A lot of very intelligent people notwithstanding, the burden of proof is still on those who claim that the first person to live for a thousand years is sixty years old today. Even De Grey is sensible enough to realize that he's going to have to show some pretty remarkable results in mice before efforts to combat aging get serious amounts of funding.
Very true - we do have a long way to go. And I am pretty sceptical of that "is sixty years old today" claim myself - that's a pretty short window.
But "significant investments wouldn't likely help much"? I rather think they would, actually. There is a lot of research to be done, a lot we need to know. This is going to take significant investment; it is hard to think of any comparable research project that hasn't.
This guy, Felix Dennis, is over 60 now. He's worth somewhere north of half a billion. What else does he plan to use the money for? He even says, and I quote:
"Could you turn the clock back for me by forty years, I would willingly swap you every penny and every possession I own in return. And I would have the better of the bargain, too!"
If he believes that, then why not at least throw the dice on aging research? Just 20% of his (largely unnecessary) loot would have an unimaginable effect on the project. Especially if he could shame other rich old coots to match him. And who knows, they might find something quickly enough to give him his extra life. As opposed to doing nothing, that is, and all those zeroes in his bank balance being transferred directly to Her Majesty's Finest the moment he predictably keels over. Why not try and throw a spanner in the works? Mix things up a bit? See what the judicious application of Amount of Funds A to Promising Line of Enquiry B can come up with?
Maybe I lack the perspective of being a grizzly rich old goat but geeze, with their own lives on the table you'd think they would find more productive uses of their money than paintings and bonds. Where altruism fails, naked self-interest should start kicking in. Why isn't it?
Why do you think that pouring half a billion dollars into anti-aging research would give a good chance of accomplishing something in that field?
Spending tons of money guarantees only one thing -- spending money.
If there were promising results in anti-aging research -- savvy investors would be heavily investing into that field.
But they don't, because savvy investors understand that it's not practical at this point, even considering HUGE demand for anti-aging technology.
Tell me why you're not just another dude with a cause who wants to tell other people how to spend their money, because that's what you sound like. Not to be combative, and I want to live for a thousand years as much as the next guy, but this is why I lean libertarian. My naked self interest is my naked self interest.
I'm not telling others how to spend their money, I'm wondering aloud why they don't do what seems to be best for them. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
If your net worth ran into the hundreds of millions and you'd expressed the heartfelt desire to live longer, as Mr. Felix has, then upon noticing you hadn't taken any action in furtherance of that desire I'd suggest your investment in life extension research, too. But it's just a suggestion, of course.
That said, sometimes compulsion is reasonable. I would not argue with tax money going towards SENS research. A better use than guns and foreign bases, certainly.
maybe because they don't know about it. Not many people have heard about the ageing research and I think the project would gain a lot of funding if they started raising awareness by targeted advertising and marketing.
