7 ms·

This is the kind of thing that could possibly be worth trillions of dollars. This is something that tens or hundreds of millions of people would be willing to p

This is the kind of thing that could possibly be worth trillions of dollars. This is something that tens or hundreds of millions of people would be willing to pay thousands of dollars per year on. Now that we have some sort of evidence that it’s possible, I wouldn’t be surprised if companies threw billions of dollars worth of research to make it happen, and that could mean getting a product to market sooner rather than later.

fgimenez 5y ago
> I wouldn’t be surprised if companies threw billions of dollars worth of research to make it happen Well you are correct. Altos labs (https://altoslabs.com/ https://altoslabs.com/) is basically every "who's who" in science doing this with billions of dollars. Including Wolf Reik who is featured in the article.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Although I don't think the majority of these companies will go on to make billions selling drugs, I think the past ten years of VC and pharma funding of basic life sciences researches is likely to pay off in many unexpected ways. The field of molecular biology didn't exist before World War II; after, a number of funding managers at NIH recognized that there was an incipient science to augment biochemistry and other fields, and funded it through places like Rockefeller Institute (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25862750/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25862750/). The long term impact of these early scientists and funders who recognized the potential of MB has been enormous; it lead to the discovery of recombinant DNA, and many other important things which produced an explosion of research. where I drive to work every day, there was only one biotech (Genentech) campus and now there are probably 20-30 different companies with enormous well-outfitted research labs all stuffed into one little corner of South San Francisco. "Overnight", biotech became a huge industry- overshadowed by the enormous tech industry- but in many ways, the "tech" part is ripe for disruption in ways that look just like the tech industry in 1997. Either way, it will be interesting to see what is the state of the art 30-40 years from now, assuming the research infrastructure continues apace.
godelski 5y ago
> This is the kind of thing that could possibly be worth trillions of dollars. I think it would also have a profound impact on society and culture. Just how we think about the world differently as our lifespan extends. I think that makes a lot of people scared. Discussing this with others I see a few things people are highly concerned with but I'm unsure if they would actually happen (as in, I'm uncertain either way). The first is over population. The reason I'm not convinced this would be a problem is that most western countries have declining populations (without immigration) and world wide we've seen dramatic reductions in birth rates. World fertility rate is about 2.4 (replacement level is 2.0)[0]. The other aspect is political. People think change happens on the generation level. But I'm not entirely convinced of this either. We can take attitudes of same sex-marriage as an example[1][2]. A generation is 20 years but our (US) views have changed substantially faster than that. Especially if you include LGBT[3] (I couldn't find timeline sources for European attitudes as easily. Even when looking for specific countries and including quotes). I agree that there's a correlation with generations, but I'm not convinced it is a principle component. I also wonder how we would think about the future. Interesting to be is that a lot of Eastern cultures typically are more future oriented in their thinking (as compared to typical Western, and I wouldn't say by too much). I would expect that longer lifespans would put pressure to be more cognizant. Would a crisis that is 100 years out seem as far away? Hard to say. We might even have to live with longer lifetimes for awhile for that to happen. All I know is that it would cause big changes. But I'm not sure that should stop us from pursuing this technology unless we see major pitfalls ahead of time and find that they are insurmountable obstacles to overcome. There are clearly issues with increased longevity (especially the disproportionate use of it) as many dystopian SciFis have pointed out. But I think it is better that we at least discuss these things in the open since the technology itself is no longer in the realm of fantasy but has graduated to the realm of possibility. There's too much money being put in this technology now for us to not take the questions of the impact of it seriously. Even if 10+ years out (even 50+) I don't think we should dismiss them. If we're talking about culture shifts, maybe one of the best things we could do is talk about the impacts (pros/cons and how to use them in fair and equitable means) of technologies before they are here. Maybe we could have some of that discussion here? I'm normally not a big CGP Grey person, but I do like this video on the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant[4] [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=1W-EU-ZG-XU-IN-CN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location... [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att... [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY
makeitdouble 5y ago
> people would be willing to pay thousands of dollars per year on. To note, a huge market segment is are already paying thousands of dollars per yer, right now, on skin care (for instance the SK-II lineup sells well, and it’s 100-250$ a bottle) My semi-cynical view would be that cosmetics companies don’t have any specific incentive to accelerate the natural march of research as long as they stay on the forefront of it and have top of the line products. Basically they’d only have issues with new players making bolstering entrances and disrupting their market with a revolutionary products they’re not ready to counter. And the gap between some process being validated, and a product with that process being on the market is so huge, it’s hard to see a non entranched company start investing on that without getting noticed. I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary. I kind of hate to say it, but isn't this why patents exist? The first company to make a product with this tech will have exclusivity for 20 years. Shouldn't that be a sufficient incentive?
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    Patents only cover processes I think ? For instance Kodak was first on the ground with their digital camera, but we all know how it went. The same way pharmaceutical companies patent drugs but it doesn’t stop a rival company from doing their own development cycle and coming up with a competing drug based on the same molecule.
    - patmorgan23 5y ago
      Patents cover devices too. The cotton gen, dish washer, and toilet paper holder were a patented at one point.
ElephantsMyAnus 5y ago
And that is why nobody wants to find the truth, that the effects are human caused, and not natural.
markdown 5y ago
You'd think that, but it's 2022 and they haven't found a decent solution to male baldness. Rogaine and off-label finesteride don't quite cut it.
- kuschku 5y ago
  There are quite a few solutions, but you won't like any of them. The basic issue is, and remains, that certain cells die the more and the longer they're exposed to DHT. To solve male pattern baldness, you'll have to reduce your DHT levels, either by reducing your testosterone levels, or by taking brutal dosages of finasteride. Trans women actually do that, and can stop and even reverse male pattern baldness most of the time. But for cis men, this solution is obviously inadequate.
  - moneywoes 5y ago
    Does taking fin reduce test and thus muscle gain? I’ve read it reduces sex drive
    - kuschku 5y ago
      I'm sorry, I honestly don't know, I never had a need for it. You might want to ask in the corresponding boards on Reddit, though.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
I am of the opinion that the elite top 0.1% would intentionally hoard this and make it out of reach of even your standard rich person. I don't think they would allow this tech to spread such that ordinary people could get their hands on it.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  Ah, American thinking? Just go to Asia, every medicine on the planet is copied there and sold cheaply at pretty much any pharmacy.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    And what percentage of the time is is medicine free of nasty additives? As opposed to labeled sugar pills. Or heck, how there are cases of lead in paint still.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- staticassertion 5y ago
  All evidence points to the contrary. We have OTC drugs, or relatively accessible prescriptions, that already expand health and lifespan drastically - otherwise we'd all be dying young.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I don’t think anyone physically could horde it for even as long as 20 years no matter how hard they tried. Tech has a way of diffusing rapidly — things that start off only affordable by the richest yuppies of Wall Street and London can be superseded by street-wares in Nairobi, and this is not limited to just computers and phones, for example one of the YouTube channels I follow genetically engineered yeast to produce spider silk: https://youtu.be/2hf9yN-oBV4 https://youtu.be/2hf9yN-oBV4
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Is there any precedent of any medical technology hoarded by the 0.1%? I don't think so. Once something is out and proven to be cost-effective, even expensive treatments, it proliferates into the top 5-10 per cent of the world's population pretty fast.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
So Peter Thiel and Putin will live forever ..
Agingcoder 5y ago
The business of deaging would have interesting implications on society as a whole as well if people suddenly started living an extra 30 years.

fgimenez 5y ago

> I wouldn’t be surprised if companies threw billions of dollars worth of research to make it happen Well you are correct. Altos labs (https://altoslabs.com/ https://altoslabs.com/) is basically every "who's who" in science doing this with billions of dollars. Including Wolf Reik who is featured in the article.

dekhn 5y ago
Although I don't think the majority of these companies will go on to make billions selling drugs, I think the past ten years of VC and pharma funding of basic life sciences researches is likely to pay off in many unexpected ways. The field of molecular biology didn't exist before World War II; after, a number of funding managers at NIH recognized that there was an incipient science to augment biochemistry and other fields, and funded it through places like Rockefeller Institute (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25862750/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25862750/). The long term impact of these early scientists and funders who recognized the potential of MB has been enormous; it lead to the discovery of recombinant DNA, and many other important things which produced an explosion of research. where I drive to work every day, there was only one biotech (Genentech) campus and now there are probably 20-30 different companies with enormous well-outfitted research labs all stuffed into one little corner of South San Francisco. "Overnight", biotech became a huge industry- overshadowed by the enormous tech industry- but in many ways, the "tech" part is ripe for disruption in ways that look just like the tech industry in 1997. Either way, it will be interesting to see what is the state of the art 30-40 years from now, assuming the research infrastructure continues apace.

godelski 5y ago

> This is the kind of thing that could possibly be worth trillions of dollars. I think it would also have a profound impact on society and culture. Just how we think about the world differently as our lifespan extends. I think that makes a lot of people scared. Discussing this with others I see a few things people are highly concerned with but I'm unsure if they would actually happen (as in, I'm uncertain either way). The first is over population. The reason I'm not convinced this would be a problem is that most western countries have declining populations (without immigration) and world wide we've seen dramatic reductions in birth rates. World fertility rate is about 2.4 (replacement level is 2.0)[0]. The other aspect is political. People think change happens on the generation level. But I'm not entirely convinced of this either. We can take attitudes of same sex-marriage as an example[1][2]. A generation is 20 years but our (US) views have changed substantially faster than that. Especially if you include LGBT[3] (I couldn't find timeline sources for European attitudes as easily. Even when looking for specific countries and including quotes). I agree that there's a correlation with generations, but I'm not convinced it is a principle component. I also wonder how we would think about the future. Interesting to be is that a lot of Eastern cultures typically are more future oriented in their thinking (as compared to typical Western, and I wouldn't say by too much). I would expect that longer lifespans would put pressure to be more cognizant. Would a crisis that is 100 years out seem as far away? Hard to say. We might even have to live with longer lifetimes for awhile for that to happen. All I know is that it would cause big changes. But I'm not sure that should stop us from pursuing this technology unless we see major pitfalls ahead of time and find that they are insurmountable obstacles to overcome. There are clearly issues with increased longevity (especially the disproportionate use of it) as many dystopian SciFis have pointed out. But I think it is better that we at least discuss these things in the open since the technology itself is no longer in the realm of fantasy but has graduated to the realm of possibility. There's too much money being put in this technology now for us to not take the questions of the impact of it seriously. Even if 10+ years out (even 50+) I don't think we should dismiss them. If we're talking about culture shifts, maybe one of the best things we could do is talk about the impacts (pros/cons and how to use them in fair and equitable means) of technologies before they are here. Maybe we could have some of that discussion here? I'm normally not a big CGP Grey person, but I do like this video on the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant[4] [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=1W-EU-ZG-XU-IN-CN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location... [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att... [3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

makeitdouble 5y ago

> people would be willing to pay thousands of dollars per year on. To note, a huge market segment is are already paying thousands of dollars per yer, right now, on skin care (for instance the SK-II lineup sells well, and it’s 100-250$ a bottle) My semi-cynical view would be that cosmetics companies don’t have any specific incentive to accelerate the natural march of research as long as they stay on the forefront of it and have top of the line products. Basically they’d only have issues with new players making bolstering entrances and disrupting their market with a revolutionary products they’re not ready to counter. And the gap between some process being validated, and a product with that process being on the market is so huge, it’s hard to see a non entranched company start investing on that without getting noticed. I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary. I kind of hate to say it, but isn't this why patents exist? The first company to make a product with this tech will have exclusivity for 20 years. Shouldn't that be a sufficient incentive?
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Patents only cover processes I think ? For instance Kodak was first on the ground with their digital camera, but we all know how it went. The same way pharmaceutical companies patent drugs but it doesn’t stop a rival company from doing their own development cycle and coming up with a competing drug based on the same molecule.
  - patmorgan23 5y ago
    Patents cover devices too. The cotton gen, dish washer, and toilet paper holder were a patented at one point.

ElephantsMyAnus 5y ago

And that is why nobody wants to find the truth, that the effects are human caused, and not natural.

markdown 5y ago

You'd think that, but it's 2022 and they haven't found a decent solution to male baldness. Rogaine and off-label finesteride don't quite cut it.

kuschku 5y ago
There are quite a few solutions, but you won't like any of them. The basic issue is, and remains, that certain cells die the more and the longer they're exposed to DHT. To solve male pattern baldness, you'll have to reduce your DHT levels, either by reducing your testosterone levels, or by taking brutal dosages of finasteride. Trans women actually do that, and can stop and even reverse male pattern baldness most of the time. But for cis men, this solution is obviously inadequate.
- moneywoes 5y ago
  Does taking fin reduce test and thus muscle gain? I’ve read it reduces sex drive
  - kuschku 5y ago
    I'm sorry, I honestly don't know, I never had a need for it. You might want to ask in the corresponding boards on Reddit, though.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

I am of the opinion that the elite top 0.1% would intentionally hoard this and make it out of reach of even your standard rich person. I don't think they would allow this tech to spread such that ordinary people could get their hands on it.

hungryforcodes 5y ago
Ah, American thinking? Just go to Asia, every medicine on the planet is copied there and sold cheaply at pretty much any pharmacy.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  And what percentage of the time is is medicine free of nasty additives? As opposed to labeled sugar pills. Or heck, how there are cases of lead in paint still.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
staticassertion 5y ago
All evidence points to the contrary. We have OTC drugs, or relatively accessible prescriptions, that already expand health and lifespan drastically - otherwise we'd all be dying young.
ben_w 5y ago
I don’t think anyone physically could horde it for even as long as 20 years no matter how hard they tried. Tech has a way of diffusing rapidly — things that start off only affordable by the richest yuppies of Wall Street and London can be superseded by street-wares in Nairobi, and this is not limited to just computers and phones, for example one of the YouTube channels I follow genetically engineered yeast to produce spider silk: https://youtu.be/2hf9yN-oBV4 https://youtu.be/2hf9yN-oBV4
inglor_cz 5y ago
Is there any precedent of any medical technology hoarded by the 0.1%? I don't think so. Once something is out and proven to be cost-effective, even expensive treatments, it proliferates into the top 5-10 per cent of the world's population pretty fast.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago

So Peter Thiel and Putin will live forever ..

Agingcoder 5y ago

The business of deaging would have interesting implications on society as a whole as well if people suddenly started living an extra 30 years.