|
|
|
|
|
|
by jariel
2150 days ago
|
|
|
"Hair loss is on the precipice of being effectively solved " They have been saying this for 50 years. Even the technology we use today is sketchy. "Skin is also a largely solved problem: " This is ridiculously false. >70% of women do many or most of those things, and they still mostly look their age. Those things help, but very mildly. There are no 55 year old women who look 30 without airbrushing + tons of makeup + facelifts. And 80 year old women mostly look 80. The amount of money and effort, especially women spend on this is breathtaking, considering that most of it doesn't work better than the cheaper products. If there was something that would make 50 year olds actually look 30 it would be would have 'infinity' market value. |
|
|
If you want a good example of what's now possible with anti-aging, look at Tom Ford. He's 58 and could easily pass for a 30 year old. The techniques he's using to look that way will be further refined and become more widely accessible (economically) over the next 10-20 years.
You really have no idea what you're talking about and you're clearly not someone who's actually read any related research or studied these subjects in any kind of depth. The irony is that you first pointed out the tremendous economic incentive to solve hair and skin degradation and then engaged in incoherent contortions in order to argue that these problems have somehow magically remained unperturbed by profit-maximizing agents. A mind-boggling cognitive dissonance.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/hair-for-...