World News

age1 VC Alex Colville says longevity field isn’t just for ‘rich old billionaires trying to live forever”

[ad_1]

Alex Colville had just completed his PhD in genetics at Stanford when he met Laura Deming, the wunderkind who dropped out of MIT at 16 and launched The Longevity Fund.

At an age when most teenagers already believe they’ll live forever, Deming started a first-of-its-kind venture firm in 2011 to invest in revolutionary technologies that would attempt, at least, to prolong life. At the time, Deming was calling the scientific potential to slow the progression of time on the human body an “almost inconceivable notion,” “an almost terrifying truth.”

Now, Colville, 30, and Deming, 29, are teaming up to try to push the technology even closer to reality, launching The Longevity Fund’s next generation: a new venture fund called age1. The firm, which started as an accelerator with backing from Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen in 2018, held an initial closing for $35 million targeting companies attempting to crack the code for extending human lifespans.

Colville insists his generation is bringing a new attitude and a broader scope for impending breakthroughs in the world of aging research.

“This isn’t just a field that is carried on by rich, old billionaires trying to live forever,” Colville, who earned his PhD at Stanford, said in a recent interview. “There really is a very large contingent of younger folks who realize the true potential this field has to benefit all of us – to keep all of us healthier longer, and to give us the agency to choose how long we have to live in good health.”

Q: Life expectancy has already increased dramatically over the past generations. Why do we want to keep extending it?

A: If we look back at the past 100 years of medicine and technological advancements, the advent of antibiotics, wastewater treatment, sewage, we’ve had so many technological advances that have given us these tremendous increases in average lifespan of the population…Not too many people complain about the option to be able to stay healthier longer, and I think that’s really the biggest focus of why to continue to work to expand that.

Q: Longer living, though, also means more suffering, more financial burdens on society. What about that?

A: If you look at the U.S. today and worldwide, the amount of health expenditure that we have that goes to chronic age-related diseases is astronomical, let alone the actual burden it places on caregivers and on families. So the question of ‘why to keep going’ –  it’s because these problems still exist. And as our population gets older and older, and as we experience this birth rate collapse, this is just going to continue to increase in terms of priority.

Q: What kinds of companies or research is your firm investing in to solve some of these problems?

[ad_2]

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button