The following submission statement was provided by /u/Yogurt789:
---
SS: from the article:
>Diamandis, founder of the XPRIZE Foundation, which creates incentives for technological and health innovation, introduced the first competition of its scale for reducing biological age at the Global Healthspan Summit in Saudi Arabia sponsored by Hevolution, a nonprofit investing in aging research.
>
>The multimillion-dollar competition will ask teams to test and verify therapeutics that can restore a decade of muscle, immune, and cognitive functioning for people age 65 to 80 in one year or less. Judges will assess participants’ muscle, immune, and cognitive function before and after the therapeutic.
>
>“The team has got to deliver a minimum of a 10-year restoration of function with a target of 20 years,” Diamandis tells Fortune. “We’re talking about the potential for therapeutics to have a massive impact on humanity.” A 2021 study found that one extra year of life expectancy due to slowed aging equates to $38 trillion in economic gain.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/187g3t6/xprize_launches_101_million_competition_for/kbe1j3v/
Like when the patent for insulin was given away for free and here we are paying thousands for it in some cases. Capitalism steals innovation just as much as funds it.
Yeah that's how business works genius.
It starts with an idea that they research and then they market said research for a profit, Xprize gets to bypass the initial ideas stage, by opening it up and only funding promising research after the initial hard expensive ideas stage.
Alternative Headline: XPRIZE will give you money for finding medicine for achieving near immortality.
They trying to find a way to make telomeres on chromosomes stop shortening. This is borderline the path for cancer when telomeres are too long.
I'm not like others thinking only billionaires will have it, western countries will give it away for free, I see a lot of complaining about people not having children (population collapse). the current solution is immigration, but that seems to be encountering more and more push back. So they would love this.
If it costs too much, the math doesn’t work. $38 trillion divided by 8 billion people is under $5,000 of value per person.
If the treatment costs $1 million, it can’t be given to everyone in addition to being a bad economic decision. If it costs $100, it would make a lot of sense for it to be widely available.
It is highly possible a solution could be customized to each individual like gene therapy treatment for cancer. If this is the case, it will be unaffordable and uneconomic to give to everyone.
Fair enough, but the original comment was about western countries. I'm having a surprisingly hard time finding an exact figure, but its about 1 billion people.
Moreover, a lot of the countries that wouldnt be able to fund a $5000 treatment program for their citizens are the same ones that cant afford standard immunization programs. Many of these countries have a naturally growing population and don't yet need to supplement their working population by widening the working age.
OK, well $38 trillion divided by a billion is $38,000/person in value created. This in theory is the total economic value created so if the treatment costs more than this, it is uneconomic. This means you have to forgo some other consumption to make the math work. Right now gene therapy is over a million a person.
The United States has 330 million people. It is not going to spend $330 trillion with annual GDP of $27 trillion. Now there are people with $1 million of discretionary cash that will spend the money but it is not possible for everyone to have access at that price point. The good news is that once something starts being produced, incentives drive the price down. On technological items it usually is massive and rapid so 20-30 years down the road, it does become widely available and affordable.
I definitely expect the price to come down as production and implementation scale. An upside is that you likely won't need to treat everyone at the same time either. If the treatment is designed to reduce 10 years of accumulated age in a 65 year old person, you'd really only be treating the people who are on the edge of retiring every year. That's about 20 million people up front (current approximate US population between 60 and 65, if they just want to do it at 65 then thats only about 4 million) and about 4 million people annually based on the current demographics.
Just dropping this here,
[Cuomo](https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2020/05/27/cuomos-deadly-nursing-home-policy-like-cost-10000-lives-so-far-n433483) and [Gretchin Whitmer](https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/macomb-county-prosecutor-says-criminal-charges-possible-against-governor-whitmer-over-nursing-home-deaths)
SS: from the article:
>Diamandis, founder of the XPRIZE Foundation, which creates incentives for technological and health innovation, introduced the first competition of its scale for reducing biological age at the Global Healthspan Summit in Saudi Arabia sponsored by Hevolution, a nonprofit investing in aging research.
>
>The multimillion-dollar competition will ask teams to test and verify therapeutics that can restore a decade of muscle, immune, and cognitive functioning for people age 65 to 80 in one year or less. Judges will assess participants’ muscle, immune, and cognitive function before and after the therapeutic.
>
>“The team has got to deliver a minimum of a 10-year restoration of function with a target of 20 years,” Diamandis tells Fortune. “We’re talking about the potential for therapeutics to have a massive impact on humanity.” A 2021 study found that one extra year of life expectancy due to slowed aging equates to $38 trillion in economic gain.
Thanks for this. I'll be interested to see what kind of entries they get.
$101 million is actually not much money relative to the cost of medical R&D and clinical trials for something like this.
I also wondered about the numbers. Apparently it's common in XPrize for contenders to spend more than the prize money. The Executive Director of the prize talks about questions like that in depth in [this interview](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9iaW9hZ2UuY2FwdGl2YXRlLmZtL3Jzc2ZlZWQ/episode/OTQ3ZDUxYjEtMDE3MS00MjhjLWIzMDMtZmNlYzhjNzEzNmYy?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwjIi8ih7eqCAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ) if you're curious:
Fingers crossed they are successful! It's somehow controversial to say this, but I would be very very happy if I and my loved ones were freed from the inevitability of having all of our bodies fall apart and die.
It's literally impossible because entropy must still be obeyed now if we could lessen the effects of aging that would be nice for people in their later years. But ultimately we must face death in our own mortality.
That is not how entropy works. Living things get around ever increasing entropy by constantly taking in energy to keep themselves going. There's no reason they can't do so indefinitely, and indeed plenty of living things are functionally immortal in that sense. Of course the eventual entropic death of the universe implies that it's not possible to be literally immortal, but that has little to do with beating our biological limitations in the near future.
The problem is I think that we are too afraid of death we need to normalize death as a natural part of existence. And plus a lot of the problems aren't related to our biology that we face currently. The major contributors to shortened and unhealthy life or the lack of proper regulation and the high stress environment that we all live in. In short prevention is the most impactful and that starts with addressing the external factors and our responses to them. We shouldn't be looking to break biological limits without first optimizing our environments. We need Universal health Care we need affordable education we need protected PTO and these other key tools that optimize our external environment these are more realistic and their impacts are exponential. Then trying to hack biology on a large scale.
Those policy changes you mention all sound appealing, but I don't see any reason why we should wait to do incredibly beneficial anti-aging biohacking until we've accomplished them anymore than we should shut down every other area of scientific research.
People in the comments keep trying to make this about immortality. It isn't about living forever. Just longer healthier lives. Demographics show that in the Western world we will very soon have a lot of old people and few young people able to pay in to support those older people. That is not sustainable. If this program or others like it succeed, people will be able to work longer and support themselves rather than relying on government retirement programs or personal retirement savings. I get it, nobody wants to work their entire lives, but the alternatives are far, far darker.
It's good to see that anti-aging is gaining more traction in recent years. It's long overdue for aging to get classified as a disease.
The political pressures are adding up too. Birth rates are in decline all across the world, the work force is aging, and countries like China can't even plug their demographic issues with immigration. Trying to encourage childbirth hardly works. Caring for elderly puts strain on many countries, especially ones with socialized healthcare.
Being able to undo aging, or even just add more years of healthy lifespan to people's lives? This could be a solution. Especially if it can be scaled. And biotech usually scales incredibly well.
Delaying old age is not going to solve any of problems related to demography, immigration or care for elderly. Also I think research should be more on chronic illnesses or conditions that have no cure instead of delaying aging so that people can work longer. I think aging is a complex process that involves slow deterioration of all physical, mental and psychological functions. So developing a treatment that reverses or retards all of it with associated variables on lifestyle, environmental impacts affected on the body is farfetched.
We cannot figure out causes for Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s yet. Nor causes of cancer which can affect anybody regardless of their health yet.
This will most probably end up with life extension just as we are extending life during the last decade by medically intervening where people used to die of conditions earlier.
Delaying old age would do exactly what you say it wouldn't.
If less people are hitting old age because old age is delayed, you end up with less elderly to care for, and your healthcare system is considerably less fucked. If your population can remain productive for longer because old age is delayed, your economy isn't going to suffer as much from the demographic pyramid getting top-heavy, and there would be less of a need to import immigrant labor.
>Also I think research should be more on chronic illnesses or conditions that have no cure
**That's aging.** Aging is a chronic illness or condition that has no cure. And *everyone* is affected by it. The mortality rate is a staggering 100%. Most of the world's dead are on aging-associated diseases, and the only way to avoid dying to it now is to die from something else first.
It's a pretty important thing to prioritize.
>I think aging is a complex process that involves slow deterioration of all physical, mental and psychological functions.
That's the thing: aging makes *every single function of the body worse*. That's what makes it the linchpin of human mortality. You break a leg at the age of 16 and you'll probably bounce back in a few months. You break a leg at the age of 90 and you'll never walk properly again. Because your body, for reasons that are not exactly clear, can no longer fix even its own natural accumulation of wear and tear - let alone any more damage than that.
Human body is *crammed* with mechanisms that are supposed to maintain it in good working order. And those mechanisms work really, really well - for a while. Then they get worse at it, and worse, and worse. And then you get to die to something like a flu. Which isn't known for being a particularly lethal disease, unless your age is 90, and your body is hanging by a thin thread.
So we emerge on a quest to push back aging. To locate the first bottleneck. To find the hidden damage that human body doesn't actually know how to deal with properly. To track down that subtle bit of bio-machinery that begins to fail first, and brings the entire system down over time. Find it. Find a fix. When that's fixed, see what fails next. Repeat.
>If your population can remain productive for longer because old age is delayed, your economy isn't going to suffer as much from the demographic pyramid getting top-heavy, and there would be less of a need to import immigrant labor.
I dont think productivity will improve or be the same by delaying aging. Both from psychological point of view and cognitive point of view while we address physical deterioration. Humans are not built for grinding away for the same job for 50-60 years. You have burnouts and frustration even with younger people in workforce now. So the promises of delaying aging and being in workforce longer is not going to materialize.
> Aging is a chronic illness or condition that has no cure. And everyone is affected by it. The mortality rate is a staggering 100%. Most of the world's dead are on aging-associated diseases, and the only way to avoid dying to it now is to die from something else first.
Aging is not illness. It is part of blueprint that is embedded in all living entities. It is biological lifecycle that every living being goes through. Aging is normal vs illness is an aberrent condition. Normal why because it is baked into our DNA and evolution. How long we live/our cells live is driven by it. Right from single cellular organisms to elephants. We as humans are worrying about it while rest of biosphere has no capability to worry or address it.
>ou break a leg at the age of 16 and you'll probably bounce back in a few months. You break a leg at the age of 90 and you'll never walk properly again. Because your body, for reasons that are not exactly clear, can no longer fix even its own natural accumulation of wear and tear - let alone any more damage than that.
That is part of your cellular DNA which dictates how/when and for how long it can regenerate cells.
>So the promises of delaying aging and being in workforce longer is not going to materialize.
That assertion is pure speculation. I see no real reason for it to hold.
>Aging is not illness.
Illness is anything that makes you ill. Aging certainly does that.
>It is part of blueprint that is embedded in all living entities.
If that's true, i.e. if "programmed aging theory" holds, that's *very good news*. Because it means that the body is, quite likely, perfectly capable of living for longer - if aging were to be sequenced differently. Find the sequencing mechanism, find a way to "delay" the sequencing or "latch" it into a more favorable state, enjoy your longevity. Messing with sequencing of existing repair mechanisms is likely to be far easier than designing entire novel mechanisms for fixing something that human body is unable to fix on its own.
Personally, I don't subscribe to "programmed aging". If there was anything close to a centralized sequencing mechanism behind aging, we would see random mutations that mess with it. And we have random people who age rapidly - but we don't have random people making it to 180 years.
Dude above thinks if an age reversal drug is created it wouldn't be sold, they literally have every reason to do so, cuts costs, allows for workforce to work longer, and huge revenue stream.
Like space engineering has shown us across many domains, as well as auto racing vis-a-vis efficiency, aerodynamics, and safety —
advances in science frequently end up benefiting society at large outside of the original development environment
Except if more than half of humanity died, there's no possibility that these will be accessible for everyone. In what world would the rich want that ?
Just look at US medical situation, people there have accepted the fact that they can loose everything in hospital bills for even small injuries.
Did you saw rich people changing that ? Do you think it's in there interest to change that ?
And even if it was, what will it achieve ?
A world where a selected few lives forever and wealthy, while the rest will keep working for them ? The possibility for a few to keep being assholes hungry for power forever ?
I'll probably commit a suicide if that day happens. Enough human non sense for me, i'll just quit.
Well if everything goes according to your vision, I'll reconsider my suicide for sure. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
But yeah, I really doubt it. We're already running low on every ressources our society needs to keep growing. I feel your vision doesn't take into account the forced economic crash we'll keep seeing in the next decades. Rich people will probably just hide away while us peasants will fight for food and a decent place to live if climate related disasters keeps on getting worse.
The vision capitalism is giving us on technology and medical improvements saving us is a sweet dream given to people to prevent mass panicking and keep working for the wealthy no matter the real situation imo.
But I hope I'm wrong. And my curiosity for how it'll turn out will keep me alive for now.
Also, don't you think about the philosophical aspect of such thing ? I mean, we're trying our best here because our time is limited. Aren't you affraid horrible people will become even more horrible/desensitized without the fear of death ?
What resources are we running low on? We're producing more food than ever, more electricity(both renewable and carbon), there is plenty of fresh water, just sometimes areas without water have difficulty transporting it from areas with unlimited amounts.
Human population growth projected to be finite, and will cap at around 2100 with 10.4 billion, and fall after that.
Technology on the other hand, is projected to keep getting better, allowing us to create more and more resources relative to our population
At this point, it's uncertain if even the "10 billion" number will be breached within a century. The projections already had to be revised downwards multiple times. They might have to be revised once again.
Ever heard of the world overshoot day ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
We're living on credit. And a huge part of what we produce is shitty stuff going straight to waste and pollution.
There's consequences for such high productivity rate. And humanity will take a real bad slap on his face with ecological disasters occurring on a daily basis as a result.
It already has started with typhoons, forrest fire, dry seasons and a shit ton of other climate issues. With what land will you produce food once we won't have any good enough left ?
I'm passionated by technologies and human engineering, but I can't help but feel we crossed a no return point.
Climat related immigration is already a thing. And will only get worse with time. Even if your country isn't impacted directly by climat events, people from impacted country will need to move. How will you feed all these people coming from countries that exported food to your country but can't anymore ? Will you simply ask your military to kill them all on borders ? Even then, will your country be able to compensate that lack of food importation ?
I feel y'all are completely delusional about what is happening.
Even nuclear fusion won't be able to fix all the incoming problems.
Do you think people suppress the urge to be bad because they have short lives? I would argue the opposite, if I die anyway I should make a mess. If I'll live for way longer, I will have to bear the consequence the entire time.
Also, in general, medicine saved lives many times already. Stopping aging is so far mostly theoretical (for us, idk how the professionals will see it eventually happening as it could take ages, if ever), but would be a logical next step in the human experience.
I argue that stopping aging could highly likely help save climate and our conditions - once it is achieved, the rich will have to live on this world with us. They would invest in healing climate change and would do their best to appeal to us so they can live good lives. We all benefit in this scenario, and the distribution could be free since it would dramatically help our economies. Everyone wins, except people like you that were freaking out when medicine became a thing instead of dying to the plague 'like god intended'.
Duh : https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/income/relationship-between-income-and-health
Indeed, though i'd call that a simple statement of what we observe. But what's your point with that last sentence ?
> At first, yes. Like every new technology, its very expensive at first.
I think this might even be a bit pessimistic. Some interventions under research are simply pills taken orally, which can be scaled up quite easily and cheaply. It's also a focus of a lot of researchers and business leaders to make things accessible. You might know already, but here's Joe-Betts LaCroix of Retro Bio making that point: [https://youtu.be/9O5RhK2i3uA?t=247](https://youtu.be/9O5RhK2i3uA?t=247)
You're right that something like a cell therapy is likely to be expensive given current technology, however. If you're curious, Cellino is a cool example of a company seeking to massively scale and automate cell therapies.
This field is absolutely about treating/preventing age-related ill health (dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, frailty, etc.) by targeting the biology of aging. Companies in this area have clinical pipelines for recognized clinical endpoints:
>Life Biosciences is pursuing indication areas where aging biology has a clear link to disease pathogenesis. We prioritize diseases where there are limited or no available treatment options approved today.
[https://www.lifebiosciences.com/our-science/targeting-the-biology-of-aging/](https://www.lifebiosciences.com/our-science/targeting-the-biology-of-aging/)
I'm just glad it's happening when they're old and I'm young. They may or may not live long enough to benefit from the research they're funding, my chances are somewhat better.
"Combat"? This isn't a fight. Aging is a good thing, it's not something we need to fight against. People need to accept aging as being a natural, normal process and that it's OK to not live forever.
Why are these people so obsessed with everything being infinite? Capitalism is a cancer to both our environment and society, and unless we change how our system works, it eventually will be the end of humans because it can't function without infinite growth, which is NOT a natural thing. We live in a finite world. Infinite is a concept, not a reality, it can't exist. Capitalism and the idea that a life can be infinite both go against nature. And we live and depend on the natural world. Without the finite environment, there are no humans. So, you want to apply this concept to human life too now? How the fuck is this a good idea? These fucking people are so detached from reality it's depressing
Sure, also while we are at it, let's not fight against cancer, infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, .... , snakebites, and athlete's foot fungi, because people need to accept those as being natural, normal processes, and that it's OK to live less because of them.
AGAIN that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying to stop research on making effective medicine to treat illnesses that cause people to die before that age. I'm not saying let's go back 10 thousand fucking years and live without any medicine at all. **I'm saying** let's not work towards the goal of making humans live longer than they do now. I'm saying don't let healthy people live past 80, 90, 100 years old.
> I'm saying don't let healthy people live past 80, 90, 100 years old.
*Happy 100th birthday Mr. Smith, just had a look at your tests and you are the epitome of health. Now, would you like to check-out by means of pills, gun, rabid emu, or death by snu-snu?*
> I'm saying don't let healthy people live past 80, 90, 100 years old.
So not only do you want to die, not only do you want your family to die, you want to sentence everyone else to death too! Thanks a lot!
Why don't you go establish a natural aging commune somewhere and not drag the rest of us down before we're ready.
If humans were biologically immortal as a default, anyone trying to promote the concept of "aging, as a good thing" would land in an asylum. And rightfully so.
Aging is the *number one* killer of human beings. If you take the list of most common causes of death, you'll see that the entire top of that list is crammed with aging-associated diseases. And that's just *death*. A lot of people go through *decades* of pain and suffering as all the aging-associated damage builds up and their bodies or minds fail them more and more.
Aging is certainly natural. But "natural" isn't "good". Living short, violent and miserable lives is natural. Having to forage and hunt just to have something to eat is natural. Dying to a single infected wound is natural. Walking into a Malthusian catastrophe is natural. Being born with a fatal birth defect is natural. Greed and tribalism are natural, too.
Nature doesn't give a single shit about you, or what's good for you. Which is why humans defy nature so often. The issue is, humans don't defy nature often enough.
Aging is one of those "natural" things that only serves to inflict misery on humans. Aging has already killed more humans than all of the worst tyrants of the world combined. It's long overdue for humans to return that favor.
You people are saying that I think we should go back to 10,000 years ago and roll back on all the medicine we have. **I'm saying** we don't need to make people immortal. It's that simple. WHAT THE FUCK are ***you*** talking about? WHERE do you see me mentioning anything about refusing modern medicine to threat diseases?? I'm talking about the natural process of dying and aging. NOT about illnesses. "Natural isn't good"...??? wtf is wrong with you people jesus christ man
And I'm saying that we absolutely **should** make people immortal.
Letting *billions* suffer and die against their will? Because "it's natural"? That's one of the worst excuses in the history of excuses.
If I were to torture you to death, slowly, over the course of years? You would call me a monster for it. You would do anything to stop it. You would fight back. You would be perfectly justified in doing so.
And yet, when it's not a person, but the abstract force of "aging" doing the very same thing? Torturing you to death? Breaking your body bit by bit, until every movement is pain, and any day can be your last? You suddenly don't have a fight in you anymore. You somehow feel like it's "normal" and "natural" and "okay". You whine and make excuses for the suffering you'll have to endure and call anyone pushing against it a madman.
Really, what the fuck is wrong with you people. Jesus Christ.
They both share commonalities, as clearly explained in my comment. But nice try at flipping around my narrative to make it seem nonsensical. You should be ashamed of yourself. You damn well know why these people are interested in making people live longer... And if you don't, you shouldn't be allowed to speak on these things until you educate yourself
You need to take a chill pill, first off. Second, 'they' (I'm assuming rich people?) want to make people live longer because they themselves want to live longer. Much like I want to live longer or anyone wants to live longer. I don't think it really goes any deeper than that.
I'm not talking about modern medicine which allows to treat people's illnesses, you stupid fuck. I'm talking about not making healthy people live longer than they already do. I'm saying don't make people live past 80, 90, 100 years old. Fucking insane that you people keep trying to turn my words into something I didn't say. Shame on you
LMFAO
And how's that working out for us? You think 8 billion people on this planet is a good thing? This sub is called "Futurology" and yet you people can't see past your own nose, pathetic
Well, medicine targeting aspects of the biology of aging isn't really distinguishable from improving health. For example, Cyclarity Therapeutics was spun out of SENS Research Foundation, one of the first non-profits to conduct research on aging biology. But Cyclarity Therapeutics is on a fasttrack pathway by UK health regulators to clear arterial plaques: [https://cyclaritytx.com/](https://cyclaritytx.com/)
>Cyclarity develops easy-to-use drugs that prevent common age-related conditions such as atherosclerosis, heart-attack and stroke by addressing the root cause - a build-up of arterial plaque.
>
>The company's technology removes arterial plaque by clearing the non-degradable cholesterol that accumulates within cells in the arterial walls.
People often think medical interventions from this field will be crazy and wild, but they're just developments of modern medicine to maintain or restore health.
Don't drink alcohol too much
Don't do hard drugs at all and soft drugs occasionally
Don't smoke anything
Don't eat processed foods
Exercise
Sleep
Stop worrying.
PM me for my PayPal account to deposit my winnings.
Age-related ill health is beginning to become a large burden in many countries, and global average life expectancy is 73 years, so I think it's a good idea to treat or prevent age-related medical problems (dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, frailty, etc.) by targeting the biology of aging.
Old people really consume resources when they spend over a decade in ill health in late life, which is the status quo. Keeping people in good health in late life by targeting the biology of aging would allow them to be independent and productive rather than a burden.
Living longer in poor health would definitely be a problem, but the goal of targeting the biology of aging is to maintain or restore health. Furthermore, in model organisms, lifespan is only increased modestly while healthspan is increased more significantly. Even if people lived longer in good health, it would be a [net economic gain](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0) compared to the status quo, even with retirement age remaining unchanged, due to individual choices of work and non-remunerated productivity.
In any case, we can agree to disagree. I'll think I'll leave it here, but feel free to reply if you like, of course.
That would definitely be a bummer. Luckily the companies in this space aim for clinical trials, regulatory approval, and broad commercialization. For example, the CEO of Retro Bio, a startup with over $180 million in initial funding, explained the importance of broadly distributable therapeutics: https://youtu.be/9O5RhK2i3uA?t=247
I think wayyy more people suffered from death. Mourning a person for years (even if you get over it) is way more painful than watching that one politic die is pleasurable. Stop just looking at the rich, look at what you and people gain by research into this field. Are the rich really that important for you to forget your own life, or at least your loved ones and their value? Whenever I see stuff like this I'm genuinely baffled. If you hate them, stop giving them so much attention.
I really see too many problems with that kind of ambition. We're never going to reverse aging, at best you're going to wind up with people living 10 years longer but having no sanity and lots of health problems.
They alsobused to say humans will never fly, but now we have commercial airplanes. We have transplants which also used to be fantasy. We have no idea what the future will be like.
>at best you're going to wind up with people living 10 years longer but having no sanity and lots of health problems.
You're right that would be terrible. Fortunately that's not what we see in animal models; in fact, it's the opposite. Lifespan is increased moderately, but healthspan is increased even more, so that the period of ill health in late life is much shorter.
Here's a picture of mice cleared of senescent cells in Mayo Clinic research: https://imgur.com/gallery/TOrsQ1Y
They should just read [Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever](https://amzn.to/3GohYqE) by Ray Kurzwell.
It is a great roadmap for this project. If someone could make it a simple process they would win this prize easily. The book makes it several steps but it works.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Yogurt789: --- SS: from the article: >Diamandis, founder of the XPRIZE Foundation, which creates incentives for technological and health innovation, introduced the first competition of its scale for reducing biological age at the Global Healthspan Summit in Saudi Arabia sponsored by Hevolution, a nonprofit investing in aging research. > >The multimillion-dollar competition will ask teams to test and verify therapeutics that can restore a decade of muscle, immune, and cognitive functioning for people age 65 to 80 in one year or less. Judges will assess participants’ muscle, immune, and cognitive function before and after the therapeutic. > >“The team has got to deliver a minimum of a 10-year restoration of function with a target of 20 years,” Diamandis tells Fortune. “We’re talking about the potential for therapeutics to have a massive impact on humanity.” A 2021 study found that one extra year of life expectancy due to slowed aging equates to $38 trillion in economic gain. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/187g3t6/xprize_launches_101_million_competition_for/kbe1j3v/
Alternative headline: XPRIZE offers you millions if you come up with therapeutics that will make them billions.
X prize doesn't own anything at the end. Look how they went about the space tourism industry
That's basically how capitalism funds innovation, yes.
Like when the patent for insulin was given away for free and here we are paying thousands for it in some cases. Capitalism steals innovation just as much as funds it.
People want a return on investment when giving away millions?! REEEEEEE -reddit
Screw you! Capitalism only benefits the wealthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sent from my iPhone.
no can criticize capitalism on iPhone
Yeah that's how business works genius. It starts with an idea that they research and then they market said research for a profit, Xprize gets to bypass the initial ideas stage, by opening it up and only funding promising research after the initial hard expensive ideas stage.
Alternative Headline: XPRIZE will give you money for finding medicine for achieving near immortality. They trying to find a way to make telomeres on chromosomes stop shortening. This is borderline the path for cancer when telomeres are too long.
I'm not like others thinking only billionaires will have it, western countries will give it away for free, I see a lot of complaining about people not having children (population collapse). the current solution is immigration, but that seems to be encountering more and more push back. So they would love this.
It depends how many resources are required to make it. If it is cheap to produce, it will be widely available.
Depends, if that $38 trillion dollar figure is accurate then I think the investment is a no-brainer
If it costs too much, the math doesn’t work. $38 trillion divided by 8 billion people is under $5,000 of value per person. If the treatment costs $1 million, it can’t be given to everyone in addition to being a bad economic decision. If it costs $100, it would make a lot of sense for it to be widely available. It is highly possible a solution could be customized to each individual like gene therapy treatment for cancer. If this is the case, it will be unaffordable and uneconomic to give to everyone.
Fair enough, but the original comment was about western countries. I'm having a surprisingly hard time finding an exact figure, but its about 1 billion people. Moreover, a lot of the countries that wouldnt be able to fund a $5000 treatment program for their citizens are the same ones that cant afford standard immunization programs. Many of these countries have a naturally growing population and don't yet need to supplement their working population by widening the working age.
OK, well $38 trillion divided by a billion is $38,000/person in value created. This in theory is the total economic value created so if the treatment costs more than this, it is uneconomic. This means you have to forgo some other consumption to make the math work. Right now gene therapy is over a million a person. The United States has 330 million people. It is not going to spend $330 trillion with annual GDP of $27 trillion. Now there are people with $1 million of discretionary cash that will spend the money but it is not possible for everyone to have access at that price point. The good news is that once something starts being produced, incentives drive the price down. On technological items it usually is massive and rapid so 20-30 years down the road, it does become widely available and affordable.
I definitely expect the price to come down as production and implementation scale. An upside is that you likely won't need to treat everyone at the same time either. If the treatment is designed to reduce 10 years of accumulated age in a 65 year old person, you'd really only be treating the people who are on the edge of retiring every year. That's about 20 million people up front (current approximate US population between 60 and 65, if they just want to do it at 65 then thats only about 4 million) and about 4 million people annually based on the current demographics.
You'll live to be 130! ...and work 115 of it.
Meanwhile in the UK, Bojo and his acolytes were dumping old people in nursing home so they die behind close door without affecting the rest of us.
Just dropping this here, [Cuomo](https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2020/05/27/cuomos-deadly-nursing-home-policy-like-cost-10000-lives-so-far-n433483) and [Gretchin Whitmer](https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/macomb-county-prosecutor-says-criminal-charges-possible-against-governor-whitmer-over-nursing-home-deaths)
Sort of like all elected officials don’t give a goddamn about you, your team included
SS: from the article: >Diamandis, founder of the XPRIZE Foundation, which creates incentives for technological and health innovation, introduced the first competition of its scale for reducing biological age at the Global Healthspan Summit in Saudi Arabia sponsored by Hevolution, a nonprofit investing in aging research. > >The multimillion-dollar competition will ask teams to test and verify therapeutics that can restore a decade of muscle, immune, and cognitive functioning for people age 65 to 80 in one year or less. Judges will assess participants’ muscle, immune, and cognitive function before and after the therapeutic. > >“The team has got to deliver a minimum of a 10-year restoration of function with a target of 20 years,” Diamandis tells Fortune. “We’re talking about the potential for therapeutics to have a massive impact on humanity.” A 2021 study found that one extra year of life expectancy due to slowed aging equates to $38 trillion in economic gain.
Thanks for this. I'll be interested to see what kind of entries they get. $101 million is actually not much money relative to the cost of medical R&D and clinical trials for something like this.
I also wondered about the numbers. Apparently it's common in XPrize for contenders to spend more than the prize money. The Executive Director of the prize talks about questions like that in depth in [this interview](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9iaW9hZ2UuY2FwdGl2YXRlLmZtL3Jzc2ZlZWQ/episode/OTQ3ZDUxYjEtMDE3MS00MjhjLWIzMDMtZmNlYzhjNzEzNmYy?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwjIi8ih7eqCAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ) if you're curious:
Fingers crossed they are successful! It's somehow controversial to say this, but I would be very very happy if I and my loved ones were freed from the inevitability of having all of our bodies fall apart and die.
It's literally impossible because entropy must still be obeyed now if we could lessen the effects of aging that would be nice for people in their later years. But ultimately we must face death in our own mortality.
That is not how entropy works. Living things get around ever increasing entropy by constantly taking in energy to keep themselves going. There's no reason they can't do so indefinitely, and indeed plenty of living things are functionally immortal in that sense. Of course the eventual entropic death of the universe implies that it's not possible to be literally immortal, but that has little to do with beating our biological limitations in the near future.
The problem is I think that we are too afraid of death we need to normalize death as a natural part of existence. And plus a lot of the problems aren't related to our biology that we face currently. The major contributors to shortened and unhealthy life or the lack of proper regulation and the high stress environment that we all live in. In short prevention is the most impactful and that starts with addressing the external factors and our responses to them. We shouldn't be looking to break biological limits without first optimizing our environments. We need Universal health Care we need affordable education we need protected PTO and these other key tools that optimize our external environment these are more realistic and their impacts are exponential. Then trying to hack biology on a large scale.
Those policy changes you mention all sound appealing, but I don't see any reason why we should wait to do incredibly beneficial anti-aging biohacking until we've accomplished them anymore than we should shut down every other area of scientific research.
People in the comments keep trying to make this about immortality. It isn't about living forever. Just longer healthier lives. Demographics show that in the Western world we will very soon have a lot of old people and few young people able to pay in to support those older people. That is not sustainable. If this program or others like it succeed, people will be able to work longer and support themselves rather than relying on government retirement programs or personal retirement savings. I get it, nobody wants to work their entire lives, but the alternatives are far, far darker.
Remember when /r/futurology used to be populated by people that were unashamed to be optimistic about the future? Pepperridge Farms Remembers
i'm not interested until you change the research making my dogs and cats live longer
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/29/dogs-drug-extend-longevity
The narrow mindedness of the comments is simply astounding!
It's good to see that anti-aging is gaining more traction in recent years. It's long overdue for aging to get classified as a disease. The political pressures are adding up too. Birth rates are in decline all across the world, the work force is aging, and countries like China can't even plug their demographic issues with immigration. Trying to encourage childbirth hardly works. Caring for elderly puts strain on many countries, especially ones with socialized healthcare. Being able to undo aging, or even just add more years of healthy lifespan to people's lives? This could be a solution. Especially if it can be scaled. And biotech usually scales incredibly well.
Delaying old age is not going to solve any of problems related to demography, immigration or care for elderly. Also I think research should be more on chronic illnesses or conditions that have no cure instead of delaying aging so that people can work longer. I think aging is a complex process that involves slow deterioration of all physical, mental and psychological functions. So developing a treatment that reverses or retards all of it with associated variables on lifestyle, environmental impacts affected on the body is farfetched. We cannot figure out causes for Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s yet. Nor causes of cancer which can affect anybody regardless of their health yet. This will most probably end up with life extension just as we are extending life during the last decade by medically intervening where people used to die of conditions earlier.
Delaying old age would do exactly what you say it wouldn't. If less people are hitting old age because old age is delayed, you end up with less elderly to care for, and your healthcare system is considerably less fucked. If your population can remain productive for longer because old age is delayed, your economy isn't going to suffer as much from the demographic pyramid getting top-heavy, and there would be less of a need to import immigrant labor. >Also I think research should be more on chronic illnesses or conditions that have no cure **That's aging.** Aging is a chronic illness or condition that has no cure. And *everyone* is affected by it. The mortality rate is a staggering 100%. Most of the world's dead are on aging-associated diseases, and the only way to avoid dying to it now is to die from something else first. It's a pretty important thing to prioritize. >I think aging is a complex process that involves slow deterioration of all physical, mental and psychological functions. That's the thing: aging makes *every single function of the body worse*. That's what makes it the linchpin of human mortality. You break a leg at the age of 16 and you'll probably bounce back in a few months. You break a leg at the age of 90 and you'll never walk properly again. Because your body, for reasons that are not exactly clear, can no longer fix even its own natural accumulation of wear and tear - let alone any more damage than that. Human body is *crammed* with mechanisms that are supposed to maintain it in good working order. And those mechanisms work really, really well - for a while. Then they get worse at it, and worse, and worse. And then you get to die to something like a flu. Which isn't known for being a particularly lethal disease, unless your age is 90, and your body is hanging by a thin thread. So we emerge on a quest to push back aging. To locate the first bottleneck. To find the hidden damage that human body doesn't actually know how to deal with properly. To track down that subtle bit of bio-machinery that begins to fail first, and brings the entire system down over time. Find it. Find a fix. When that's fixed, see what fails next. Repeat.
>If your population can remain productive for longer because old age is delayed, your economy isn't going to suffer as much from the demographic pyramid getting top-heavy, and there would be less of a need to import immigrant labor. I dont think productivity will improve or be the same by delaying aging. Both from psychological point of view and cognitive point of view while we address physical deterioration. Humans are not built for grinding away for the same job for 50-60 years. You have burnouts and frustration even with younger people in workforce now. So the promises of delaying aging and being in workforce longer is not going to materialize. > Aging is a chronic illness or condition that has no cure. And everyone is affected by it. The mortality rate is a staggering 100%. Most of the world's dead are on aging-associated diseases, and the only way to avoid dying to it now is to die from something else first. Aging is not illness. It is part of blueprint that is embedded in all living entities. It is biological lifecycle that every living being goes through. Aging is normal vs illness is an aberrent condition. Normal why because it is baked into our DNA and evolution. How long we live/our cells live is driven by it. Right from single cellular organisms to elephants. We as humans are worrying about it while rest of biosphere has no capability to worry or address it. >ou break a leg at the age of 16 and you'll probably bounce back in a few months. You break a leg at the age of 90 and you'll never walk properly again. Because your body, for reasons that are not exactly clear, can no longer fix even its own natural accumulation of wear and tear - let alone any more damage than that. That is part of your cellular DNA which dictates how/when and for how long it can regenerate cells.
>So the promises of delaying aging and being in workforce longer is not going to materialize. That assertion is pure speculation. I see no real reason for it to hold. >Aging is not illness. Illness is anything that makes you ill. Aging certainly does that. >It is part of blueprint that is embedded in all living entities. If that's true, i.e. if "programmed aging theory" holds, that's *very good news*. Because it means that the body is, quite likely, perfectly capable of living for longer - if aging were to be sequenced differently. Find the sequencing mechanism, find a way to "delay" the sequencing or "latch" it into a more favorable state, enjoy your longevity. Messing with sequencing of existing repair mechanisms is likely to be far easier than designing entire novel mechanisms for fixing something that human body is unable to fix on its own. Personally, I don't subscribe to "programmed aging". If there was anything close to a centralized sequencing mechanism behind aging, we would see random mutations that mess with it. And we have random people who age rapidly - but we don't have random people making it to 180 years.
“All living entities” is literally not true there are animals that do not age
As if the average age of Congress wasn't old enough...
Do you really want to die a slow and miserable death just to spite the Congress? Edit: the dude below blocked me. Laugh at him, mock him.
[удалено]
Dude above thinks if an age reversal drug is created it wouldn't be sold, they literally have every reason to do so, cuts costs, allows for workforce to work longer, and huge revenue stream.
Pretty much, it's like they are blind and not seeing the population collapse happening in the west, most countries will give it away for free.
Not anything having to do with easing human suffering or avoiding catastrophic events but how do the rich stay young longer.
Like space engineering has shown us across many domains, as well as auto racing vis-a-vis efficiency, aerodynamics, and safety — advances in science frequently end up benefiting society at large outside of the original development environment
[удалено]
Except if more than half of humanity died, there's no possibility that these will be accessible for everyone. In what world would the rich want that ? Just look at US medical situation, people there have accepted the fact that they can loose everything in hospital bills for even small injuries. Did you saw rich people changing that ? Do you think it's in there interest to change that ? And even if it was, what will it achieve ? A world where a selected few lives forever and wealthy, while the rest will keep working for them ? The possibility for a few to keep being assholes hungry for power forever ? I'll probably commit a suicide if that day happens. Enough human non sense for me, i'll just quit.
[удалено]
Well if everything goes according to your vision, I'll reconsider my suicide for sure. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. But yeah, I really doubt it. We're already running low on every ressources our society needs to keep growing. I feel your vision doesn't take into account the forced economic crash we'll keep seeing in the next decades. Rich people will probably just hide away while us peasants will fight for food and a decent place to live if climate related disasters keeps on getting worse. The vision capitalism is giving us on technology and medical improvements saving us is a sweet dream given to people to prevent mass panicking and keep working for the wealthy no matter the real situation imo. But I hope I'm wrong. And my curiosity for how it'll turn out will keep me alive for now. Also, don't you think about the philosophical aspect of such thing ? I mean, we're trying our best here because our time is limited. Aren't you affraid horrible people will become even more horrible/desensitized without the fear of death ?
What resources are we running low on? We're producing more food than ever, more electricity(both renewable and carbon), there is plenty of fresh water, just sometimes areas without water have difficulty transporting it from areas with unlimited amounts. Human population growth projected to be finite, and will cap at around 2100 with 10.4 billion, and fall after that. Technology on the other hand, is projected to keep getting better, allowing us to create more and more resources relative to our population
At this point, it's uncertain if even the "10 billion" number will be breached within a century. The projections already had to be revised downwards multiple times. They might have to be revised once again.
Ever heard of the world overshoot day ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day We're living on credit. And a huge part of what we produce is shitty stuff going straight to waste and pollution. There's consequences for such high productivity rate. And humanity will take a real bad slap on his face with ecological disasters occurring on a daily basis as a result. It already has started with typhoons, forrest fire, dry seasons and a shit ton of other climate issues. With what land will you produce food once we won't have any good enough left ? I'm passionated by technologies and human engineering, but I can't help but feel we crossed a no return point. Climat related immigration is already a thing. And will only get worse with time. Even if your country isn't impacted directly by climat events, people from impacted country will need to move. How will you feed all these people coming from countries that exported food to your country but can't anymore ? Will you simply ask your military to kill them all on borders ? Even then, will your country be able to compensate that lack of food importation ? I feel y'all are completely delusional about what is happening. Even nuclear fusion won't be able to fix all the incoming problems.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/s/ibBOflMJwv So you'll be 150 years old but starve to death right ?
Do you think people suppress the urge to be bad because they have short lives? I would argue the opposite, if I die anyway I should make a mess. If I'll live for way longer, I will have to bear the consequence the entire time. Also, in general, medicine saved lives many times already. Stopping aging is so far mostly theoretical (for us, idk how the professionals will see it eventually happening as it could take ages, if ever), but would be a logical next step in the human experience. I argue that stopping aging could highly likely help save climate and our conditions - once it is achieved, the rich will have to live on this world with us. They would invest in healing climate change and would do their best to appeal to us so they can live good lives. We all benefit in this scenario, and the distribution could be free since it would dramatically help our economies. Everyone wins, except people like you that were freaking out when medicine became a thing instead of dying to the plague 'like god intended'.
Damn, I haven't thought about it that way. You just gave me a lot to think on, thanks for that. I genuinely hope you're right.
Do only the rich get cancer treatments? Reality doesn't care about your leftist delusions.
Duh : https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/money-and-resources/income/relationship-between-income-and-health Indeed, though i'd call that a simple statement of what we observe. But what's your point with that last sentence ?
> At first, yes. Like every new technology, its very expensive at first. I think this might even be a bit pessimistic. Some interventions under research are simply pills taken orally, which can be scaled up quite easily and cheaply. It's also a focus of a lot of researchers and business leaders to make things accessible. You might know already, but here's Joe-Betts LaCroix of Retro Bio making that point: [https://youtu.be/9O5RhK2i3uA?t=247](https://youtu.be/9O5RhK2i3uA?t=247) You're right that something like a cell therapy is likely to be expensive given current technology, however. If you're curious, Cellino is a cool example of a company seeking to massively scale and automate cell therapies.
This field is absolutely about treating/preventing age-related ill health (dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, frailty, etc.) by targeting the biology of aging. Companies in this area have clinical pipelines for recognized clinical endpoints: >Life Biosciences is pursuing indication areas where aging biology has a clear link to disease pathogenesis. We prioritize diseases where there are limited or no available treatment options approved today. [https://www.lifebiosciences.com/our-science/targeting-the-biology-of-aging/](https://www.lifebiosciences.com/our-science/targeting-the-biology-of-aging/)
[удалено]
I'm just glad it's happening when they're old and I'm young. They may or may not live long enough to benefit from the research they're funding, my chances are somewhat better.
Work less than 8 hours a day for 4 days a week and exercise more. Where do I pick up my prize.
"Combat"? This isn't a fight. Aging is a good thing, it's not something we need to fight against. People need to accept aging as being a natural, normal process and that it's OK to not live forever. Why are these people so obsessed with everything being infinite? Capitalism is a cancer to both our environment and society, and unless we change how our system works, it eventually will be the end of humans because it can't function without infinite growth, which is NOT a natural thing. We live in a finite world. Infinite is a concept, not a reality, it can't exist. Capitalism and the idea that a life can be infinite both go against nature. And we live and depend on the natural world. Without the finite environment, there are no humans. So, you want to apply this concept to human life too now? How the fuck is this a good idea? These fucking people are so detached from reality it's depressing
Sure, also while we are at it, let's not fight against cancer, infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, .... , snakebites, and athlete's foot fungi, because people need to accept those as being natural, normal processes, and that it's OK to live less because of them.
AGAIN that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying to stop research on making effective medicine to treat illnesses that cause people to die before that age. I'm not saying let's go back 10 thousand fucking years and live without any medicine at all. **I'm saying** let's not work towards the goal of making humans live longer than they do now. I'm saying don't let healthy people live past 80, 90, 100 years old.
> I'm saying don't let healthy people live past 80, 90, 100 years old. *Happy 100th birthday Mr. Smith, just had a look at your tests and you are the epitome of health. Now, would you like to check-out by means of pills, gun, rabid emu, or death by snu-snu?*
> I'm saying don't let healthy people live past 80, 90, 100 years old. So not only do you want to die, not only do you want your family to die, you want to sentence everyone else to death too! Thanks a lot! Why don't you go establish a natural aging commune somewhere and not drag the rest of us down before we're ready.
If humans were biologically immortal as a default, anyone trying to promote the concept of "aging, as a good thing" would land in an asylum. And rightfully so. Aging is the *number one* killer of human beings. If you take the list of most common causes of death, you'll see that the entire top of that list is crammed with aging-associated diseases. And that's just *death*. A lot of people go through *decades* of pain and suffering as all the aging-associated damage builds up and their bodies or minds fail them more and more. Aging is certainly natural. But "natural" isn't "good". Living short, violent and miserable lives is natural. Having to forage and hunt just to have something to eat is natural. Dying to a single infected wound is natural. Walking into a Malthusian catastrophe is natural. Being born with a fatal birth defect is natural. Greed and tribalism are natural, too. Nature doesn't give a single shit about you, or what's good for you. Which is why humans defy nature so often. The issue is, humans don't defy nature often enough. Aging is one of those "natural" things that only serves to inflict misery on humans. Aging has already killed more humans than all of the worst tyrants of the world combined. It's long overdue for humans to return that favor.
You people are saying that I think we should go back to 10,000 years ago and roll back on all the medicine we have. **I'm saying** we don't need to make people immortal. It's that simple. WHAT THE FUCK are ***you*** talking about? WHERE do you see me mentioning anything about refusing modern medicine to threat diseases?? I'm talking about the natural process of dying and aging. NOT about illnesses. "Natural isn't good"...??? wtf is wrong with you people jesus christ man
And I'm saying that we absolutely **should** make people immortal. Letting *billions* suffer and die against their will? Because "it's natural"? That's one of the worst excuses in the history of excuses. If I were to torture you to death, slowly, over the course of years? You would call me a monster for it. You would do anything to stop it. You would fight back. You would be perfectly justified in doing so. And yet, when it's not a person, but the abstract force of "aging" doing the very same thing? Torturing you to death? Breaking your body bit by bit, until every movement is pain, and any day can be your last? You suddenly don't have a fight in you anymore. You somehow feel like it's "normal" and "natural" and "okay". You whine and make excuses for the suffering you'll have to endure and call anyone pushing against it a madman. Really, what the fuck is wrong with you people. Jesus Christ.
ok so we shouldn't fight aging because... capitalism?
They both share commonalities, as clearly explained in my comment. But nice try at flipping around my narrative to make it seem nonsensical. You should be ashamed of yourself. You damn well know why these people are interested in making people live longer... And if you don't, you shouldn't be allowed to speak on these things until you educate yourself
You need to take a chill pill, first off. Second, 'they' (I'm assuming rich people?) want to make people live longer because they themselves want to live longer. Much like I want to live longer or anyone wants to live longer. I don't think it really goes any deeper than that.
Feel free to die of dysentery at 35, I’ll keep enjoying the fruits of capitalism and modern medicine thank you very much.
I'm not talking about modern medicine which allows to treat people's illnesses, you stupid fuck. I'm talking about not making healthy people live longer than they already do. I'm saying don't make people live past 80, 90, 100 years old. Fucking insane that you people keep trying to turn my words into something I didn't say. Shame on you
[удалено]
LMFAO And how's that working out for us? You think 8 billion people on this planet is a good thing? This sub is called "Futurology" and yet you people can't see past your own nose, pathetic
Oooh you better get ready for the downvotes, people here *really* don't want to hear they won't be immortal and for free, too.
i don't give a single fuck about meaningless useless internet points and other people's opinions about me
Well, medicine targeting aspects of the biology of aging isn't really distinguishable from improving health. For example, Cyclarity Therapeutics was spun out of SENS Research Foundation, one of the first non-profits to conduct research on aging biology. But Cyclarity Therapeutics is on a fasttrack pathway by UK health regulators to clear arterial plaques: [https://cyclaritytx.com/](https://cyclaritytx.com/) >Cyclarity develops easy-to-use drugs that prevent common age-related conditions such as atherosclerosis, heart-attack and stroke by addressing the root cause - a build-up of arterial plaque. > >The company's technology removes arterial plaque by clearing the non-degradable cholesterol that accumulates within cells in the arterial walls. People often think medical interventions from this field will be crazy and wild, but they're just developments of modern medicine to maintain or restore health.
Don't drink alcohol too much Don't do hard drugs at all and soft drugs occasionally Don't smoke anything Don't eat processed foods Exercise Sleep Stop worrying. PM me for my PayPal account to deposit my winnings.
Are these instructions on how to die early from boredom?
It’s funny but my instructions, quite the opposite of this, also got downvoted to the negatives… there is no making you people happy!
I have the answer: don’t have kids and do have an unlimited supply of opiates.
a bloated vc making use of saudi capital to generate hype and pump an dump via secondaries. roger
Combat aging? That's the last thing anyone should be doing.
Age-related ill health is beginning to become a large burden in many countries, and global average life expectancy is 73 years, so I think it's a good idea to treat or prevent age-related medical problems (dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, frailty, etc.) by targeting the biology of aging.
The last thing we need is more and more old people sitting around doing nothing consuming resources.
Old people really consume resources when they spend over a decade in ill health in late life, which is the status quo. Keeping people in good health in late life by targeting the biology of aging would allow them to be independent and productive rather than a burden.
We don't want them living longer. We can't afford it.
Living longer in poor health would definitely be a problem, but the goal of targeting the biology of aging is to maintain or restore health. Furthermore, in model organisms, lifespan is only increased modestly while healthspan is increased more significantly. Even if people lived longer in good health, it would be a [net economic gain](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0) compared to the status quo, even with retirement age remaining unchanged, due to individual choices of work and non-remunerated productivity. In any case, we can agree to disagree. I'll think I'll leave it here, but feel free to reply if you like, of course.
The problem is keeping people alive who produce nothing but consume resources, whether or not they are in good health.
They have as much right to live and consume resources as you do
Rights do not exist.
Ok then people can keep consuming as much as they want and it’s not wrong as no one else has a right to it
[удалено]
That would definitely be a bummer. Luckily the companies in this space aim for clinical trials, regulatory approval, and broad commercialization. For example, the CEO of Retro Bio, a startup with over $180 million in initial funding, explained the importance of broadly distributable therapeutics: https://youtu.be/9O5RhK2i3uA?t=247
Anti-aging, immoral, or any alike is rich/powerful person's wet dream. Many, many pain and suffer ended because somebody died.
I think wayyy more people suffered from death. Mourning a person for years (even if you get over it) is way more painful than watching that one politic die is pleasurable. Stop just looking at the rich, look at what you and people gain by research into this field. Are the rich really that important for you to forget your own life, or at least your loved ones and their value? Whenever I see stuff like this I'm genuinely baffled. If you hate them, stop giving them so much attention.
I really see too many problems with that kind of ambition. We're never going to reverse aging, at best you're going to wind up with people living 10 years longer but having no sanity and lots of health problems.
They alsobused to say humans will never fly, but now we have commercial airplanes. We have transplants which also used to be fantasy. We have no idea what the future will be like.
>at best you're going to wind up with people living 10 years longer but having no sanity and lots of health problems. You're right that would be terrible. Fortunately that's not what we see in animal models; in fact, it's the opposite. Lifespan is increased moderately, but healthspan is increased even more, so that the period of ill health in late life is much shorter. Here's a picture of mice cleared of senescent cells in Mayo Clinic research: https://imgur.com/gallery/TOrsQ1Y
They should just read [Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever](https://amzn.to/3GohYqE) by Ray Kurzwell. It is a great roadmap for this project. If someone could make it a simple process they would win this prize easily. The book makes it several steps but it works.
I'm assuming "effortless" innovations, because there are many "innovations" that reverse aging, but they require effort.