A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth • Hacker News Board

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#41

Post by mlyle » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

marto1 wrote: post #32

Looking at it from an engineering perspective it's a pretty dumb problem to go after. Coming mostly from my experience with minification of electronics. E.g. the problems you get at 150nm are almost the same you'd get at 140nm or close but going down to 22nm is a whole different story. The effects that you could skim over before begin to matter in a critical way forming a sort of butterfly effect of ridiculous comple…

> And we're not even counting in meaningful life years.

I think it's likely that a lot of these treatment paths end up cumulatively increasing QALY's (quality-adjusted life years) by more than they increase life expectancy. That is, they add more good time than total time, in part because of a lot of the factors you mention. If we pick up 5 years of QALY and 4 years of increased lifespan, that's a pretty huge win, IMO. It means getting to know grandchildren much more meaningfully as the typical age of parents at childbirth has increased.

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#42

Post by PeterisP » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

Mandelmus wrote: post #6

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck[1] Often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time." I don't think we really want immortality or unnatural longevity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

Indeed, I can agree that there are all kinds of practical disadvantages if other people would start living forever.

On the other hand, if we're talking about me or you then suddenly it's different, isn't it? I think I'd choose to take unnatural longevity for myself even if it imposes some problems for the social fabric.

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#43

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

d_burfoot wrote: post #37

I love this. People are starting to realize how powerful the logic of life extension is. Think about this: if this startup succeeds only at extending human life expectancy by a single day , it's already worth it. A life is about 3e4 days, and there are 9e9 humans, so giving 1 extra day to every human is the equivalent of saving 3e5 lives.

That's assuming the day doesn't cost $1,000,000 for each person treated.

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#44

Post by sockaddr » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

yeeetz wrote: post #36

maradona_yolo wrote: post #27

instead of dreaming of immortality, get off this dumb ass site and do something meaningful with your waning youth! and who wants to live forever in this hellscape anyways? just more of the same hollow experience.

Nah, I'm vibing.

Likewise

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#45

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

Mandelmus wrote: post #13

woke_neoliberal wrote: post #7

There have been several companies formed in the past few years whose premise is researching in industry anti-aging or basic science more generally (Calico, Altos Labs, Arcadia, etc.)... Does anyone understand the underlying economics or motivations? They can't be gambles when they raise $B's, and I'm too cynical to believe these are altruistic endeavors. Certainly there is research that cannot be reasonably expected…

Researching immortality or unnatural longevity isn't worth the investment for a society because a society of immortals becomes either stagnant or unsustainable. But making individual billionaires immortal is something billionaires might find worth investing in.

>a society of immortals becomes either stagnant or unsustainable

Which society of immortals are you referring to?

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#46

Post by bschne » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #42

Mandelmus wrote: post #6

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck[1] Often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time." I don't think we really want immortality or unnatural longevity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

Indeed, I can agree that there are all kinds of practical disadvantages if other people would start living forever. On the other hand, if we're talking about me or you then suddenly it's different, isn't it? I think I'd choose to take unnatural longevity for myself even if it imposes some problems for the social fabric.

That's the crux of it — visions aside, day-to-day, nobody is going to suddenly "solve aging" for everyone. Progress comes gradually, in the form of everyone's loved ones dying and suffering less often and less early — and very few people are opposed to that.

You hear about older people fall ill and think things like "I've lived long enough, I don't want to go through the ordeal of treatment X for a .05 probability of living for one more year in bad health" — but would they see it that way if the treatment were to become much better and safer?

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#47

Post by dQw4w9WgXcQ » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

smm11 wrote: post #30

If we'd all just cleaned up diets and got in shape, Covid wouldn't have been such a big deal. You can do lots, such as diet and exercise, to live better and longer, but nobody does. We want a magic pill.

Not only that but with universal healthcare meaning that I'm subsidizing someone else's poor health habits, I want everyone on a government-prescribed workout + diet plan ASAP. Then again maybe COVID has been a blessing for culling the weak with minimal end-of-life costs, natural selection and all. Not going to be a popular opinion, but that's the emotionless conclusions of a purely scientific worldview.

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#48

Post by yeeetz » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

woke_neoliberal wrote: post #7

There have been several companies formed in the past few years whose premise is researching in industry anti-aging or basic science more generally (Calico, Altos Labs, Arcadia, etc.)... Does anyone understand the underlying economics or motivations? They can't be gambles when they raise $B's, and I'm too cynical to believe these are altruistic endeavors. Certainly there is research that cannot be reasonably expected…

Age-related diseases and degeneration are a massive burden on modern healthcare systems, are difficult to treat because we don't understand many of the underlying pathways, are extremely debilitating for patients, and are difficult for their family and loved ones. Properly understanding these cellular mechanisms and pathways can open up new avenues for treatment for cancer, Alzheimers, and other diseases, all of which would result in lucrative new drugs. The market for age-related diseases is extremely large, and it only grows every year.

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#49

Post by echelon » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #38

echelon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty simple. Fixing all of our diseases is actually low hanging fruit. Head transplants onto monoclonal human bodies grown in a lab. Gestated in chimeric pigs, genetically or surgically decephalized before birth, electronically innervated and artificially sustained until use in science or medicine. Bodies are O-, HLA neutral, and do not require immunosuppressants. Transplant beneficiaries receive a new and healthy…

the neural reattachment seems really hard. Where are we on spinal cord recovery after a complete sever? If you are an oligarch and don't mind murdering a healthy young type o- isn't that really the only barrier?

> Where are we on spinal cord recovery after a complete sever?

It's been performed in animals, though it resulted in paralyzation and subsequent euthanization. Human attempts have been prepped for on several occasions, but never carried out.

Past human candidates have been paraplegics, but I think you'd find even more willing patents amongst those with terminal cancers.

It would probably take trial and error before we can reattach a spinal cord successfully. Early patients will likely be paralyzed.

> If you are an oligarch and don't mind murdering a healthy young type o- isn't that really the only barrier?

This isn't scalable and also doesn't confer the advantages of a neutral immune system.

Monoclonal bodies can be used for all other sorts of uses. Wide-scale and repeatable studies, basic research, smaller scale blood and organ transplants, etc.

Since attempts would be limited, the difficult kinks would not be worked out of the protocol. By building a scalable methodology, it begins to work for everyone and becomes safer and more practical over time.

Re: A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

#50

Post by paulluuk » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

Mandelmus wrote: post #6

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck[1] Often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time." I don't think we really want immortality or unnatural longevity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

I'd definitely want immortality in the sense of stopping physical (and mental) deterioration. You can always just commit suicide if you're done.

I discuss this with friends and family occasionally, and they all seem to have these ideas that we're "only supposed to live 100 years or so". But that seems like a logical fallacy (appeal to nature) to me, it's not an actual argument.

And sure, there are plenty of dystopian movies about how all of your friends die while you live on. But you know, you can make new friends. As someone who has moved often and had to make new friends often: it's not that bad. Friendships come and go.

Just imagine the things you could get done if you weren't pressured by time. You could witness the colonization of other planets, the unification of humanity. And if everyone were immortal, we wouldn't have to worry about things like pensions anymore, and I bet that we'd see an extreme lowering of crime and violence.

The only read problem I see would be overpopulation, and possibly draconion measures to regulate it.