X-Message-Number: 27459
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:59:19 -0500
From:
References: <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #27456 - #27458
The fact that CBS 60 Minutes carried the story at all and took it as
seriously as it did is potentially a big boost for cryonics. This is
by far the most viewed and most respected news program. However, I
agree with Sparks that unrealistic overoptimistic scenarios from people
who look like cranks are not helpful. Life extension enthusiasts are
not necessarily friends of cryonics for two reasons. First, their
overhyping predictions of near future progress are easily disproven in
short order, decreasing the credibility of their scenarios to Ponce de
Leon levels. Second, they tend to demotivate younger potential
cryonicists who can cling to the thought that their own lives can be
extended indefinitely without ever needing suspension and long term
cold storage. When I was very young and realized that everyone would
eventually die, I invoked the fantasy that science and technology would
advance so far in my lifetime that we would conquer death before my
time came. Then, in my thirties, realizing that this fantasy was
increasingly unrealistic I caught RE on the Johnny Carson show and
realized that freezing was a much better bet though still a long shot.
Now in my seventies I have to confront the fact that I will die,
perhaps soon, and I am thankful that two groups of dedicated people
have struggled over 40 years to build a primitive infrastructure to
fulfill the Ettinger dream. It is my only hope and it will be the only
hope for all who will inevitably die within the next 20 years and
probably much much longer.
Ron Havelock, PhD,OD, CI member and science advisor but sadly still
mortal
-----Original Message-----
From: CryoNet <>
To:
Sent: 3 Jan 2006 10:00:01 -0000
Subject: CryoNet #27456 - #27458
CryoNet - Tue 3 Jan 2006
#27456: Re:Life Extension with Zinc/Copper [Doug Skrecky] [Riso]
#27457: 209'th update on fly longevity experiments [Doug Skrecky]
#27458: Dr. de Grey on 60 Minutes [Jordan Sparks]
Rate This Digest:
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27456%2D27458
Administrivia
To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
with the subject line (not message _body_):
subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
unsubscribe
Message #27456
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:25:54 +0000
From: Riso <>
Subject: Re:Life Extension with Zinc/Copper [Doug Skrecky]
Doug Skrecky wrote:
>Message #27455
>Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 16:14:32 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Life Extension with Zinc/Copper
>
> Life Extension With Zinc/Copper
> By Doug Skrecky
Hi Doug, this is interesting. I have some questions:
skip
> In the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) 4753 healthy persons
aged
> 55 to 81 years were followed for a median of 6.5 years. Of these 534
> (11%) died. Some subjects recieved a zinc/copper supplement, some
> recieved an antioxidant supplement instead, while yet others recieved
> both types of supplement. The zinc/copper supplement consisted of 80
mg
> zinc as zinc oxide, and 2 mg of copper as cupric oxide. The
antioxidant
> supplement consisted of 500 mg vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E, and 15 mg
> beta carotene. All-cause mortality was increased by 15% by the
> antioxidant supplement, decreased 28% by zinc/copper, and decreased
by
> 14% by their combination. Thus antioxidants appeared to exert a
harmful
> effect on survival, while zinc/copper offered a more powerful
beneficial
> effect.
Do you have any idea why the antioxidant supplement
*increased* mortality?. I know correlation does not mean causation
and
that as the author says further studies are needed, but I am intrigued.
I wonder if the problem is with beta carotene as I remember a study in
which taking a supplement of vitamin C and E correlated with decreased
risk
of Alzheimer s: "Reduced Risk of Alzheimer Disease in Users of
Antioxidant
Vitamin Supplements" (Arch Neurol. 2004;61:82-88), so I think vitamin C
and
E should not be a problem.
Thanks,
Riso
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27456
Message #27457
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:29:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky <>
Subject: 209'th update on fly longevity experiments
This is the 209'th update of my fly longevity experiments. Average
temperature was 24.6 C during this run. Estimated maximal longevity
using
the formula (363 - T*11.2) is 88 days.
Box phorn offered a slight advantage in run #134. The results from
this run indicate that the previous results were probably a chance
finding. The most interesting thing about box phorn is that a search of
the internet indicates that this fruit does not actually exist. A
further
investigation determined that the dried fruit labeled as box phorn is
actually fructus lycii.
Jiao dasheen starch appeared to offer a longevity benefit in this
run. This starch is being further tested in run #222.
Run #209 Percent Survival on Day
supplement 10 16 24 33 43 53 60 67 75 83
__________________________________________________
control one 79 68 63 53 26 11 0 - - -
control two 90 90 80 50 25 10 0 - - -
fructus lycii 1% 85 77 54 27 19 0 - - - -
" 2% 86 59 35 14 7 3 3 3 3 0
" 4% 91 78 48 0 - - - - - -
" 10% 81 52 19 0 - - - - - -
konjac root 113 mg 76 68 52 32 12 4 0 - - -
" 450 mg 95 90 90 63 47 11 5 0 - -
IP6 31 mg 64 57 43 29 29 14 0 - - -
" 125 mg 88 71 58 33 21 13 4 0 - -
Jiao dasheen 1/8 tsp 88 77 59 47 35 29 12 12 12 0
(starch) 1/2 tsp 78 65 61 48 22 9 4 4 4 0
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27457
Message #27458
From: "Jordan Sparks" <>
Subject: Dr. de Grey on 60 Minutes
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:19:27 -0800
Did anyone else watch it? The first thing that struck me is that he
needs
some dental work to correct his terrible lisp. I know that's not
entirely
fair of me since it's unrelated to the main topic, but I think it says
something about his credibility if he neglects his teeth. The next
thing
that struck me is that he's simply far too optimistic about the time
frame.
I thought it was interesting that both of the other scientists they
interviewed were skeptical. Yet, when pressed, their only objection
seemed
to be that it wouldn't happen in the immediate future. They did not
seem to
be able to think about the possibilities beyond the next few decades.
The
impression I got was that they had no problem with de Grey's science,
but
they just couldn't see humanity solving the difficult engineering
obstacles
anytime soon.
This is also the case with cryonics. Most people don't seem to be able
to
extrapolate beyond a few decades into the future. Humans are simply not
used to having to plan that far into the future. So really,
cryonicists and
non-cryonicists don't disagree that much about current capabilities.
What
we disagree on is what the distant future will hold.
One more thing... Doesn't the ability to extrapolate hundreds of years
into
the future represent a higher level of intelligence? As everyone knows,
it's our ability to think about the bigger picture and consequences
which
separates us from animals who act on instinct. The farther into the
future
we can plan, and the better we can extrapolate the consequences of each
action, the more intelligence it demonstrates. That should be one of
our
primary goals as transhumanists, to improve our models of the world,
especially as tools of prediction.
Jordan Sparks
Content-Type: text/html;
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27458
End of CryoNet Digest
*********************
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27459