That's really interesting. The lack of transparency is concerning, though. It's strange that they've made it so hard to answer the questions you raised. But as a pet owner who has sworn to never have another animal because losing them is too devastating, I'd be very interested in longevity treatments if they're ultimately proven effective.
As for the ethical issues, I don't see too many in a canine application. How much someone spends on his animals is his business alone. No one else has the right to interfere with such a personal decision because no one else has the right to the pet owner's money, which is his to spend in accordance with his values. If that means improving the quality of his life by extending his pet's, no one else has the right to interfere with that decision. What's appropriate depends on the human and animal involved *in each case.* There is no fixed answer to that. Not all of the seven cats I've had over the last 23 years would have rated kidney transplants, subtotal colectomies, and femoral head ostectomies, but some have. Now that I'm retired my financial situation would result in a different decision even for the cat who got the new kidney, but just as I have no right to insist that others spend that kind of money on their pets, no one else has the right to demand that I don't spend it on mine.
Is it unethical to allow a dog to age naturally? The existence of a product isn't necessarily a moral imperative to use it. It's never been unethical to let a pet age naturally if its aging is handled with kindness, empathy, and a sense of responsibility. People recognize that allowing and prolonging an animal's discomfort, pain, and limited mobility at some point *is* unethical, and opt for euthanasia or urge the owner to opt for it.
If a pet's life can be extended without subjecting it to more age-related discomfort and pain, and if the value of its companionship is worth more to the owner than the money, then his decision to add value to his life by using something like IGF inhibitors is rational. The whole point of money is to let us both achieve our values and preserve the things that bring value to our lives.
I’m glad you found the tech interesting – whenever biotech is on the verge of near-term impact I get quite excited - particularly because of the normally long developmental runway! Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sure many people may feel similar to you regarding losing pets; drastically increasing lifespan could be a game changer.
The sparsity of information on the drug’s mechanism of action very odd (at least to me) – it made me question if I was missing some fundamental information sources (which is possible). Furthermore, I am very skeptical of tech startups in general, there have been many frauds (e.g., Theranos, Nikola, etc). As a result, whenever there is a lack of transparency it makes my hackles rise. That being said, transparency is not the norm, even with larger reputable companies. It's certainly possible that key information is witheld for proprietary reasons, particularly in competitive fields.
On the personal front, your libertarian perspective on pet care expenditure resonates with me. I agree that it's a personal decision how one chooses to allocate resources for their pets. However, I also acknowledge a certain level of discomfort that surfaces when contemplating the ethical dimensions of such expenditures. It's a delicate balance between personal choice and moral considerations.
However, the ethics regarding pet longevity (or withholding it) are a bit less clear to me. Let's take a hypothetic scenario: imagine having a baby with a genetic disease that causes enormous amounts of suffering. Furthermore, imagine that a cure exists through a new gene editing drug, and this drug is affordable and available for you to give. In this scenario, the baby is not capable of making the decision for itself, but it would unambiguously improve it's quality of life. Do you give the baby the treatment? I think in this case it's an obvious yes, and that most people would think its some form of child abuse to withhold it. Now, let's revisit the dog longevity treatment ethics.
The ethics of not giving a dog a longevity treatment are obviously different. A normal life involves some level of suffering, particularly when we come to the end of it. I'm not sure if extending the runway of that life or reducing normal suffering we bake into the cake is an ethical imperative. However, I think there is some ambiguity that leaves me with the question. Particularly when we have competing interests, e.g., where to spend our individual resources.
I find it interesting how extremely tall humans also have a problem with a quicker degradation of their life spans. I'm not sure how the data correlates from humans to dogs but do they share a lot of the same reasons for their lower life spans that taller people do?
That's really interesting. The lack of transparency is concerning, though. It's strange that they've made it so hard to answer the questions you raised. But as a pet owner who has sworn to never have another animal because losing them is too devastating, I'd be very interested in longevity treatments if they're ultimately proven effective.
As for the ethical issues, I don't see too many in a canine application. How much someone spends on his animals is his business alone. No one else has the right to interfere with such a personal decision because no one else has the right to the pet owner's money, which is his to spend in accordance with his values. If that means improving the quality of his life by extending his pet's, no one else has the right to interfere with that decision. What's appropriate depends on the human and animal involved *in each case.* There is no fixed answer to that. Not all of the seven cats I've had over the last 23 years would have rated kidney transplants, subtotal colectomies, and femoral head ostectomies, but some have. Now that I'm retired my financial situation would result in a different decision even for the cat who got the new kidney, but just as I have no right to insist that others spend that kind of money on their pets, no one else has the right to demand that I don't spend it on mine.
Is it unethical to allow a dog to age naturally? The existence of a product isn't necessarily a moral imperative to use it. It's never been unethical to let a pet age naturally if its aging is handled with kindness, empathy, and a sense of responsibility. People recognize that allowing and prolonging an animal's discomfort, pain, and limited mobility at some point *is* unethical, and opt for euthanasia or urge the owner to opt for it.
If a pet's life can be extended without subjecting it to more age-related discomfort and pain, and if the value of its companionship is worth more to the owner than the money, then his decision to add value to his life by using something like IGF inhibitors is rational. The whole point of money is to let us both achieve our values and preserve the things that bring value to our lives.
I’m glad you found the tech interesting – whenever biotech is on the verge of near-term impact I get quite excited - particularly because of the normally long developmental runway! Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sure many people may feel similar to you regarding losing pets; drastically increasing lifespan could be a game changer.
The sparsity of information on the drug’s mechanism of action very odd (at least to me) – it made me question if I was missing some fundamental information sources (which is possible). Furthermore, I am very skeptical of tech startups in general, there have been many frauds (e.g., Theranos, Nikola, etc). As a result, whenever there is a lack of transparency it makes my hackles rise. That being said, transparency is not the norm, even with larger reputable companies. It's certainly possible that key information is witheld for proprietary reasons, particularly in competitive fields.
On the personal front, your libertarian perspective on pet care expenditure resonates with me. I agree that it's a personal decision how one chooses to allocate resources for their pets. However, I also acknowledge a certain level of discomfort that surfaces when contemplating the ethical dimensions of such expenditures. It's a delicate balance between personal choice and moral considerations.
However, the ethics regarding pet longevity (or withholding it) are a bit less clear to me. Let's take a hypothetic scenario: imagine having a baby with a genetic disease that causes enormous amounts of suffering. Furthermore, imagine that a cure exists through a new gene editing drug, and this drug is affordable and available for you to give. In this scenario, the baby is not capable of making the decision for itself, but it would unambiguously improve it's quality of life. Do you give the baby the treatment? I think in this case it's an obvious yes, and that most people would think its some form of child abuse to withhold it. Now, let's revisit the dog longevity treatment ethics.
The ethics of not giving a dog a longevity treatment are obviously different. A normal life involves some level of suffering, particularly when we come to the end of it. I'm not sure if extending the runway of that life or reducing normal suffering we bake into the cake is an ethical imperative. However, I think there is some ambiguity that leaves me with the question. Particularly when we have competing interests, e.g., where to spend our individual resources.
I find it interesting how extremely tall humans also have a problem with a quicker degradation of their life spans. I'm not sure how the data correlates from humans to dogs but do they share a lot of the same reasons for their lower life spans that taller people do?
Interesting question. I did a quick search to see if there is a correlation with lifespan and height in humans, it looks like the answer is yes. Similar to the dogs, it looks like shorter humans tend to live a bit longer. I'm not sure what the mechanism is here, but my guess would be this is metabolically related. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320502025031?casa_token=5Y2UzGdCzX4AAAAA:N_ZFoIDfk0or24fTlQnQnhCDECSKSD5KKFws7ZO9ZFugqN73yE9aI_8feW0yluE6jpc8VJ15#FIG1