I think the idea is that lots of money is spent on treating diseases caused by aging, but little is spent on preventing aging in the first place. So I don’t see a contradiction.
The ‘symptomatic vs curative’ distinction might take care of this apparent contradiction—those trillions of dollars are going towards the former (i.e. the diseases and disabilities of aging), while a vanishingly small fraction in comparison goes towards the latter (e.g. senescence research).
seems to contradict
I think the idea is that lots of money is spent on treating diseases caused by aging, but little is spent on preventing aging in the first place. So I don’t see a contradiction.
Ah ok so if one did not age (or age more slowly) then the likelihood of these diseases would decrease. Thanks for clarifying.
It’s as if trillions of dollars per year were spent on firefighting but only millions of dollars per year were spent on fire prevention.
The ‘symptomatic vs curative’ distinction might take care of this apparent contradiction—those trillions of dollars are going towards the former (i.e. the diseases and disabilities of aging), while a vanishingly small fraction in comparison goes towards the latter (e.g. senescence research).