How could tiny breakthroughs in aging science change U.S. GDP and population growth?
What’s the economic value of making 41 the new 40, or 65 the new 60?
How many lives could we create or save if we could slow reproductive or brain aging by just 1 year? What would billions of healthier hours be worth to the economy, if we assume no change in the age of retirement?
I spent the last two years obsessing over the design, research, and execution of this project. The result is a book upcoming with Harvard University Press, a preprint, and—maybe your favorite part—an interactive simulation tool that lets you input your own timelines and assumptions for specific breakthroughs in aging bio, then see the ROI in terms of US population & GDP growth.
From @RickEcon and Jason DeBacker—the economists who co-developed the open-source, macro model that made this project possible—to extensive comments by @tylercowen, @sapinker, Richard Freeman, @NDHendrix, @ebudish, @elidourado, @geochurch, @jasoncrawford as well as interviews with 102 scientists (!) and countless iterations with award-winning designer Giorgia Lupi and the @pentagram team, we built something we hope will be a benchmark for how scientists, economists, designers, philosophers, entrepreneurs and storytellers can come together to paint, fund, and build different flourishing futures for our species.
I couldn’t be more excited to share this. It’s the start of an open and evolving project—the labor and product of love, obsession, and unrelenting care.
I hope you have fun playing with our simulation tool — and if you do, please share!
Friendly advice for my startup founder friends:
When coming up with your positioning, solve for your customers and your market -- not for investors and media.
Example:
I see a ton of startups that are positioning themselves as "AI-first" products. But when every startup is calling itself AI-first, nobody is really getting much value from that label.
Think back on when we had the smart phone come out. Back then, a bunch of companies said they were "mobile first". Most of them failed to take off, because it was unclear what value being "mobile first" was creating for their customers.
So, when describing who you are and what you do, frame it from the perspective of your customers. How does what you do translate into value for them?
Let's say you were building a back-office system that reviewed every vendor contract a company signs looking out for deviations from company policy. It runs quietly in the background until it needs to raise an alert.
You could approach this in two ways:
1) We have an AI-first vendor contract review product. We use the most advanced AI models to read through every contract...blah...blah...blah.
2) We have the smartest vendor contract review system you'll *never* see. It uses AI to dissect every document, watch your back and protect your business.
See the difference?
Help your customers understand what you do for them. If you get that right, you'll have addressed investors too. Trust me, investors don't know what "AI-first" really means either. I say that as an indie investor that's invested in 150+ startups.
These are fun and exciting times to be building. Best wishes!
Congratulations to our partners at Voyager on closing their $275M Fund II.
Generate is being built alongside a portfolio shaping the next era of foundational technologies — electrification, advanced manufacturing, and AI applied to the physical world.
Time to build.
@sierrap@sclarsic@VoyagerVC
100%.
Boston has produced an extraordinary amount of CAD talent and companies. We’re building a generative CAD platform for construction here and are just beginning to tap into the depth of people and institutional knowledge in the ecosystem.
Would love to contribute however I can to help ensure Boston wins in tech.
@bhalligan@rywalker Agree on Boston’s strengths.
Construction technology could be a real differentiator here, given the market size, strong CS and mechanical engineering talent, and New England’s density of progressive firms and builders.