On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: CurtAdams@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 3/25/00 21:11:18, <somebody, maybe Zero> wrote:
> >
> > >But the only way to get funding for such research
> > >is to convince people that there money is better spent there than
> > >somewhere else. I just think we're going to have a heck of a time
> > >convincing people of that as long as there are things to spend money on
> > >like feeding, healing and improving the standard of living of the 6
> > >billion people we already share this planet with.
> >
No, there are two reasons anti-aging research "sell" works.
1) Its in your personal self interest, in contrast to, feeding or
econ-lifting people you have never even met. Even if you personally
don't want to live 1000 years, any relatively rational parent would
love their children to grow up in a world where they do not undergo
the ravages of aging.
2) Its the right thing to do. Investors who are relatively well off,
can and do make decisions based on investments that have moral value
to them. Witness the anti-tobacco or pro-environmental investing camps.
> >I don't think there's any such problem. We spend billions on research for
> >diseases like Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, and prostate cancer, where the
> >result will only benefit old people in rich countries.
We also spend billions on AIDS research, which, if we ever get a vaccine
will help people in third world countries much more than it helps us.
> >Much less gets spent on research for 3rd world food production.
Precisely, because production *isn't* the problem. Economic development,
education and opportunities are. There is a wealth of information about
this at The Hunger Project (www.thp.org). I've personally helped support
their efforts for almost 20 years, to the tune of tens of thousands of
dollars. IMO, they are one of the most effective organisations working
in this area.
> >I don't see why
> >attitudes would be substantially different about longevity research, a
> >new way of benefitting old people in rich countries.
Because ultimately, what you want is an anti-aging "vaccine".
That is a difficult problem but potentially feasible. Then
it would be available to anyone whether rich or poor. And
simple compound interest allows the poor to become rich over
time (relative to their survival requirements).
>
> I was replying to a message which suggested supporting longevity research as
> something that would benefit the rich first, then trickle down to mere
> mortals later.
I doubt it would develop entirely in this way. I think there will
be some technologies that are likely to remain expensive and some
that will be quite cheap. For example, replacing an organ that
requires a human surgeon is probably going to be expensive. But
volume production of a small molecule that reverses protein
glycosylation is likely to make that drug quite cheap. And of course
vaccines are relatively cheap due to the quantities manufactured.
The interesting thing about most genomics research is that
things like stem cells, gene therapies, etc. when finally
developed into workable technologies do not *have* to be
expensive. After you get some reasonable ROI on the R&D,
and constructing the factories, the cost of producing the
therapies is of the order of the cost of the sugar to
produce the cells, viruses, molecules, etc. required. If the
governments fund the R&D and don't hand it off completely
to the universities and industry where there is a profit agenda,
then the therapies may be very inexpensive to provide. This model
has been successfully used in the past with many vaccines.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:28 MDT