20 replies to this topic

[Italian Ufo]

This is huge. Although I am not entirely sure this is as good as everyone may think it is. There's one major question - , how about some specifics? What kind of research will Calico conduct? Who are the experts on the biology of aging who is going to participate on it? Will there be any at all? What is the overall plan to achieve the announced goal? Really, no official website. small investments?
All these things make me think a little bit...

Life extension is the most complicated task there is. I seriously doubt that the solution will be just one commercial product of one commercial company. There has to be a lot of fundamental research. Perhaps with the same scale of the Human Genome project, or even larger. Does Google have this in mind? Why they can't be anymore clear?

I hope we will get the answers to these questions soon. Obviously Google has made a huge step towards making the topic popular and acceptable. Basically Google backed the field with their credibility, which is totally great, but let's see if there will be practical results too.

 

Please let me know what you think of this.

 

 

 

 

P.S  Can everyone like this link?  https://www.facebook.com/googlecalico

[Brohanne Jahms]

My biggest concern is if they're successful and manage to increase human life to some degree, will their methods be patented? How will they market it? They're essentially tapping into the holy grail and are going to run into a huge amount of power if they're successful. How will they use this power? To the benefit of everyone or to turn over a huge profit for themselves and their shareholders to secure their place on top of the heap?

[Italian Ufo]

My biggest concern is if they're successful and manage to increase human life to some degree, will their methods be patented? How will they market it? They're essentially tapping into the holy grail and are going to run into a huge amount of power if they're successful. How will they use this power? To the benefit of everyone or to turn over a huge profit for themselves and their shareholders to secure their place on top of the heap?

 

I am going to post this on their profile. if you don't mind.

Edited by Italian Ufo, 21 September 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Brohanne Jahms]

Nope, not at all. Let me know if it gets a response though or if they reveal any information pertaining to the topic.

[Italian Ufo]

Nope, not at all. Let me know if it gets a response though or if they reveal any information pertaining to the topic.

 

 

Thank you!

[Thaizasaskand]

I wondered that too. I'm sure that such information shall be disclosed later.

Edited by Thaizasaskand, 21 September 2013 - 12:49 PM.

[SG-1]

I'm pretty sure that fb page is not official

[Squillimy]

We all knew this was coming. Anti-aging & advanced health (i.e. the age of transhumanism) in the hands of companies. Even if they were to "give away" their findings (obviously won't happen), then it'd still cost money to implement treatments, and you'd still have to go to your local doctor via your health plan in order to get them. If they are just, say, pills you take, then you'd still need to go to a pharmacist to buy them; as the pharmacists need to create the pills in the first place.

 

One way or another, we're going to have to pay for this. Possibly not in the far future, but as it first comes out we will.

 

I wonder, will certain politicians still be against general healthcare for all when said healthcare begins to cure AGING!?. Ofcourse not. They will be against the technology itself. They'll begin raising "ethical" questions. They'll ignorantly and wrongfully find quotes in the Bible whose meaning can be manipulated for their specific situation (and changed for another). And of course, they'll cry out "it'll cause over population", when all of us educated people here know that as living situations improve, population growth slows down. They will compromise by saying "We should have health care for all, but only if that healthcare does not involve anti-aging, as we'd have to continue giving care to the elderly as opposed to the young"

 

Obviously so many people haven't gotten the memo for the last few-thousand-years: It is impossible to stop technological progress. So you can keep trying, and fail, or you can sit back and watch the show.

 

The ironic thing is that the same politicians that protest this will have their private doctors giving them treatments in the basement.

Edited by Squillimy, 21 September 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[Lily]

^ Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic pertaining to your own chances of getting anti-aging treatments? How long will insurances and local health plans prevent us from benefitting from the newest treatments?

 

I'ts one of my biggest concerns. Maybe, we will have the technology in my lifetime, but I won't be able to afford it. That's...scary. You'd die knowing it to be preventable if you just had more money.

[José Andrade]

With over population or not, age is a disease and if we have a cure they can't prohibit.

 

I also have that concern, we will most likely live to see an age treatment, the only IF is if we can afford it before we die. Personally, at the time, if i don't have the money for it i will plan an assault and either i succeed and can have the treatment or i die / kill my self if i am about to get caught.

 

F**k, if i survive to diseases, "destiny", accidents, etc it's not money that will stop me to live forever / much longer.

[Squillimy]

^ Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic pertaining to your own chances of getting anti-aging treatments? How long will insurances and local health plans prevent us from benefitting from the newest treatments?

 

I'ts one of my biggest concerns. Maybe, we will have the technology in my lifetime, but I won't be able to afford it. That's...scary. You'd die knowing it to be preventable if you just had more money.

 

I'm quite optomistic. I'm very young and healthy and the technology is growing fast. I'm also pretty positive I have enough money in order to receive treatment. As bad (or narcissistic) as that sounds, it's just the reality of the situation.

 

Insurance companies and health plans will prevent many people from receving treatment, and this will be an issue of the near future. If people are living longer, then they have to constantly get treatment, services, and be insured longer. This technology will be expensive at first, such as curing or treating cancer. It follows the issue of why should I have to pay more taxes for people to live longer & older people to have healthcare, when I myself have enough money for private insurance and/or I am young and healthy! It's selfish, but is it not true? That is why politicians will vote against it; they will claim it's because of the ethical issues, but it's because of the financial ones.

 

Don't fret though, as time goes on technology gets cheaper and cheaper, and hopefully we'll live to see the day when anti-aging is as easy as getting a flu-shot. But don't think for a second that I would not gladly vote to & pay additional taxes so people that I don't know can live longer and happier lives!

Edited by Squillimy, 21 September 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[Lily]

Can't help but say you're lucky to be in this position, and I guess I am lucky, too, because while I might not have enough money to cover for such health expenses, by living in a "first world" country, my chances of profiting from medical advancements and receiving treatments are much higher than for people living in conditions far worse. If you've been struggling with your health for basically your whole life (I'm young, but that doesn't mean I get smooth sailing just because of that), you begin to attribute a very high value to health and health matters. In some ways, it can become an obsession, I guess.

 

For many people, especially if they're young, health is kind of a non-issue, but I don't think that should stop people from thinking about their future.

 

 

 

 It follows the issue of why should I have to pay more taxes for people to live longer & older people to have healthcare, when I myself have enough money for private insurance and/or I am young and healthy!

 

I can't help but feel this is an American point of view. I mean, we get that here in Germany too, the question of why one should pay to support others, but in general, this is just how our system works. Growing up here and used to having health care like we have, it's sometimes hard to relate to this way of thinking. What they teach us at a very young age is that you being young won't last forever (and this still holds true - we'll see for how long ). One day, you will grow old and you will be more susceptible to age-related conditions, and then you will need support, too. Basically, it's sort of paying in advance, I guess.

 

Problem is, this calls for a certain standard of medical care. And often enough, this standard is kept at its current level because it works and is affordable for the whole system. People get used to it. Innovations? Too expensive. That way, progress is slow, and often frowned at. It's sort of a "do we really need that new techy stuff" kind of mentality I've encountered, in both young and old alike.

[UFG]

Longevity is chiefly, a personal concern. Promoting healthy living and developing treatments to extend a healthy, youthful feeling life is a benefit for society. It would actually reduce the financial burden inherent in health care. Even by living longer lives, the medical costs associated with that should lower with better health. Of course other realities present themselves, such as longer productive, working lives and a longer wait for retirement. Perhaps fertility would be common in women at much older ages as well, extending the child bearing years. 

 

Even so, It will be down the line when these factors are realized and I suspect that longevity health care will be treated as a personal matter for years yet and the financial responsibilities too.

Edited by UFG, 21 September 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[Italian Ufo]

I'm pretty sure that fb page is not official

 

it is...they give presents away

[Saradus]

Unfortunately I have to agree with SG-1, after seeing some of the posts that fb group has been making, it's obviously not official. There's so many spelling and grammar mistakes in the posts. Plus although they claim to be giving prizes away I don't think they actually are. They didn't name any winners (except for the 200th like but that's cause they didn't say there was a prize for 200th like).

[SG-1]

They say "google's" new company calico. They aren't referring to it as their own, and if it was official they'd have at least 200 likes. They never give out prizes because there aren't enough people to like it anyway.

[Italian Ufo]

You are right guys!

[Saradus]

You are right guys!

 

Hopefully google will create a social presence for Calico sometime in the near future

[Raklian]

Here's what Aubrey de Grey thinks about Google's Calico enterprise

 

 

http://ideas.time.co...-truly-begun-2/

[Yuli Ban]

SO where's the discussions about class differences?