4 ms·

When Google sponsors an awesome project like this, I see the tech company equivalent of Nike sponsoring LeBron James for $105 million. Even if the R&D angle do

When Google sponsors an awesome project like this, I see the tech company equivalent of Nike sponsoring LeBron James for $105 million. Even if the R&D angle doesn't work out, Google gets real value (i.e. indirectly interchangeable for money) in terms of PR and recruiting. Consumer products companies pay huge amounts of money for PR. Google is just doing the same thing in a typically Googlish way. I don't think it's as cynical as just that: Google, and Larry Page in particular have been talking about making the world a better place for 15 years in a way that makes me pretty inclined to believe them, but the side benefits must counterbalance the longshot-ness quite a bit.

modeless 13y ago
It's a bit more risky than sponsoring a popular athlete I think. Few peope think we shouldn't play sports, but there is a surprisingly large group of people who believe we shouldn't be engaging on research like this. Reasons include religious, environmental, and social concerns.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  There are plenty of people prepared to question the veneration of professional athletes. (Though I should concede that they are not anything like a majority)
- breckinloggins 13y ago
  When I first read about Aubrey de Grey, I instinctively knew that he had the right approach to the problem of aging and immortality but I also suspected that he would run afoul of the religious, environmental, and social criticism that you're suggesting. However, I no longer think that is the case, and I think if Calico takes the same tack they will mostly avoid it as well. Here's why: a gross simplification of de Grey's entire research program is "aging and death happen because things start breaking faster than we can fix them, and because things start breaking that we have no idea how to fix." One of the greatest things about tackling the fountain of youth from this perspective is that it will continue to look like normal medicine and cosmetic procedures. I predict that effective "eternal youth and immortality" will be achieved, but by the time the mass population notices enough to care, the majority of the population will be composed of people who grew up with the idea of accelerating progress on human health (in the same way that today's kids simply do not know an era without exponential advances in information technology). Thus, they will probably experience this threshold as completely normal, if they experience it at all. In other words, there won't be a "magic moment". That moment will only appear retroactively, similar to today's magazine articles that say "hey look, here we are in the future with our video phones and what not! Isn't that nice?" Let's say in the next 20 years the following things happen: 1. A therapeutic AIDS vaccine performs the equivalent of Polio eradication 2. Highly targeted and effective cancer therapies are developed at an increasingly alarming rate 3. An actual cure for baldness is found 4. A preventative therapeutic regimen for treating obesity at a genetic level is discovered 5. A "nano-cream" that restores collagen in the skin becomes available first by prescription, then over the counter 6. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's can be detected and prevented early and completely managed in those that are in advanced stages Each one of those 6 things will likely face some opposition, but the opposition's voices will most probably not reach any kind of "critical mass"; people will (for example with the AIDS vaccine) simply regard as cruel the idea that people should die of AIDS because you don't want them having sex (a silly protest that I can still predict happening). Each of these advances will happen individually, and to the average person they won't look anything alike. But if you stack enough of these together long enough, you eventually get your fountain of youth. It's just that by the time it arrives there won't be riots in the streets, just 90% of the population saying "oh cool" and the other 10% viewed as harmless luddites with an interesting perspective on life.
  - seiji 13y ago
    I instinctively knew Why?
    - blake8086 13y ago
      death is bad
      - pjscott 13y ago
        That doesn't imply anything about the most effective way to increase longevity.
        tedks 13y ago
        I think you're reading too much into the words "right approach." In this case, "right approach" (I think) means something like "understanding that death is bad and trying to fight it."
    - breckinloggins 13y ago
      Hmmm, perhaps "instinctively gravitated toward the opinion that Aubrey de Grey was correct". That's more accurate; my "knowledge" does not, of course, imply proof of correctness.
    - olalonde 13y ago
      I assume he used "instinctively" precisely because he doesn't know exactly why. Perhaps, "intuitively" might have been a better choice of word here.
    - jk4930 13y ago
      Just to give my view: Because it's an engineering approach. We don't have to completely understand a highly complex system before we can make some fixes. Intervening before it breaks frees us from the work of repairing what we can't manage. This resonated with me the first time I read about it.

modeless 13y ago

It's a bit more risky than sponsoring a popular athlete I think. Few peope think we shouldn't play sports, but there is a surprisingly large group of people who believe we shouldn't be engaging on research like this. Reasons include religious, environmental, and social concerns.

maxerickson 13y ago
There are plenty of people prepared to question the veneration of professional athletes. (Though I should concede that they are not anything like a majority)
breckinloggins 13y ago
When I first read about Aubrey de Grey, I instinctively knew that he had the right approach to the problem of aging and immortality but I also suspected that he would run afoul of the religious, environmental, and social criticism that you're suggesting. However, I no longer think that is the case, and I think if Calico takes the same tack they will mostly avoid it as well. Here's why: a gross simplification of de Grey's entire research program is "aging and death happen because things start breaking faster than we can fix them, and because things start breaking that we have no idea how to fix." One of the greatest things about tackling the fountain of youth from this perspective is that it will continue to look like normal medicine and cosmetic procedures. I predict that effective "eternal youth and immortality" will be achieved, but by the time the mass population notices enough to care, the majority of the population will be composed of people who grew up with the idea of accelerating progress on human health (in the same way that today's kids simply do not know an era without exponential advances in information technology). Thus, they will probably experience this threshold as completely normal, if they experience it at all. In other words, there won't be a "magic moment". That moment will only appear retroactively, similar to today's magazine articles that say "hey look, here we are in the future with our video phones and what not! Isn't that nice?" Let's say in the next 20 years the following things happen: 1. A therapeutic AIDS vaccine performs the equivalent of Polio eradication 2. Highly targeted and effective cancer therapies are developed at an increasingly alarming rate 3. An actual cure for baldness is found 4. A preventative therapeutic regimen for treating obesity at a genetic level is discovered 5. A "nano-cream" that restores collagen in the skin becomes available first by prescription, then over the counter 6. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's can be detected and prevented early and completely managed in those that are in advanced stages Each one of those 6 things will likely face some opposition, but the opposition's voices will most probably not reach any kind of "critical mass"; people will (for example with the AIDS vaccine) simply regard as cruel the idea that people should die of AIDS because you don't want them having sex (a silly protest that I can still predict happening). Each of these advances will happen individually, and to the average person they won't look anything alike. But if you stack enough of these together long enough, you eventually get your fountain of youth. It's just that by the time it arrives there won't be riots in the streets, just 90% of the population saying "oh cool" and the other 10% viewed as harmless luddites with an interesting perspective on life.
- seiji 13y ago
  I instinctively knew Why?
  - blake8086 13y ago
    death is bad
    - pjscott 13y ago
      That doesn't imply anything about the most effective way to increase longevity.
      - tedks 13y ago
        I think you're reading too much into the words "right approach." In this case, "right approach" (I think) means something like "understanding that death is bad and trying to fight it."
  - breckinloggins 13y ago
    Hmmm, perhaps "instinctively gravitated toward the opinion that Aubrey de Grey was correct". That's more accurate; my "knowledge" does not, of course, imply proof of correctness.
  - olalonde 13y ago
    I assume he used "instinctively" precisely because he doesn't know exactly why. Perhaps, "intuitively" might have been a better choice of word here.
  - jk4930 13y ago
    Just to give my view: Because it's an engineering approach. We don't have to completely understand a highly complex system before we can make some fixes. Intervening before it breaks frees us from the work of repairing what we can't manage. This resonated with me the first time I read about it.