Here is an article recently published in “Rejuvenation
Research” that argues that historically many practical therapies originated in
aging and life extension research. Even though the results were yet far from
significantly ameliorating aging (the initial purpose), at least they were
tangible and in many cases contingently beneficial.
I personally believe that we will eventually get more
support in the long run from “the poor”
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:02 PM, email@example.com wrote:
I realize the conversation turned to venture capital, but it sounds like you are going for some kind of non-profit donor organization…
From my perspective it seems that “measuring” biological aging would be important, and developing the right biomarkers. This recent article about identifying “Gerontogens” or environmental factors contributing to aging would be useful as a way to justify the effectiveness of therapies or lifestyle changes.
Comparative biology is also inspiring. Why does one type of jelly fish live 100 years and another 5? It captures the imagination. What could things be?
I hope those few thoughts help.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:51 AM, David Gobel wrote:
Focus on regenerative medicine. New parts for people. This is within their imagination space. This in addition to its obvious clinical relevance is why MF is focusing on tissue engineering. If I were advising SENS I would recommend they invent and popularize a term such as nano-surgery. Surgery at the cellular level. Words matter – nano is cool and really really tiny, and everyone knows what surgery is. No need to explain anything.
Sample Cocktail Conversation “oh sure – macroscopic surgery is sooo yesterday, we’re supporting nanosurgery so individual cells can be repaired before they cause larger scale damage – it’s silly to wait till a whole organ needs fixing – duh!”
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Liz Parrish wrote:
Venture is a tricky business in longevity due to profit margin needs and aging (degenerative pathologies of aging) not yet being considered a disease. Private investors who funded in the past are shy to fund again because they did not see anything from past giving. We are stepping into a new era. This is the quiet before the storm.
On Jun 1, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Reason wrote:
On 06/01/2014 07:49 PM, Liz Parrish wrote:
Reason, I am always uncertain about your reasoning and goals, why do you call people sheep? Why would you want to extend your life if you feel that you are surrounded by mindless people? What the general population lacks is education and a hand up to knowledge. What they don’t lack is abuse and insults.We don’t need to nickel and dime the poor, we need big private investors to come forward for equity positions. We will build the super computer and everyone will get a laptop,
The sheep comment was in reference to big private investors. It is apt. The dominant characteristic of venture and philanthropic funding circles is unwillingness to step out of the crowd. People with intent to fund will fund whatever other people at their level are funding, and little else. Which is why big philanthropy has long been a desert of only marginal progress towards real solutions, and why venture funding produces clusters and cycles of copycat incrementalism far more often than it funds great leaps forward.
Venture is a tricky business due to profit margin needs and I find that those private investors who funding in the past are shy to fund because they did not see anything from past giving.