X-Message-Number: 15608
From: "Pat Clancy" <>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:13:09 -0800
Subject: Re: Not built for the ages

> Yet there's a silver lining to being somewhat short-lived, says Jay 
> Olshansky, a biodemographer at the University of Illinois-Chicago's School
> of Public Health. Longevity, he contends, wouldn't be pretty at least by
> our current cultural standards. A "built-to-last" human would be short,
> stocky, and tilted forward all to make bone loss and fractures less
> likely. Extra ribs, to prevent hernias, would add girth. Backward-bending
> knees would reduce friction in the joints, but would make it hard to stand
> still. Swiveling, oversize ears (to catch more sound) might be attractive
> in the future, but for now they're still Star Trek oddities. Ditto the
> squidlike eyes, which are less prone to vision loss.
> 
> Other changes would be less visible, but equally iffy. Restructuring the
> throat would prevent choking but make conversation a challenge. Moving the
> male prostate gland slightly to the side of the bladder would prevent the
> enlargement that affects 1 in every 2 older men. Strengthening the muscles
> controlling the female bladder would relieve incontinence but could cause
> other unexpected problems.
> 

This is a joke, right? This person didn't seriously suggest that these changes 
would be necessary for longevity, right? The goal of "longevity", of course, 
should be attained by fixing the body so it doesn't deteriorate, not 
compensating for the fact that it does.

Pat Clancy

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15608