4 ms·

It's not just about living to 1000 years old. To me, it's more about solving age-related diseases, e.g. Alzheimer's, etc.

by adora 9y ago

aaavl2821 9y ago
If I may make a suggestion, I think it would help to be more explicit about this. I know several founders of biotech companies treating age related diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, etc who don't apply to YC bc they think YC only wants pills to extend life / parabiosis etc. "longevity" means very different things (and has different connotations) in the "tech" startup world vs the biopharma startup world. I know a lot of tech VCs are wary of the word "biotech" and related terms bc they got burned a decade ago, but bread and butter biotech is a totally different world the last few years and has been one of the most rewarding areas for startups and investors. The tech funds that lean into traditional biopharma are getting into a lot of great deals while those who try to stay at arms length from traditional biopharma are missing the best opportunities
hguhghuff 9y ago
Yes of course to deal with aging you must tackle the many age related illnesses. But I'm pointing out, with of the vast array of health related issues humanity faces, do venture capitalists care in particular about this one enough to put it in their investment hitlist? Why, for example does YC care enough about aging to want to find it in particular, rather than say, well any other major field of human health research? The answer is, "how can we spend our money to get more time on earth because after that it's worth nothing"? Put another way "we'd like to live longer and we have the money if you can use it to work out how". Look there's nothing wrong With this, it's human nature. Of course you use the means at your disposal to try to make life better, longer, healthier for yourself in any way. All I'm noting is that this thing about aging is something that the super rich have a particular focus on and that's why it's in this list. If one of the VC who makes this list had a family member with a particular medical issue we'd likely see that here too as a desired funding area. I suspect people are uncomfortable about this being pointed out because VCs like to project the idea that their work is to better everything and everyone, in Silicon Valley lingo to "make the world a better place", but this one is self serving, whilst being plausibly argued as being for the benefit of all humanity. And heck being self serving is OK too ... heck it's their money they can do with it whatever they want, no need to apologize for spending on yourself every now and then.
- orangecat 9y ago
  Yes of course to deal with aging you must tackle the many age related illnesses. Ideally it's the reverse. If you can prevent or repair the effects of aging, those conditions become much less harmful. 25 year olds don't have heart attacks or get Alzheimer's. Why, for example does YC care enough about aging to want to find it in particular, rather than say, well any other major field of human health research? The payoff is potentially much greater. Curing all cancer would only increase life expectancy by 3.2 years, because if you don't die of cancer when you're 75 then you'll have a stroke at 78 (https://www.quora.com/If-we-cure-cancer-so-nobody-dies-of-cancer-how-much-would-that-extend-the-average-life-expectancy https://www.quora.com/If-we-cure-cancer-so-nobody-dies-of-ca...). Eliminating the negative effects of aging would add many more years, plus they would be of much higher quality. whilst being plausibly argued as being for the benefit of all humanity Aging is terrible for everyone, rich and poor. Arguably it's even worse for the poor; the increased medical expenses and decreased mobility and ability to work are much easier to deal with if you have several million dollars lying around.

It's not just about living to 1000 years old. To me, it's more about solving age-related diseases, e.g. Alzheimer's, etc.

by adora 9y ago

It's not just about living to 1000 years old. To me, it's more about solving age-related diseases, e.g. Alzheimer's, etc.

aaavl2821 9y ago

If I may make a suggestion, I think it would help to be more explicit about this. I know several founders of biotech companies treating age related diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, etc who don't apply to YC bc they think YC only wants pills to extend life / parabiosis etc. "longevity" means very different things (and has different connotations) in the "tech" startup world vs the biopharma startup world. I know a lot of tech VCs are wary of the word "biotech" and related terms bc they got burned a decade ago, but bread and butter biotech is a totally different world the last few years and has been one of the most rewarding areas for startups and investors. The tech funds that lean into traditional biopharma are getting into a lot of great deals while those who try to stay at arms length from traditional biopharma are missing the best opportunities

hguhghuff 9y ago

Yes of course to deal with aging you must tackle the many age related illnesses. But I'm pointing out, with of the vast array of health related issues humanity faces, do venture capitalists care in particular about this one enough to put it in their investment hitlist? Why, for example does YC care enough about aging to want to find it in particular, rather than say, well any other major field of human health research? The answer is, "how can we spend our money to get more time on earth because after that it's worth nothing"? Put another way "we'd like to live longer and we have the money if you can use it to work out how". Look there's nothing wrong With this, it's human nature. Of course you use the means at your disposal to try to make life better, longer, healthier for yourself in any way. All I'm noting is that this thing about aging is something that the super rich have a particular focus on and that's why it's in this list. If one of the VC who makes this list had a family member with a particular medical issue we'd likely see that here too as a desired funding area. I suspect people are uncomfortable about this being pointed out because VCs like to project the idea that their work is to better everything and everyone, in Silicon Valley lingo to "make the world a better place", but this one is self serving, whilst being plausibly argued as being for the benefit of all humanity. And heck being self serving is OK too ... heck it's their money they can do with it whatever they want, no need to apologize for spending on yourself every now and then.

orangecat 9y ago
Yes of course to deal with aging you must tackle the many age related illnesses. Ideally it's the reverse. If you can prevent or repair the effects of aging, those conditions become much less harmful. 25 year olds don't have heart attacks or get Alzheimer's. Why, for example does YC care enough about aging to want to find it in particular, rather than say, well any other major field of human health research? The payoff is potentially much greater. Curing all cancer would only increase life expectancy by 3.2 years, because if you don't die of cancer when you're 75 then you'll have a stroke at 78 (https://www.quora.com/If-we-cure-cancer-so-nobody-dies-of-cancer-how-much-would-that-extend-the-average-life-expectancy https://www.quora.com/If-we-cure-cancer-so-nobody-dies-of-ca...). Eliminating the negative effects of aging would add many more years, plus they would be of much higher quality. whilst being plausibly argued as being for the benefit of all humanity Aging is terrible for everyone, rich and poor. Arguably it's even worse for the poor; the increased medical expenses and decreased mobility and ability to work are much easier to deal with if you have several million dollars lying around.