Subject:
|
Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:55:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1809 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, James Brown writes:
>
> > I have no idea. Having 'recognized as human' being a given my entire life, I
> > am a poor judge of it's value. (and I have no intention, regardless of
> > whether the option is available, to be immortal.)
>
> Don't answer so fast! you may change your mind later. And if you choose one
> way, you CAN change your mind, if you choose the other, you can't.
Actually, the whole immortality thing is something I have thought about a fair
bit. I hadn't considered the 'recognized as human' angle before, but it's
IMHO irrelevant to the main thrust - I wouldn't want to be immortal. I'd love
to be able to have a longer (even significantly longer) life expectancy, but I
don't want to live forever. I tend to side more with Swift than with with the
popular concept of immortality. (not so much the 'aging forever' aspect, but
the societal impact and personal cost aspects) But then, I look gift horses
in the mouth, too.
> I think most of us would be delighted to live a bit longer than we currently
> think is what's achievable. I myself could easily see wanting to go 200 years.
> Unfortunately, given my rather poor exercise and eating habits, and some poor
> choices I made as a callow youth, 120 or so is about the most I can currently
> hope for, barring some MAJOR breakthroughs in rebuilding technology, and 80 is
> probably a realistic estimate barring accident.
My life expectancy is either ~70, or ~100, depending on how I came up in the
genetics crapshoot. My phenotype suggests I come up short, but short of
genetic analysis, there's no real way to know.
> Wired, I think it was this month, rag that it is, had an interesting plot of
> predicted life expectancy. Being born next year doubles it from being 40, like
> I am, according to them.
>
> Yes it's a rag but I can't fault their analysis. We are THIS close to
> unwinding the entire genetic sequence around aging in cells.
I'm not so sure that's a good thing - we already have a surplus population
problem. IMHO, technology that extends life expectancy is a good thing, but
only when it doesn't increase (our population) significantly past our capacity
to expand.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
