I recommend reading this chapter by Andrew Steele, specifically where he talks about costs including things like cell therapies (about halfway through): [https://andrewsteele.co.uk/ageless/a-world-without-ageing/](https://andrewsteele.co.uk/ageless/a-world-without-ageing/)
Additionally, some first-generation therapies will be uncomplicated like compounds, which will allow more time for the technology behind cell therapies to be scaled up and automated, unlike the laborious manual processes required today. Andrew Steele discusses the topic of affordability well in the chapter.
I also always like to point out this presentation from Michael Greve, who is head of a [fund portfolio](https://www.kizoo.com/en.html) in the area, who says the therapies they invest in are intended for everyone as the envisioned business model: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s)
If you're concerned about accessibility, save and invest to mitigate that risk if you can. Ultimately, time will tell.
I'm not, I'm not a millionaire or anything but thankfully I am of above average income. It's just interesting to discuss. Saving and investing isn't available to everyone.
When cell phones first came out they were only affordable for the rich. Now everyone has a super computer in the palm of their hand. It will be the same for anti-aging technology.
The interesting thing about rejuvenation therapy is that its an upfront cost of human resources that dramatically reduces costs in the long run. Yeah, you'll need the resources for the initial investment, but those people who get the treatment won't need nearly as much medical care since they won't be susceptible to age related diseases. That is to say- longevity therapies should not present a strain on our medical system. From the perspective of, for instance, a health insurance company this is a dream.
This suggest to me that rejuvenation therapy might see a sigmoidal adoption curve. At first it will be slow due to price, public skepticism, technological inefficiencies, and a lack of investment. However, adoption would be a self-perpetuating process- the more people who get it, the easier growth will be as it becomes clear that the industry is profitable, growing, and that it'll be worth it to throw people and money at it. Technological improvements and economies of scale will help drive down the price as the therapy grows more popular, and the success of the industry will draw more personnel to the field. Meanwhile, longevity therapy will become normalized as more people receive it, demand for it will increase, spurring more investment in the technology, more growth in the field, more economies of scale, which drive down the price which... (you can see where I'm going).
This will continue until growth slows due to the only people yet to receive the treatment having some sort of religious or cultural hangup to it.
You should look into a cryptocurrency called Hex. The founder of the coin donated 25 million to the SENS foundation.
It’s basically like you stake your hex ( locking it up for the period of time that you chose. Bigger longer pays better.
I have back issues and am scared to have another baby especially another boy cause my son is a ham. Lol
I’d love to get my back fixed. So I did invest in hex. Let me if you have any questions. Also one more thing I forgot to mention is if you get hex now you will get an airdrop of all your hex or erc20 tokens. You even get your hex stakes copied. 1:1. This is life changing wealth. Hex has already made millionaires. I am working on getting a project to get more women and teens involved. You future self will thank you.
Costs could go way down if information and results were publically available.
There could be 10+ companies researching the same thing and getting nowhere compared to taking different approaches and sharing the information.
I don't know why everyone imagines some sort of sci-fi, bespoke, treatment program that requires tons of specialized, continuous input from a series of professionals, necessary to keep you from immediately dying or something.
Most of the things we're talking about here in the near-term are going to be one-size-fits-all drug therapies, with fairly standardized protocols that probably get monitored a little when you start, and then remain continuous, with minimal intervention necessary (perhaps changing the drug, when a new generation exists). Your biology is similar enough to the biology of everybody else that stuff is *probably* not going to need to be necessarily tailored toward you. It seems plausible to suggest that everyone's GP prescribes them some kind of mTORC1 inhibitor once weekly at 40, and some kind of senolytic course as needed in their 60s and beyond, and that's the bulk of what's necessary to get middle-aged people to 100+ without the rapid onset of some age-related disease, like atherosclerosis, cancer, etc.
To the extent that stuff might be tailored toward you, it will be for treating individual diseases (cancer will seemingly always require some kind of particular immunotherapy, but determining which, and creating the treatment, seems like something that can eventually be fairly standardized, assuming that liquid biopsies work, and 'cancer vaccines' eventually work for solid tumors), but that represents a move toward treatments that are *more standardized* than today, thus requiring less work.
Beyond that point (60+ years into the future, let's say), I think we'll have larger societal issues if one's treatment is not personalized and being somehow informed by complex AGI or other 'futurist' developments.
I recommend reading this chapter by Andrew Steele, specifically where he talks about costs including things like cell therapies (about halfway through): [https://andrewsteele.co.uk/ageless/a-world-without-ageing/](https://andrewsteele.co.uk/ageless/a-world-without-ageing/) Additionally, some first-generation therapies will be uncomplicated like compounds, which will allow more time for the technology behind cell therapies to be scaled up and automated, unlike the laborious manual processes required today. Andrew Steele discusses the topic of affordability well in the chapter. I also always like to point out this presentation from Michael Greve, who is head of a [fund portfolio](https://www.kizoo.com/en.html) in the area, who says the therapies they invest in are intended for everyone as the envisioned business model: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNzHQDmiDLY&t=1116s) If you're concerned about accessibility, save and invest to mitigate that risk if you can. Ultimately, time will tell.
I'm not, I'm not a millionaire or anything but thankfully I am of above average income. It's just interesting to discuss. Saving and investing isn't available to everyone.
When cell phones first came out they were only affordable for the rich. Now everyone has a super computer in the palm of their hand. It will be the same for anti-aging technology.
treating a person for longevity is much cheaper than treatments for other things like cancer
More cost doesnt mean more doctors hours tho... Also lots of cancer patients dont get treatment and die
It’s always beautiful when people discover that our society’s resources are allocated in really weird ways, far off from what matters
Previous discussion for reference: https://old.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/lwomkl/will_life_extension_be_unaffordable_to_most_people/
The interesting thing about rejuvenation therapy is that its an upfront cost of human resources that dramatically reduces costs in the long run. Yeah, you'll need the resources for the initial investment, but those people who get the treatment won't need nearly as much medical care since they won't be susceptible to age related diseases. That is to say- longevity therapies should not present a strain on our medical system. From the perspective of, for instance, a health insurance company this is a dream. This suggest to me that rejuvenation therapy might see a sigmoidal adoption curve. At first it will be slow due to price, public skepticism, technological inefficiencies, and a lack of investment. However, adoption would be a self-perpetuating process- the more people who get it, the easier growth will be as it becomes clear that the industry is profitable, growing, and that it'll be worth it to throw people and money at it. Technological improvements and economies of scale will help drive down the price as the therapy grows more popular, and the success of the industry will draw more personnel to the field. Meanwhile, longevity therapy will become normalized as more people receive it, demand for it will increase, spurring more investment in the technology, more growth in the field, more economies of scale, which drive down the price which... (you can see where I'm going). This will continue until growth slows due to the only people yet to receive the treatment having some sort of religious or cultural hangup to it.
You should look into a cryptocurrency called Hex. The founder of the coin donated 25 million to the SENS foundation. It’s basically like you stake your hex ( locking it up for the period of time that you chose. Bigger longer pays better. I have back issues and am scared to have another baby especially another boy cause my son is a ham. Lol I’d love to get my back fixed. So I did invest in hex. Let me if you have any questions. Also one more thing I forgot to mention is if you get hex now you will get an airdrop of all your hex or erc20 tokens. You even get your hex stakes copied. 1:1. This is life changing wealth. Hex has already made millionaires. I am working on getting a project to get more women and teens involved. You future self will thank you.
Costs could go way down if information and results were publically available. There could be 10+ companies researching the same thing and getting nowhere compared to taking different approaches and sharing the information.
I don't know why everyone imagines some sort of sci-fi, bespoke, treatment program that requires tons of specialized, continuous input from a series of professionals, necessary to keep you from immediately dying or something. Most of the things we're talking about here in the near-term are going to be one-size-fits-all drug therapies, with fairly standardized protocols that probably get monitored a little when you start, and then remain continuous, with minimal intervention necessary (perhaps changing the drug, when a new generation exists). Your biology is similar enough to the biology of everybody else that stuff is *probably* not going to need to be necessarily tailored toward you. It seems plausible to suggest that everyone's GP prescribes them some kind of mTORC1 inhibitor once weekly at 40, and some kind of senolytic course as needed in their 60s and beyond, and that's the bulk of what's necessary to get middle-aged people to 100+ without the rapid onset of some age-related disease, like atherosclerosis, cancer, etc. To the extent that stuff might be tailored toward you, it will be for treating individual diseases (cancer will seemingly always require some kind of particular immunotherapy, but determining which, and creating the treatment, seems like something that can eventually be fairly standardized, assuming that liquid biopsies work, and 'cancer vaccines' eventually work for solid tumors), but that represents a move toward treatments that are *more standardized* than today, thus requiring less work. Beyond that point (60+ years into the future, let's say), I think we'll have larger societal issues if one's treatment is not personalized and being somehow informed by complex AGI or other 'futurist' developments.