X-Message-Number: 10971
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:06:15 EST
Subject: "non-aging age"

In the current issue of PERIASTRON, Thomas Donaldson (12 Busby St., O'Connor
ACT 2602, Australia) discusses a report in EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY (33(1998)
571-580) by Jazwinski et al. This appears to suggest, among other things, that
(as previously suggested elsewhere also), the Gompertz curve is wrong at the
high end, and beyond the "nonaging age" (not specified in Donaldson's report),
remaining life expectancy does not change with age. That is, beyond the NAA,
the probability of living another year remains constant.

It seems to me this would imply one of two things:

(a) Beyond the NAA, your appearance does not change as you grow older. 

I don't believe this. Let's assume the NAA is 90 or earlier. I am reasonably
confident that, if you put a group of nonagenarians on one side of a room, and
a group of centenarians on the other side, you could tell at a glance which
was which. 

(b) Beyond the NAA, your appearance does deteriorate further as time goes on,
but those changes in appearance have no correlation with the underlying causes
of remaining life expectancy. 

I don't believe that either; it would be a remarkable coincidence.

If the hypothesis were true, this would suggest certain potentially profitable
lines of thought and research, as Dr. Donaldson points out. Have I made an

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10971