke
- dgllghr 9y ago
  I think there is good reason to be concerned about moving into a future where the wealthy get to live forever (or at least for a very long time) while the poor live short lives of labor. I don't think the author is saying that what they want is wrong, just that we should think through the implications of such a future when we already have such high inequality. "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." -William Gibson
  - chr1 9y ago
    The future where only wealthy get to live forever is indeed very bleak, but there is a future worse than that: the one where everyones life is short (like now).
    - vkou 9y ago
      You're assuming that: 1. A world where Ghengis Khan or Emperor Tiberius, or Joseph Stalin were still alive today.... 2. Would be no worse from the world we have, except a few powerful people would have not had to die. The interests of the wealthy and powerful are not aligned with those of the rest of us. Death is one way in which dynasties and despots lose power - moreso if they have multiple successors.
      - chr1 9y ago
        I think the scenario of a despot like that keeping rejuvenation technology to himself and ruling for a long time is not likely. First of all that would assume rejuvenation is very costly, more costly than raising a child, which is unlikely. Second, the despot doesn't work alone, he needs to have other people who do all the killing, and these people are going to want to not die as well. All of the despots you mention had a large base of supporters, and it is difficult to remain a supporter on you are going to die for no good reason. Third, since the technology is not a magic ring to just hide, people who fight against the despot would be able to use the it as well, and next to despots gaining more experience, you'll have people fighting agains them living longer and having more chances to fight. What i think is more likely, is a softer concentration of power, where rich people keep money and power for much longer, but poor people are still kept content with a small chance to get rich themselves.
        vkou 9y ago
        > I think the scenario of a despot like that keeping rejuvenation technology to himself and ruling for a long time is not likely. That's not an assumption I'm making. Death resets ossification and concentration of power every couple of decades, regardless of whether rejuvenation therapy would be available to the top 10%, 1%, or 0.001%, or whatever. The problem is not the therapy, or even who gets it, the problem is what happens when it is available. The problems that immortality causes are social, not technological. People with wealth and power tend to accumulate more wealth and power, at the expense of everyone else. When they die, it is distributed among their successors. A slow, and inefficient form of trickle-down, if you will. Ever hear the expression "Science advances one funeral at a time"? Well, so do politics, except that they have a far more dangerous (to us) positive-feedback cycle. > Third, since the technology is not a magic ring to just hide, people who fight against the despot would be able to use the it as well, and next to despots gaining more experience, you'll have people fighting agains them living longer and having more chances to fight. Life isn't an RPG where you punch wolves to get experience points, having a therapy that lets you live longer doesn't help after you starve to death in a GULAG, and most revolutionaries are young men with little to lose. You couldn't have picked a better example of asymmetrical technology if you tried. (Well, I suppose there's also the surveillance state, and drone armies...)
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      I have occasionally pondered as a sci-fi concept a religious cult that dedicates itself to identifying and murdering immortals. In a world where humans have eliminated the natural causes of death, the stability of social systems may demand that unnatural causes of death replace them. There are other possible structures designed to handle immortals. These include prohibitions on persons older than N years voting, holding elected office, working in management positions, or controlling property. Which is to say that immortals would be prohibited from directly enforcing their will on younger people, once they get past a certain age. They would then be forced to be sneaky about it, by doing it through art. This substitutes political death for biological death, but also creates an entirely new category of crimes, based on youth fraud. Then there's the idea that immortals all eventually join the diaspora, and never impact the baseline human culture, because everyone past a statistical age threshold boards a ship bound for distant stars, and is never seen or heard from again, except by those in their ship. Each ship is then expected to evolve its own unique culture, which will likely include some with features that are not destabilized by immortal-versus-mortal tensions. This works out fine until ships start returning, perhaps without reliable knowledge of Earth. We already have plenty of speculation on this, in the form of vampire novels. In general, the older a vampire character gets, the richer and more callous it becomes. Its life in fiction usually becomes a routine depredation upon mortals, combined with a vicious power struggle among the other immortals. I would imagine a 400-year-old trillionaire to be similar in character.
  - ansible 9y ago
    I think there is good reason to be concerned about moving into a future where the wealthy get to live forever (or at least for a very long time) while the poor live short lives of labor. That really isn't going to happen. For good or for bad. Either practical immortality will be widely available and low-cost, or it won't. And if it isn't, then robots will be doing the work instead of people. The poor masses will just be killed off, because there won't be a benefit to the wealthy to keep them around. I'm hoping we will (as a society) address issues of infinite expansion (which doesn't work in the long run), but are able to extend practical immortality and high quality of life to everyone currently alive at the time. But there are a number of obstacles in our path.
    - CapitalistCartr 9y ago
      Attempts thus far in history by the wealthy to "manage" the poor have worked reliably only insofar as the poor believed they were OK. Beyond that, violent revolution with massive bloodshed is common.
      - eunoia 9y ago
        So the elite have always had a use for the "unwashed masses" so to speak. Maybe you need a large standing army to fight for your country's interests. Or maybe you need a large untrained labor force to fuel the industrial machine. Robots remove both of these "uses" for a large impoverished class of people. Are we entering the first era of human history where elites have no actual use for an underclass? Or does consumption fill that need now...
        matte_black 9y ago
        Perhaps the poor have outlived their utility. What’s next then? A culling?
        eunoia 9y ago
        I have no idea, and to be completely clear I think this is an incredibly dark and dystopian line of thought. I'm just very curious what the world looks like when the rich no longer have any need for the poor. It feels like this is a novel situation in human history. Interested in being proved wrong...
- theothermkn 9y ago
  > Everything does not have to be looked at via the lens of societal privilege. I don't mind looking at nearly everything through that lens, even if not exclusively. We probably should think, in general, about differential healthcare outcomes even, and especially, now, for example. What I object to in this case is the smear tactic. "It's just crazy rich white people who are afraid to die." As you say, it's shaming. And, it leads to that other assumption, that this will always only be for rich people. I'm no fan of abject capitalism, but there are rich people who make things cheaper for everybody. Ford didn't own the only automobile, nor Boeing the only airplane. They, and other manufacturers, are interested in bringing costs down in order to get more buyers.
- nshepperd 9y ago
  What a colossal asshole. Transhumanists are people who are desperately wishing for longevity-related medical advances to come down in price and be universally available, and are often spending significant amounts of their own money to that end. Because, on the whole, they don't want anyone to die. Well, life extension will only be for rich people if people like the OP successfully lobby against public support for it and prevent any progress from being made.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Well they aren't all just dreaming are they. Some are pouring resources into bring about their future.
theothermkn 9y ago
I think what dismays me about this article is that it contains exactly the kind of profound vacuity that passes, inexplicably, for wisdom about the possibility and impact of life extension and the character of those who are interested in it. It's difficult to know where to begin. First, and most glaringly, death is not a solution to overpopulation, in any sense. It hasn't worked so far, for example. Additionally, there was a great video by Numberphile, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpj0E0a0mlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpj0E0a0mlU, where he shows that the current 1.1% global growth rate results in us overpopulating the Universe in something like 9000 years. Sooner, rather than later, we will face a real population crisis, even in the face of 80-year lifespans. Growth rates absolutely will come down, one way or the other, in a way that will be functionally indistinguishable from outlawing procreation. Second, transhumanists, and the subset of truly whacko pseudoscientific transhumanists (however large a fraction you think that is), represents not nearly everybody who is interested in longevity, nor do they characterize, at all, the entirety of those populations. I wouldn't characterize Aubrey de Grey as a transhumanist, for example. The smear doesn't stick, even if we were to allow smear tactics as legitimate. Third, and finally, there is absolutely no guarantee that life extension technology will be expensive. None. Further, there is no reason to think that its cost would not decline over time, indefinitely. How much could an Alzheimer's vaccine actually cost, once every 50 years, lets say? How expensive could a CRISPR therapy be? If it were routine and assembly-lined? What about the decline in lifestyle cost after one has paid off one's mortgage and taken care of all the other mostly one-time expenses? As thinkers, we truly need to do much, much better than this article.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  https://undark.org/article/peak-pharma-drug-discovery/ https://undark.org/article/peak-pharma-drug-discovery/ Offers a fair amount of substance to back the notion that in general, medicine is going to be breathtakingly expensive in the near future. The state of biological and novel treatments now seem to support that notion. If you want to say that may change, even reverse, you need to offer more than personal incredulity to be convincing.
  - philipkglass 9y ago
monktastic1 9y ago
"Advanced artificial intelligence, they hope, will allow us to make exact copies of our minds that will live indefinitely in networked computer systems." I've never understood this mindset. If I asked you: "hey, here's proof that all the data that comprise your personality, memories, etc. have been copied to a computer, may I now give you a lethal injection?", why on earth would you say "yes"? It's not the particulars of what I'm experiencing (my memories, my personality, the sensations I call "my body" etc.) that are interesting to me; it's the sheer fact that I experience. I fear this will degenerate into an unproductive debate about what consciousness is or is not, so maybe it's better to just nod politely.
- arebop 9y ago
  The sensations you call your body change over time, until there's nothing but fatigue and pain left. If someone offered to let you resume consciousness on artificial hardware after your body had ceased to function, you might take them up on it. In fact, some of my eldest relatives are in high spirits but also looking forward to death, because they have religious convictions about a wonderful, energetic, pain-free afterlife.
  - vkou 9y ago
    If I make a perfectly identical clone of you, and then shoot you dead, will you resume your consciousness in that clone? Why? Alternatively, if I shoot the clone, will the clone resume its consciousness in you? By what process?
    - arebop 9y ago
      I wasn't attempting to realize the top commenter's fear of > unproductive debate about what consciousness is or is not I'm just addressing the question of why you'd say yes: you might be ready to be put of your misery, and at that point, why would you say "no"? The resumption of "you" gets an afterlife, and nothing gets worse for the you that's about to die either way.
    - theothermkn 9y ago
MayeulC 9y ago
That may just be the way the article is written, but I find all these people to be a bit too much self-centered and maybe too much on their bodies, in my opinion. There is more to old age than just the body. I personally think that if everyone could live forever (in flesh or not, maybe just in a sort of library/archive), the biggest advantage would be that experiences are retained. It is just a shame to think about the amount of knowledge that is lost every time someone dies. And the effort needed to train the next generation. On one hand, that means we get to imagine better ways of teaching, on the other hand, we have to spend more time studying, or just accept that we won't know everything perfectly (and be more specialized than our ancestors were). This specialization is only compatible with technological improvement if we can delegate more of the low-level task/knowledge to computers/AI, or if population keeps increasing (which isn't really sustainable, long-term). The alternative is stagnation, or regression in some fields to progress in others. Edit: I can get some people not agreeing to this view, but this was meant at the starting point of a discussion, not a general truth. Could the downvoters at least share their view of the topic?
newswriter99 9y ago
"white" If transhumanists were almost exclusively ANY OTHER ETHNICITY would the writer still have pointed it out? Not trying to derail the thread into a race war, I'm just fatigued by the double-standard that keeps showing up in modern journalism.
reasonattlm 9y ago
People who think that rejuvenation therapies are only for the rich are not paying attention. Look at first generation senolytic drug candidates that clear ~25% of senescent cells in mice, varying by tissue type. These vary from $100 per dose, for things like dasatinib plus quercetin, to a few thousand dollars per dose where you need a biotech company to one-off synthesize it for you, such as foxo4-dri. One dose is needed every few years - more than that won't help further. The story will be the same for glucosepane cross-link breakers. The trend in this type of technology is towards engineered small molecule / enzyme / peptide / etc that will cost next to nothing a decade after it is introduced, and can in any case be manufactured to order in China and shipped in if the patent holder decides to try charging monopoly rates. Alternatively, gene and cell therapies that can be mass produced, all the complexity baked into that manufacture, and then administered by a bored clinician. The cost will be similar to present day biologics, which are largely in the $1-10k/dose range. Again all of these treatments will be once-every-few-years, not any more frequently. That is the point of damage repair as a strategy - you only need to do it as often as the damage builds up. There is no point in doing it any more often.

39 points by manbartlett 9y ago

"In a world where a growing class of retired Americans are living in poverty and perpetual, insecure, backbreaking labor during what should be their retirement years, transhumanist visions of a future of “infinite abundance” (We’ll just 3-D-print food! Everyone will move to space!) aren’t inspiring, but perverse. Transhumanists are also almost exclusively white, as is borne out by the older, moneyed demographic at RAADfest. " I find this attitude tiresome. The author is attempting to shame his subjects for daring to look beyond today's problems and for their demographic makeup. Everything does not have to be looked at via the lens of societal privilege. Can't we just let people dream of the future without saddling them with current day baggage. “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” ― John Locke

dgllghr 9y ago
I think there is good reason to be concerned about moving into a future where the wealthy get to live forever (or at least for a very long time) while the poor live short lives of labor. I don't think the author is saying that what they want is wrong, just that we should think through the implications of such a future when we already have such high inequality. "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." -William Gibson
- chr1 9y ago
  The future where only wealthy get to live forever is indeed very bleak, but there is a future worse than that: the one where everyones life is short (like now).
  - vkou 9y ago
    You're assuming that: 1. A world where Ghengis Khan or Emperor Tiberius, or Joseph Stalin were still alive today.... 2. Would be no worse from the world we have, except a few powerful people would have not had to die. The interests of the wealthy and powerful are not aligned with those of the rest of us. Death is one way in which dynasties and despots lose power - moreso if they have multiple successors.
    - chr1 9y ago
      I think the scenario of a despot like that keeping rejuvenation technology to himself and ruling for a long time is not likely. First of all that would assume rejuvenation is very costly, more costly than raising a child, which is unlikely. Second, the despot doesn't work alone, he needs to have other people who do all the killing, and these people are going to want to not die as well. All of the despots you mention had a large base of supporters, and it is difficult to remain a supporter on you are going to die for no good reason. Third, since the technology is not a magic ring to just hide, people who fight against the despot would be able to use the it as well, and next to despots gaining more experience, you'll have people fighting agains them living longer and having more chances to fight. What i think is more likely, is a softer concentration of power, where rich people keep money and power for much longer, but poor people are still kept content with a small chance to get rich themselves.
      - vkou 9y ago
        > I think the scenario of a despot like that keeping rejuvenation technology to himself and ruling for a long time is not likely. That's not an assumption I'm making. Death resets ossification and concentration of power every couple of decades, regardless of whether rejuvenation therapy would be available to the top 10%, 1%, or 0.001%, or whatever. The problem is not the therapy, or even who gets it, the problem is what happens when it is available. The problems that immortality causes are social, not technological. People with wealth and power tend to accumulate more wealth and power, at the expense of everyone else. When they die, it is distributed among their successors. A slow, and inefficient form of trickle-down, if you will. Ever hear the expression "Science advances one funeral at a time"? Well, so do politics, except that they have a far more dangerous (to us) positive-feedback cycle. > Third, since the technology is not a magic ring to just hide, people who fight against the despot would be able to use the it as well, and next to despots gaining more experience, you'll have people fighting agains them living longer and having more chances to fight. Life isn't an RPG where you punch wolves to get experience points, having a therapy that lets you live longer doesn't help after you starve to death in a GULAG, and most revolutionaries are young men with little to lose. You couldn't have picked a better example of asymmetrical technology if you tried. (Well, I suppose there's also the surveillance state, and drone armies...)
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    I have occasionally pondered as a sci-fi concept a religious cult that dedicates itself to identifying and murdering immortals. In a world where humans have eliminated the natural causes of death, the stability of social systems may demand that unnatural causes of death replace them. There are other possible structures designed to handle immortals. These include prohibitions on persons older than N years voting, holding elected office, working in management positions, or controlling property. Which is to say that immortals would be prohibited from directly enforcing their will on younger people, once they get past a certain age. They would then be forced to be sneaky about it, by doing it through art. This substitutes political death for biological death, but also creates an entirely new category of crimes, based on youth fraud. Then there's the idea that immortals all eventually join the diaspora, and never impact the baseline human culture, because everyone past a statistical age threshold boards a ship bound for distant stars, and is never seen or heard from again, except by those in their ship. Each ship is then expected to evolve its own unique culture, which will likely include some with features that are not destabilized by immortal-versus-mortal tensions. This works out fine until ships start returning, perhaps without reliable knowledge of Earth. We already have plenty of speculation on this, in the form of vampire novels. In general, the older a vampire character gets, the richer and more callous it becomes. Its life in fiction usually becomes a routine depredation upon mortals, combined with a vicious power struggle among the other immortals. I would imagine a 400-year-old trillionaire to be similar in character.
- ansible 9y ago
  I think there is good reason to be concerned about moving into a future where the wealthy get to live forever (or at least for a very long time) while the poor live short lives of labor. That really isn't going to happen. For good or for bad. Either practical immortality will be widely available and low-cost, or it won't. And if it isn't, then robots will be doing the work instead of people. The poor masses will just be killed off, because there won't be a benefit to the wealthy to keep them around. I'm hoping we will (as a society) address issues of infinite expansion (which doesn't work in the long run), but are able to extend practical immortality and high quality of life to everyone currently alive at the time. But there are a number of obstacles in our path.
  - CapitalistCartr 9y ago
    Attempts thus far in history by the wealthy to "manage" the poor have worked reliably only insofar as the poor believed they were OK. Beyond that, violent revolution with massive bloodshed is common.
    - eunoia 9y ago
      So the elite have always had a use for the "unwashed masses" so to speak. Maybe you need a large standing army to fight for your country's interests. Or maybe you need a large untrained labor force to fuel the industrial machine. Robots remove both of these "uses" for a large impoverished class of people. Are we entering the first era of human history where elites have no actual use for an underclass? Or does consumption fill that need now...
      - matte_black 9y ago
        Perhaps the poor have outlived their utility. What’s next then? A culling?
        eunoia 9y ago
        I have no idea, and to be completely clear I think this is an incredibly dark and dystopian line of thought. I'm just very curious what the world looks like when the rich no longer have any need for the poor. It feels like this is a novel situation in human history. Interested in being proved wrong...
theothermkn 9y ago
> Everything does not have to be looked at via the lens of societal privilege. I don't mind looking at nearly everything through that lens, even if not exclusively. We probably should think, in general, about differential healthcare outcomes even, and especially, now, for example. What I object to in this case is the smear tactic. "It's just crazy rich white people who are afraid to die." As you say, it's shaming. And, it leads to that other assumption, that this will always only be for rich people. I'm no fan of abject capitalism, but there are rich people who make things cheaper for everybody. Ford didn't own the only automobile, nor Boeing the only airplane. They, and other manufacturers, are interested in bringing costs down in order to get more buyers.
nshepperd 9y ago
What a colossal asshole. Transhumanists are people who are desperately wishing for longevity-related medical advances to come down in price and be universally available, and are often spending significant amounts of their own money to that end. Because, on the whole, they don't want anyone to die. Well, life extension will only be for rich people if people like the OP successfully lobby against public support for it and prevent any progress from being made.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Avshalom 9y ago
Well they aren't all just dreaming are they. Some are pouring resources into bring about their future.

theothermkn 9y ago

I think what dismays me about this article is that it contains exactly the kind of profound vacuity that passes, inexplicably, for wisdom about the possibility and impact of life extension and the character of those who are interested in it. It's difficult to know where to begin. First, and most glaringly, death is not a solution to overpopulation, in any sense. It hasn't worked so far, for example. Additionally, there was a great video by Numberphile, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpj0E0a0mlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpj0E0a0mlU, where he shows that the current 1.1% global growth rate results in us overpopulating the Universe in something like 9000 years. Sooner, rather than later, we will face a real population crisis, even in the face of 80-year lifespans. Growth rates absolutely will come down, one way or the other, in a way that will be functionally indistinguishable from outlawing procreation. Second, transhumanists, and the subset of truly whacko pseudoscientific transhumanists (however large a fraction you think that is), represents not nearly everybody who is interested in longevity, nor do they characterize, at all, the entirety of those populations. I wouldn't characterize Aubrey de Grey as a transhumanist, for example. The smear doesn't stick, even if we were to allow smear tactics as legitimate. Third, and finally, there is absolutely no guarantee that life extension technology will be expensive. None. Further, there is no reason to think that its cost would not decline over time, indefinitely. How much could an Alzheimer's vaccine actually cost, once every 50 years, lets say? How expensive could a CRISPR therapy be? If it were routine and assembly-lined? What about the decline in lifestyle cost after one has paid off one's mortgage and taken care of all the other mostly one-time expenses? As thinkers, we truly need to do much, much better than this article.

QAPereo 9y ago
https://undark.org/article/peak-pharma-drug-discovery/ https://undark.org/article/peak-pharma-drug-discovery/ Offers a fair amount of substance to back the notion that in general, medicine is going to be breathtakingly expensive in the near future. The state of biological and novel treatments now seem to support that notion. If you want to say that may change, even reverse, you need to offer more than personal incredulity to be convincing.
- philipkglass 9y ago

monktastic1 9y ago

"Advanced artificial intelligence, they hope, will allow us to make exact copies of our minds that will live indefinitely in networked computer systems." I've never understood this mindset. If I asked you: "hey, here's proof that all the data that comprise your personality, memories, etc. have been copied to a computer, may I now give you a lethal injection?", why on earth would you say "yes"? It's not the particulars of what I'm experiencing (my memories, my personality, the sensations I call "my body" etc.) that are interesting to me; it's the sheer fact that I experience. I fear this will degenerate into an unproductive debate about what consciousness is or is not, so maybe it's better to just nod politely.

arebop 9y ago
The sensations you call your body change over time, until there's nothing but fatigue and pain left. If someone offered to let you resume consciousness on artificial hardware after your body had ceased to function, you might take them up on it. In fact, some of my eldest relatives are in high spirits but also looking forward to death, because they have religious convictions about a wonderful, energetic, pain-free afterlife.
- vkou 9y ago
  If I make a perfectly identical clone of you, and then shoot you dead, will you resume your consciousness in that clone? Why? Alternatively, if I shoot the clone, will the clone resume its consciousness in you? By what process?
  - arebop 9y ago
    I wasn't attempting to realize the top commenter's fear of > unproductive debate about what consciousness is or is not I'm just addressing the question of why you'd say yes: you might be ready to be put of your misery, and at that point, why would you say "no"? The resumption of "you" gets an afterlife, and nothing gets worse for the you that's about to die either way.
  - theothermkn 9y ago

MayeulC 9y ago

That may just be the way the article is written, but I find all these people to be a bit too much self-centered and maybe too much on their bodies, in my opinion. There is more to old age than just the body. I personally think that if everyone could live forever (in flesh or not, maybe just in a sort of library/archive), the biggest advantage would be that experiences are retained. It is just a shame to think about the amount of knowledge that is lost every time someone dies. And the effort needed to train the next generation. On one hand, that means we get to imagine better ways of teaching, on the other hand, we have to spend more time studying, or just accept that we won't know everything perfectly (and be more specialized than our ancestors were). This specialization is only compatible with technological improvement if we can delegate more of the low-level task/knowledge to computers/AI, or if population keeps increasing (which isn't really sustainable, long-term). The alternative is stagnation, or regression in some fields to progress in others. Edit: I can get some people not agreeing to this view, but this was meant at the starting point of a discussion, not a general truth. Could the downvoters at least share their view of the topic?

newswriter99 9y ago

"white" If transhumanists were almost exclusively ANY OTHER ETHNICITY would the writer still have pointed it out? Not trying to derail the thread into a race war, I'm just fatigued by the double-standard that keeps showing up in modern journalism.

reasonattlm 9y ago

People who think that rejuvenation therapies are only for the rich are not paying attention. Look at first generation senolytic drug candidates that clear ~25% of senescent cells in mice, varying by tissue type. These vary from $100 per dose, for things like dasatinib plus quercetin, to a few thousand dollars per dose where you need a biotech company to one-off synthesize it for you, such as foxo4-dri. One dose is needed every few years - more than that won't help further. The story will be the same for glucosepane cross-link breakers. The trend in this type of technology is towards engineered small molecule / enzyme / peptide / etc that will cost next to nothing a decade after it is introduced, and can in any case be manufactured to order in China and shipped in if the patent holder decides to try charging monopoly rates. Alternatively, gene and cell therapies that can be mass produced, all the complexity baked into that manufacture, and then administered by a bored clinician. The cost will be similar to present day biologics, which are largely in the $1-10k/dose range. Again all of these treatments will be once-every-few-years, not any more frequently. That is the point of damage repair as a strategy - you only need to do it as often as the damage builds up. There is no point in doing it any more often.