So you wanna build an aging company • Hacker News Board

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#51

Post by simoncion » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 1:39 AM UTC

rhet0rica wrote: post #42

feoren wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually every single advancement in science, engineering, and technology disproportionately benefits the wealthy, because they already own everything. That's a great reason to fight against the massive imbalance of wealth distribution, but a terrible reason to halt all human progress.

Hang on there a moment—you missed a few things: 1. Life-extension research, which is what I take umbrage with, is not "all human progress." It is a very specific, high-effort kind of gene therapy whack-a-mole, borne entirely from our hubris and our fear of death. 2. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but research for _aging gracefully_ is fine by me. I genuinely hope we beat Alzheimer's. But we all know who holds the pur…

> It is a very specific, high-effort kind of ... whack-a-mole, borne entirely from our hubris and our fear of death.

Yep. Welcome to like 99% of cutting-edge medicine, stretching back into prehistory.

> But we all know who holds the purse strings on these initiatives, and it isn't charitable organizations funded by bereft families.

There aren't many ailments that affect rich folks but don't affect any poor folks. I'd rather the rest of mankind wait twenty years for the treatments than to never have had them at all.

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#52

Post by wetpaws » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 1:41 AM UTC

nowahlot wrote: post #13

izzydata wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't this be an anti-aging company? Aging is bad and not aging is good.

Is aging bad though? Seems like natures way of helping humanity evolve. As individuals it may seem bad. As a species, keeping old ideas in the form of ossified biology around seems like a bad idea. For example: see 70-80 year old politicians ageist assault on future generations. Physics is ageist and its march towards entropy unstoppable. Anti-aging is just more first worlders who can ignore externalities thanks to f…

[dead]

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#53

Post by tzs » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 2:10 AM UTC

hinterlands wrote: post #16

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here: the article says that you should be focusing on strategies that, for the most part, make aging more dignified. The goal shouldn't be even curing cancer. And maybe that's right. But the reason billions of dollars are poured by SFBA VCs into aging research is probably just that they're getting older, they don't want to die, and they figure that they can put some of their m…

It would be interesting if one of those anti-aging moonshots succeeds but the treatment to stop aging only works if you had a pre-treatment that has to occur before puberty.

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#54

Post by amy_petrik » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 2:50 AM UTC

rippeltippel wrote: post #38

Aging well requires a both biological and lifestyle interventions. One company called Nuraxi [1] is geared precisely to support that, They aim at studying the super-agers in the Sardinia "blue zone", and build digital twins (for the rest of us) on which simulate all-round interventions based on the insights from super-agers. Sounds like a promising way to get personalised longevity recipes. [1] https://www.nuraxi.ai

> build digital twins (for the rest of us) on which simulate all-round interventions based

Digital twins, what a freaking crock. Imagine claiming to simulate the biochemical pathways of a trillion cells and 3 billion basepairs and a gorillion chemicals and sequestration zones. Least they could do is take a little tissue and screw around with a patient-derived organoid. If someone made a digital twin that worked proper they'd be making a killing in pharma trials and drug development

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#55

Post by privatelypublic » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 3:37 AM UTC

cpgxiii wrote: post #48

rhet0rica wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the hottest of takes for you: curing cancer is not, in practice, entirely noble. 1. It is partially self-inflicted. Fallout from nuclear incidents, particularly in the US (testing in Nevada) and northern Europe (Chernobyl), is still a measurable contributor to cancer rates. Its prominence in medicine after the middle of the 20th century reflects these self-inflicted injuries from the Cold War. Likewise there…

> It is partially self-inflicted. Fallout from nuclear incidents, particularly in the US (testing in Nevada) and northern Europe (Chernobyl), is still a measurable contributor to cancer rates. Other industrial/chemical exposures yes, but this almost certainly isn't it. Outside of specific significant exposures, estimating cancer rates from radiation exposure is just statistical garbage. Anything at the low exposure e…

I wonder how often people don't understand how radiation affects health- because nominal levels don't hit the news. but, oh boy, when a single Fukushima isotope decay is detected on the coast of California- its national news.

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#56

Post by ssivark » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 3:58 AM UTC

OisinMoran wrote: post #21

nowahlot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is aging bad though? Seems like natures way of helping humanity evolve. As individuals it may seem bad. As a species, keeping old ideas in the form of ossified biology around seems like a bad idea. For example: see 70-80 year old politicians ageist assault on future generations. Physics is ageist and its march towards entropy unstoppable. Anti-aging is just more first worlders who can ignore externalities thanks to f…

I think those 70–80 year old politicians would be much less short-sighted if they expected to be around to reap what they're sowing.

Why do you think 70-80 year old "middle aged" politicians would get a chance when 150 year old "boomers" with wealth and powerful networks might be able to call the the shots?

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#57

Post by emseetech » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:09 AM UTC

nowahlot wrote: post #13

izzydata wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't this be an anti-aging company? Aging is bad and not aging is good.

Is aging bad though? Seems like natures way of helping humanity evolve. As individuals it may seem bad. As a species, keeping old ideas in the form of ossified biology around seems like a bad idea. For example: see 70-80 year old politicians ageist assault on future generations. Physics is ageist and its march towards entropy unstoppable. Anti-aging is just more first worlders who can ignore externalities thanks to f…

What interest I have in anti-aging is less about living forever than alleviating suffering on the way out. Living to 80, 90 or 100 seems like plenty of time on earth but making that last half of our lives less achey, infirmed and delirious is a noble goal.

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#58

Post by tylerflick » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 5:29 AM UTC

hinterlands wrote: post #16

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here: the article says that you should be focusing on strategies that, for the most part, make aging more dignified. The goal shouldn't be even curing cancer. And maybe that's right. But the reason billions of dollars are poured by SFBA VCs into aging research is probably just that they're getting older, they don't want to die, and they figure that they can put some of their m…

Because growing old is a privilege denied to many. Maybe focus on the kids first?

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#59

Post by conductr » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 5:38 AM UTC

daemonk wrote: post #15

rhet0rica wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion: Any medical intervention that delays or defeats the aging process will disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and is therefore unethical. The last thing a healthy democracy needs is millennium-old acolytes of Peter Thiel pulling the strings from the shadows.

This isn't an unpopular opinion. I would argue this is the mainstream argument. I think all medical advances benefit the wealthy first and then becomes more affordable over time. The term "aging" seems to trigger a lot of people and lead to philosophizing over the importance and morality of death. They are important topics to discuss, but I also think it is worthwhile to also hear out the optimist perspectives rather…

> I think all medical advances benefit the wealthy first and then becomes more affordable over time.

This broadly applies to a majority of new technologies or advancements as well. It's not unique to medical advances.

Re: So you wanna build an aging company

#60

Post by rozap » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 5:43 AM UTC

tylerflick wrote: post #58

hinterlands wrote: post #16

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here: the article says that you should be focusing on strategies that, for the most part, make aging more dignified. The goal shouldn't be even curing cancer. And maybe that's right. But the reason billions of dollars are poured by SFBA VCs into aging research is probably just that they're getting older, they don't want to die, and they figure that they can put some of their m…

Because growing old is a privilege denied to many. Maybe focus on the kids first?

Yes the VC class is famously very good at practicing empathy towards their fellow humans.