8 ms·

I wish our brightest minds were all working in areas like this instead of social apps and advertising. Is there even any doubt that with a better understanding

I wish our brightest minds were all working in areas like this instead of social apps and advertising. Is there even any doubt that with a better understanding of biology we could meaningfully prolong the human lifespan? What are we doing working on apps lol.

grishka 5y ago
So how can I, as a software developer, meaningfully contribute to this area? I would very much prefer to live forever.
- Dig1t 5y ago
  I guess you could dive into the world of home-brew biohacking? Understanding genetics and lab techniques doesn't seem out of reach for programmer types, but I don't really know.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    I tried it (shoutout to The Odin's biohacking courses!) but I found it requires a lot more manual skills than I was used to from programming. Not out of reach but quite different, the most similar existing skill for me was actually cooking. Though I never made it past beginner stage, so take my experience for what it's worth.
- forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
  You could gain computational biology experience from working at biotech until you have enough to work at one of these longevity startups.
  - justsocrateasin 5y ago
    This is exactly what I'm doing - working at a bioinformatics startup as a SDE, and slowly picking up comp bio projects.
- patall 5y ago
  Bioinformatics is a huge field and a lot of software developers are working there. It's science with multi-year career paths, so you cannot just start working on everything without learning the basics first. But with a bit of training, many former software developers have contributed as lab techs, PhD students or other types of associates.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  most leading biohackers have a patreon or subscribestar page where you could help fund their research, that might be a start.
- solveit 5y ago
  Competitive advantage says that in the vast majority of cases you should do more or less what you're doing now, perhaps adjust your behaviour to optimise for compensation, and spend/donate money to have more biologists work on this. This is very general advice for anyone with a cause that they would like to get done without regard to who does it.
  - Kinrany 5y ago
    It's only true when money is the bottleneck.
    - solveit 5y ago
      It's true as long as you personally are not particularly suited to widen the bottleneck. Which is most of the time. In this particular case, it's very unlikely a typical dev would contribute more by taking a few years off to learn biology and maths and statistics, instead of just making money and paying someone who has already spent that time.
  - grishka 5y ago
    No, money is not the answer and just paying money is just plain boring. Especially when guys like Bezos have already put $3B into this. My donations would be a drop in the ocean. I want to do something meaningful myself.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  In an ideal world, biology salaries would be on par with tech salaries, so more intelligent ambitious young people will pursue education and careers in biology.
  - grishka 5y ago
    I'm personally not driven by money and never was. First and foremost I would like to make the world a better place.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
maybe our brightest minds ARE working on areas like this, but the smart folks working in social apps and advertising provide tools that help the bright minds collaborate?
arwineap 5y ago
I think that for most workers it's about paying the mortgage and raising your kids. Once bio-hacking starts paying the bills you may see more interest in it As a secondary thought, I never would have gotten into code-hacking if I didn't have access to a terminal and some open source. I don't think that model would ever work for something like this
judge2020 5y ago
Calico[0] is funded by Google, so advertising is obviously a necessary evil. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_(company)#_sarcasm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_(company)#_sarcasm
mdavis6890 5y ago
The problem is that anything related to the human body is super-heavily regulated, which creates a ton of friction and risk to doing anything innovative. I think the folks that would get very excited about working on the problem of aging would not be excited about the amount of regulatory bureaucracy (trying to find a non-judgmental word to use there) that necessarily goes along with it. In fact I think that the reason that so much innovation and wealth creation is concentrated in things which such dubious social benefit is exactly that it isn't regulated, because it doesn't matter. If it matters and is important, it becomes regulated, which slows and discourages innovation and the people who want to innovate.
- avrionov 5y ago
  I don't think that the main problem is the regulation. The regulations are a side effect of how difficult and harmful these experiments could to humans. In the software business when a project fails we can just used a starting point for the next iteration. In life sciences they don't have that luxury. There is no way to test something quickly (in seconds and minutes). May be one day we'll have a complete model of the human body and medicine and drugs can be tested through a software.
- DoubleDerper 5y ago
  "...anything related to the human body is super-heavily regulated" In the Western world this is true. Countries with less oversight stand to benefit from regulation arbitrage.
  - randcraw 5y ago
    Of course, China already has refuted your thesis. Due to lack of oversight and regulation (and enforcement), their health care system is mistrusted by everyone. That's why the country's covid inoculation rate has been so low. Because trust is very hard to regain once lost, ensurance of safety and efficacy in healthcare through regulation has clear advantages.
- e_y_ 5y ago
  There's tons of basic research that could be done before we ever get to the regulatory question of human trials. If we could get pigs to live for 50 years (currently ~20) it would be a huge step forward in our understanding of aging. On the other hand, pig life extension is not really a product you can sell. Even human life extension, which should theoretically be worth trillions if it works, seems like too much of a pipe dream. The benefits of basic research only become apparent years or decades down the road, and a lot of it is going to be dead ends. Whereas it's pretty firmly established that if you can make a $700 smartphone that's slightly better than last year's, you can sell millions of them. (Although apparently you can find a handful of people who want to inject sheep cells in their butt despite having no proven benefit: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320660-500-germany-bans-rejuvenating-sheep-cell-injections/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320660-500-germany-... )
bagacrap 5y ago
I for one would prefer to live to 80 with "apps" than make it to 90 but live in a cave

grishka 5y ago

So how can I, as a software developer, meaningfully contribute to this area? I would very much prefer to live forever.

Dig1t 5y ago
I guess you could dive into the world of home-brew biohacking? Understanding genetics and lab techniques doesn't seem out of reach for programmer types, but I don't really know.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  I tried it (shoutout to The Odin's biohacking courses!) but I found it requires a lot more manual skills than I was used to from programming. Not out of reach but quite different, the most similar existing skill for me was actually cooking. Though I never made it past beginner stage, so take my experience for what it's worth.
forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
You could gain computational biology experience from working at biotech until you have enough to work at one of these longevity startups.
- justsocrateasin 5y ago
  This is exactly what I'm doing - working at a bioinformatics startup as a SDE, and slowly picking up comp bio projects.
patall 5y ago
Bioinformatics is a huge field and a lot of software developers are working there. It's science with multi-year career paths, so you cannot just start working on everything without learning the basics first. But with a bit of training, many former software developers have contributed as lab techs, PhD students or other types of associates.
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
most leading biohackers have a patreon or subscribestar page where you could help fund their research, that might be a start.
solveit 5y ago
Competitive advantage says that in the vast majority of cases you should do more or less what you're doing now, perhaps adjust your behaviour to optimise for compensation, and spend/donate money to have more biologists work on this. This is very general advice for anyone with a cause that they would like to get done without regard to who does it.
- Kinrany 5y ago
  It's only true when money is the bottleneck.
  - solveit 5y ago
    It's true as long as you personally are not particularly suited to widen the bottleneck. Which is most of the time. In this particular case, it's very unlikely a typical dev would contribute more by taking a few years off to learn biology and maths and statistics, instead of just making money and paying someone who has already spent that time.
- grishka 5y ago
  No, money is not the answer and just paying money is just plain boring. Especially when guys like Bezos have already put $3B into this. My donations would be a drop in the ocean. I want to do something meaningful myself.
smnrchrds 5y ago
In an ideal world, biology salaries would be on par with tech salaries, so more intelligent ambitious young people will pursue education and careers in biology.
- grishka 5y ago
  I'm personally not driven by money and never was. First and foremost I would like to make the world a better place.

jjtheblunt 5y ago

maybe our brightest minds ARE working on areas like this, but the smart folks working in social apps and advertising provide tools that help the bright minds collaborate?

arwineap 5y ago

I think that for most workers it's about paying the mortgage and raising your kids. Once bio-hacking starts paying the bills you may see more interest in it As a secondary thought, I never would have gotten into code-hacking if I didn't have access to a terminal and some open source. I don't think that model would ever work for something like this

judge2020 5y ago

Calico[0] is funded by Google, so advertising is obviously a necessary evil. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_(company)#_sarcasm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_(company)#_sarcasm

mdavis6890 5y ago

The problem is that anything related to the human body is super-heavily regulated, which creates a ton of friction and risk to doing anything innovative. I think the folks that would get very excited about working on the problem of aging would not be excited about the amount of regulatory bureaucracy (trying to find a non-judgmental word to use there) that necessarily goes along with it. In fact I think that the reason that so much innovation and wealth creation is concentrated in things which such dubious social benefit is exactly that it isn't regulated, because it doesn't matter. If it matters and is important, it becomes regulated, which slows and discourages innovation and the people who want to innovate.

avrionov 5y ago
I don't think that the main problem is the regulation. The regulations are a side effect of how difficult and harmful these experiments could to humans. In the software business when a project fails we can just used a starting point for the next iteration. In life sciences they don't have that luxury. There is no way to test something quickly (in seconds and minutes). May be one day we'll have a complete model of the human body and medicine and drugs can be tested through a software.
DoubleDerper 5y ago
"...anything related to the human body is super-heavily regulated" In the Western world this is true. Countries with less oversight stand to benefit from regulation arbitrage.
- randcraw 5y ago
  Of course, China already has refuted your thesis. Due to lack of oversight and regulation (and enforcement), their health care system is mistrusted by everyone. That's why the country's covid inoculation rate has been so low. Because trust is very hard to regain once lost, ensurance of safety and efficacy in healthcare through regulation has clear advantages.
e_y_ 5y ago
There's tons of basic research that could be done before we ever get to the regulatory question of human trials. If we could get pigs to live for 50 years (currently ~20) it would be a huge step forward in our understanding of aging. On the other hand, pig life extension is not really a product you can sell. Even human life extension, which should theoretically be worth trillions if it works, seems like too much of a pipe dream. The benefits of basic research only become apparent years or decades down the road, and a lot of it is going to be dead ends. Whereas it's pretty firmly established that if you can make a $700 smartphone that's slightly better than last year's, you can sell millions of them. (Although apparently you can find a handful of people who want to inject sheep cells in their butt despite having no proven benefit: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320660-500-germany-bans-rejuvenating-sheep-cell-injections/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320660-500-germany-... )

bagacrap 5y ago

I for one would prefer to live to 80 with "apps" than make it to 90 but live in a cave