>Robert wrote:
>When I do this analysis, I am forced to conclude that Natasha Vita-More
>is absolutely correct. The boldest endeavors of the greatest value
>would push issues of lifespan extension and technology for that
>into the daily discussions of every person on the planet.
> Fortune (March 27, 2000, pg 226), points
>out that of the ~$35 Billion in VC that was invested in 1999,
>the rankings related to health were: Health-care services(8th),
>Medical devices (10th), Biotechnology(11th), and Pharmaceuticals
>(17th; last). Pharmaceuticals received less money in 1999 than
>it did in 1997. All of the health categories *combined* got less
>funding than any of the top 5 catagories.
>
As you point out, Robert, huge sums of money are already being diverted to
health and longevity issues. In fact the desire for longevity is so obvious
and the profits so sure, that it doesn't seem to me that anything other
than the market is needed to make it happen. Do you feel that the
marketplace is not going to provide the advances needed, and do you feel
that a NGO could assign money to the correct labs that the market is not
going to fund?
I am not suggesting that health and longevity is not the highest priority;
only that it is a priority already being served ( not perfectly) by
investments. But there are other endeavors that are not being and won't be
served by the market. These are the leverage points.
--kk
_______________________________________________________________________________
Kevin Kelly kevin@wired.com Editor-At-Large, Wired magazine
149 Amapola Ave, Pacifica, CA 94044 USA www.well.com/user/kk
+1-415-276-5211 vox +1-650-355-3660 home +1-650-359-9701 fax
My book NEW RULES FOR THE NEW ECONOMY is available from
Amazon.com. The full text of my first book OUT OF CONTROL
can be found at http://www.well.com/user/kk/OutOfControl/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:41 MDT