'Your age is your No. 1 risk factor for almost every disease,' said Dr. Venter.
I'm not sure I believe that. It may be true on an individual level for a person with good health insurance in a first world country, but I bet for most people in the world it is the ability to afford and access the kind of advanced medical care that Dr. Venter will be researching. That observation, of course, leads to things like the quote from the article on Facebook meme evolution, "No one should die because they cannot afford health care and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree please post this as your status for the rest of the day." A noble sentiment, to be sure, but is it realistic?
Can we afford to pay for every life extending medical practice for every person? At current prices, I suspect we cannot. Even if we dedicated 100% of GDP to health care, I think we still could not afford every medical treatment that could extend the life of every person on Earth. And that assumes that paying 100% of GDP is sustainable. In practice, of course, doing so would lead to an economic collapse and we would be able to afford even less health care next year, causing more people to die unnecessarily, not fewer.
I suspect that we now have sufficiently advanced medical technology that the most powerful force limiting the ability of medical technology to prevent disease is that the majority of the world populace cannot afford the medical care we have already discovered -- in an absolute "there is not enough GDP, and would be less if we tried" sense.