> There is not enough funding or investment in longevity to consider it over-hyped. Compare it to, say, AI and VR. Or even meat substitutes.
You're very much mistaken.
The National Institute of Health gets $31B of government funds every year for research. The NSF gets $8B, NASA gets $20B, and DARPA gets around $3B. So healthcare research gets roughly 50% of the entire U.S. public research budget, and that's not including private investment.
It's difficult to pull accurate numbers, but meat substitutes, VR, and even super-hot AI get far less every year, it's nowhere near healthcare research.
Extending life has been a priority of the US government for many years, largely because it's politically popular. Everyone rich or poor wants to live longer.
That is "traditonal" healthcare, where the target age is 70-80ish, with basically no means to get past that.
This is very different from what longevity research (like in the article) is tackling, and almost non of that money (public or private) is invested there.
> That is "traditonal" healthcare, where the target age is 70-80ish, with basically no means to get past that. This is very different from what longevity research (like in the article) is tackling...
If you're searching for a cure for cancer, heart failure, or any of fatal health ailment, you are by definition trying to extend people's lives. The entire purpose of healthcare is to extend both the length and quality of people's lives.
