X-Message-Number: 19973 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:54:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Randall Burns <> Subject: Options for success in life extension 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." Scott Badger replied: >Are you referring to the U.S. government; all >governments? I'm thinking it would be something that would involve many governments-enought to significantly constrain how such activities could be pursued. >Are you suggesting that even though >substantial increases in lifespan are made possible by >science, it will be outlawed or kept secret? Kary Mullis said that the responses to a major scientific advancement include: it can't be real. it is morally suspect. we invented it. Human biology is an area of incredible noise. Look at how many different dietary regimes there are out there for example. >The >Boomers want to live longer and the Boomers have a >knack for getting their way. Well, as a late boomer, I question that assertion. You might want to look at the work of Prof. Tim Taylor of the University of Minnesota. There is a pretty profound difference in the experence of those born before 1950 and those born after 1955 in terms of things like the amount of wealth accumulated at various points in their life(i.e. the folks born before 1950 typically had substantial real estate wealth those born after 1955 didn't have). Basically, older generations historically got a lot more back in government services than they paid for and those born between 1955 and 1970 were "cash cows" that paid a lot more into the system than they can reasonably expect to get back(this situation appears to be moderating for folks born after 1970 BTW). Now, what I think may drive this stuff is the simple fact that the US government is in such horrible financial shape these days that it will be necessary for the Boomers born later in the curve to keep on working much longer than did their parents-this could drive a lot of technologies aimed more at prolonging youthful characteristics--and less emphasis on simply keeping people alive. My sense is that the current technologies that keeps people alive has outstripped the technology that minimizing the effects of aging--and that will change if only for reasons of economics. >Maybe that sounds naive or pollyannish, but >how will anyone be able to keep a cure for aging down >for very long? My guess it will involve a lot of questionable technologies that have some effects but don't work well in the long run. Life extension technologies are unusual in that their testing takes fairly long periods of time to really establish how well they work. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19973