4 ms·

Global investment in cancer research (not treatment) between 2016 and 2020 came in just under $25 billion [1]. That means someone like Elon could have financed

Global investment in cancer research (not treatment) between 2016 and 2020 came in just under $25 billion [1]. That means someone like Elon could have financed basically all cancer research around the globe for a decade. Instead he bought twitter. And remember that the Forbes billionaires are not the most wealthy people in the world. They are just the ones living in countries with public company accounting. There is a lot of dark money in the Middle East and Russia. So it's not like they can't, it's more that this is still seen as a delusion or megalomania in these circles, since most anti aging research funded by billionaire happens very quitely by comparison. You won't hear them announce it like they do with e.g. malaria. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00182-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...

ACCount37 1y ago
That's consistent with what I said, yes. Two decades of this kind of research spending add up to $100 billion. And most billionaires are closer to $5 billion rich than to $500 billion rich. It would sure be nice to have an infinite money glitch billionaire who cares a lot about funding anti-aging research and lobbying for anti-aging efforts, the way Musk cares about space exploration and trolling people online. We're lucky that at least some neglected fields get billionaire attention like this. But we can't rely on that happening.
- sigmoid10 1y ago
  The point is if anti-aging didn't have this edgy image in billionaire circles, there would be more than enough money to go around. If everyone agrees that we should get on this like we do certain other diseases, we could certainly tap into a lot of resources.
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    I don't think there would be "enough money" just from that, but I agree that it would sure help. It's why I stress that aging should be recognized as a disease. If we had the likes of WHO and FDA in agreement that aging is unwanted and treating aging is desirable, even if it can't be done yet, it would shift the perception considerably. It would make it easier for billionaires to contribute to anti-aging research as a philanthropic effort - but it would also open many doors in terms of research funding and corporate investment.
  - dillydogg 1y ago
    Given the current state of the NIH, I'm not sure if we are "getting on this" with any diseases right now. I've seen quite a number of my colleagues end up retiring or stopping their research programs all together at a university that has its NIH funding halted for being politically insubordinate.
    - sigmoid10 1y ago
      Trump might get the science out of america, but he won't be able to get rid of science in general. It will just happen elsewhere. Europe is already becoming the center for mRNA vaccine research, and other places with less regulation will not sleep on biotech possibilities either. We just got a malaria vaccine that is not perfect, but good enough for Africa and about to be actively deployed in endangered areas, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year. It took decades and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but people like Bill Gates fronted most of the bill. There's no reason to think that science couldn't attack aging disease with the same ferocity if someone foots the bill.
  - notahacker 1y ago
    Seems more like billionaires spending money on trying to live forever has an edgy image in non-billionaire cycles. Sure, maybe Gates and Buffet really aren't that interested in living forever, but the likes of Thiel and Musk aren't exactly noted for techno-pessimism or caring whether the average normie thinks they and some of their investments are creepy, and they absolutely have the dealflow and the connections to evaluate any promising life extension ideas. If they're still spending more on stuff like 140 characters, maybe the low hanging fruit just aren't that low
    - sigmoid10 1y ago
      Thiel put a couple of million in some edgy stuff with little to show for. It is nothing compared to the order of magnitude that Gates invested in malaria.
      - notahacker 1y ago
        Well yeah, that's my point. He's the exact opposite of the scenario you suggest, someone who's so committed to promoting the idea of life extension he'll chuck a couple of million at woo merchants in the space purely for signalling purposes, someone who go on podcasts talking about the compatibility of "ending death" with Christianity and has a personal life extension regime, but when it comes down to actually putting significant capital down towards near term life extension, he doesn't see the opportunity. It's not because he doesn't want to look edgy, it's because he doesn't believe what he's being pitched is going to deliver on useful timelines.

ACCount37 1y ago

That's consistent with what I said, yes. Two decades of this kind of research spending add up to $100 billion. And most billionaires are closer to $5 billion rich than to $500 billion rich. It would sure be nice to have an infinite money glitch billionaire who cares a lot about funding anti-aging research and lobbying for anti-aging efforts, the way Musk cares about space exploration and trolling people online. We're lucky that at least some neglected fields get billionaire attention like this. But we can't rely on that happening.

sigmoid10 1y ago
The point is if anti-aging didn't have this edgy image in billionaire circles, there would be more than enough money to go around. If everyone agrees that we should get on this like we do certain other diseases, we could certainly tap into a lot of resources.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  I don't think there would be "enough money" just from that, but I agree that it would sure help. It's why I stress that aging should be recognized as a disease. If we had the likes of WHO and FDA in agreement that aging is unwanted and treating aging is desirable, even if it can't be done yet, it would shift the perception considerably. It would make it easier for billionaires to contribute to anti-aging research as a philanthropic effort - but it would also open many doors in terms of research funding and corporate investment.
- dillydogg 1y ago
  Given the current state of the NIH, I'm not sure if we are "getting on this" with any diseases right now. I've seen quite a number of my colleagues end up retiring or stopping their research programs all together at a university that has its NIH funding halted for being politically insubordinate.
  - sigmoid10 1y ago
    Trump might get the science out of america, but he won't be able to get rid of science in general. It will just happen elsewhere. Europe is already becoming the center for mRNA vaccine research, and other places with less regulation will not sleep on biotech possibilities either. We just got a malaria vaccine that is not perfect, but good enough for Africa and about to be actively deployed in endangered areas, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year. It took decades and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but people like Bill Gates fronted most of the bill. There's no reason to think that science couldn't attack aging disease with the same ferocity if someone foots the bill.
- notahacker 1y ago
  Seems more like billionaires spending money on trying to live forever has an edgy image in non-billionaire cycles. Sure, maybe Gates and Buffet really aren't that interested in living forever, but the likes of Thiel and Musk aren't exactly noted for techno-pessimism or caring whether the average normie thinks they and some of their investments are creepy, and they absolutely have the dealflow and the connections to evaluate any promising life extension ideas. If they're still spending more on stuff like 140 characters, maybe the low hanging fruit just aren't that low
  - sigmoid10 1y ago
    Thiel put a couple of million in some edgy stuff with little to show for. It is nothing compared to the order of magnitude that Gates invested in malaria.
    - notahacker 1y ago
      Well yeah, that's my point. He's the exact opposite of the scenario you suggest, someone who's so committed to promoting the idea of life extension he'll chuck a couple of million at woo merchants in the space purely for signalling purposes, someone who go on podcasts talking about the compatibility of "ending death" with Christianity and has a personal life extension regime, but when it comes down to actually putting significant capital down towards near term life extension, he doesn't see the opportunity. It's not because he doesn't want to look edgy, it's because he doesn't believe what he's being pitched is going to deliver on useful timelines.