12 ms·

so if Calico is independent company funded by Google then what would Google gain by it? I mean how does this relate to Google's mission to "organize the world’s

so if Calico is independent company funded by Google then what would Google gain by it? I mean how does this relate to Google's mission to "organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." Is it a long term strategy to increase the age of humanity so they search more, use more of android, and earn Google more revenue because their search business is saturating? or is there a truly altruistic motive behind funding Calico? Seeing on their website an executive with title VP of Business Development seems interesting and just wonder how would he benefit Google through Calico's business.

turing 12y ago
First, I would guess that part of the reason Calico is a separate company instead of just a team within Google is that they don't fit within Google's central mission. Second,I don't know if there really needs to be an altruistic motive; is Larry's concern for his own health and the health of those he cares about not enough?
- fred_durst 12y ago
  > Larry's concern for his own health People died to make room for Larry. For him to try and cheat the system when it's his turn is the ultimate act of disrespect. So no, that isn't good enough.
  - xaa 12y ago
    Er, they died because they had no choice. They probably wouldn't have chosen to do so if they had a choice. Larry, and others working on this problem, want to give people a choice in the matter.
    - fred_durst 12y ago
      A choice to screw over the generations that come after them.
      - xaa 12y ago
        Don't you think that many of the world's problems: global warming, pollution, war, and so on, might be pursued a little more energetically if people knew they were going to be around for 500 years rather than 80?
        fred_durst 12y ago
        No. Not at all. In fact things like pollution and war will likely get a lot worse. I'm shocked people can even publicly admit they support this type of selfish behavior.
        xaa 12y ago
        (Can't reply directly) I'm extremely interested in understanding your perspective. See, I not only publicly support this, but as an aging researcher, I spend my days, nights, and weekends (right now, in fact) working towards this goal. I do so because I believe that, in a world full of Bad Things, death is pretty unambiguously the worst of them. Every time someone dies, a wealth of unique life experience and personality is lost, permanently. Forget Larry, I don't want to see my friends, family, and neighbors die. I don't know you at all, but I don't want you to die. And yes, I don't want to die myself either. If you think that extending life is selfish and wrong, then to be logically consistent, wouldn't the Red Cross and hospitals and so on be evil organizations? What principle could we possibly use to establish when someone's life has been "too long"?
        fred_durst 12y ago
        > Every time someone dies, a wealth of unique life experience and personality is lost, permanently. - Every time a person dies, their life is passed on through those they have connected with and influenced. Their influence on the world does not end, only their opportunity to see its effect. And most importantly, gives room for someone to do even more with what they have accomplished. > death is pretty unambiguously the worst of them. - Death may be better described as one of the scariest of them. When you are dead you feel no pain. You don't even know you are dead. Certainly, we miss those in our life who have passed away, but they live on in our hearts and dreams for the remainder of our lives. > I don't know you at all, but I don't want you to die. And yes, I don't want to die myself either. - I'm sure most people don't want to die. That's part of what makes life so important. What makes us try to make every moment count. There is so much life someone can live in 65 years. Do we really need more? > What principle could we possibly use to establish when someone's life has been "too long"? - When you start to try and reverse or disable aging as opposed to attempting to cure disease. I don't want to invalidate your work, but are you sure we really need this as a society? Or maybe we instead need to focus on making the time we have better for everyone?
Zigurd 12y ago
Yes. They did a study that determined that death is the largest factor for user churn.
gojomo 12y ago
At least one Google exec has suggested life-extension would be the ultimate perk for employee retention. See the quote here: http://www.zdnet.com/googles-life-extension-venture-is-part-of-a-strategy-to-lock-in-the-best-talent-7000021002/ http://www.zdnet.com/googles-life-extension-venture-is-part-... I suppose it's the Khruschev strategy for winning the platform and talent wars – "we will bury you!"
- gordon_freeman 12y ago
  well this suggested advantage is based on assumption that the life-extension benefit will be applicable to only Google employees which does not seem valid because Calico is an independent company and not part of Google so in theory, even their competitors can take medicines developed by Calico.
Thriptic 12y ago
I think this is somewhat of a very well funded (and quite cool) pet project for several hot shots from Genetech partially funded by Google.

turing 12y ago

First, I would guess that part of the reason Calico is a separate company instead of just a team within Google is that they don't fit within Google's central mission. Second,I don't know if there really needs to be an altruistic motive; is Larry's concern for his own health and the health of those he cares about not enough?

fred_durst 12y ago
> Larry's concern for his own health People died to make room for Larry. For him to try and cheat the system when it's his turn is the ultimate act of disrespect. So no, that isn't good enough.
- xaa 12y ago
  Er, they died because they had no choice. They probably wouldn't have chosen to do so if they had a choice. Larry, and others working on this problem, want to give people a choice in the matter.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    A choice to screw over the generations that come after them.
    - xaa 12y ago
      Don't you think that many of the world's problems: global warming, pollution, war, and so on, might be pursued a little more energetically if people knew they were going to be around for 500 years rather than 80?
      - fred_durst 12y ago
        No. Not at all. In fact things like pollution and war will likely get a lot worse. I'm shocked people can even publicly admit they support this type of selfish behavior.
      - xaa 12y ago
        (Can't reply directly) I'm extremely interested in understanding your perspective. See, I not only publicly support this, but as an aging researcher, I spend my days, nights, and weekends (right now, in fact) working towards this goal. I do so because I believe that, in a world full of Bad Things, death is pretty unambiguously the worst of them. Every time someone dies, a wealth of unique life experience and personality is lost, permanently. Forget Larry, I don't want to see my friends, family, and neighbors die. I don't know you at all, but I don't want you to die. And yes, I don't want to die myself either. If you think that extending life is selfish and wrong, then to be logically consistent, wouldn't the Red Cross and hospitals and so on be evil organizations? What principle could we possibly use to establish when someone's life has been "too long"?
        fred_durst 12y ago
        > Every time someone dies, a wealth of unique life experience and personality is lost, permanently. - Every time a person dies, their life is passed on through those they have connected with and influenced. Their influence on the world does not end, only their opportunity to see its effect. And most importantly, gives room for someone to do even more with what they have accomplished. > death is pretty unambiguously the worst of them. - Death may be better described as one of the scariest of them. When you are dead you feel no pain. You don't even know you are dead. Certainly, we miss those in our life who have passed away, but they live on in our hearts and dreams for the remainder of our lives. > I don't know you at all, but I don't want you to die. And yes, I don't want to die myself either. - I'm sure most people don't want to die. That's part of what makes life so important. What makes us try to make every moment count. There is so much life someone can live in 65 years. Do we really need more? > What principle could we possibly use to establish when someone's life has been "too long"? - When you start to try and reverse or disable aging as opposed to attempting to cure disease. I don't want to invalidate your work, but are you sure we really need this as a society? Or maybe we instead need to focus on making the time we have better for everyone?

Zigurd 12y ago

Yes. They did a study that determined that death is the largest factor for user churn.

gojomo 12y ago

At least one Google exec has suggested life-extension would be the ultimate perk for employee retention. See the quote here: http://www.zdnet.com/googles-life-extension-venture-is-part-of-a-strategy-to-lock-in-the-best-talent-7000021002/ http://www.zdnet.com/googles-life-extension-venture-is-part-... I suppose it's the Khruschev strategy for winning the platform and talent wars – "we will bury you!"

gordon_freeman 12y ago
well this suggested advantage is based on assumption that the life-extension benefit will be applicable to only Google employees which does not seem valid because Calico is an independent company and not part of Google so in theory, even their competitors can take medicines developed by Calico.

Thriptic 12y ago

I think this is somewhat of a very well funded (and quite cool) pet project for several hot shots from Genetech partially funded by Google.