X-Message-Number: 19961
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Badger <>
Subject: Re: Probabilities

Randall Burns wrote:

"I personally suspect though that life extension
technology will not be allowed unless accompanied by
subsantial improvements in technology to expand the
range of human habitat(i.e. space migration) and
increase of human intelligence."

Are you referring to the U.S. government; all
governments? Are you suggesting that even though
substantial increases in lifespan are made possible by
science, it will be outlawed or kept secret? Because I
strongly suspect we'll have the technology to
significantly extend lives before we can migrate into
space or significantly increase intelligence. The
Boomers want to live longer and the Boomers have a
knack for getting their way. If the U.S. bans it, I'm
moving to wherever I can get it. A successful
anti-aging protocol may likely be too expensive in the
early stages of marketing but the potential market
would be so huge that global competition would bring
the price into a range where the average person could
get it. Maybe that sounds naive or pollyannish, but
how will anyone be able to keep a cure for aging down
for very long?

I do agree wholeheartedly that the most salient part
of this probability thread involves what we can do
here and now to increase our personal chances for
survival. I've recently adopted a healthier diet-
exercise-supplement regimen that I can live with (pun
intended). I'm judiciously risk averse. And I intend
to move to Ventureville as soon as it is financially
feasible. Anyone else have other suggestions?


Scott Badger

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19961