Hi,
I don't know how much of the article to believe, although based on my reading I've been saying for thirty years or so that the first 'immortals' are probably among us. But from the little bit of scientific literature I still read, I get the distinct impression that the 'death clock' is still poorly understood. We seem to be wired for about 115 to 120 years, and if nothing gets us before then, we just kinda 'drop dead' when the clock runs out.
Be interesting (but not interesting enough that I plan to do so) to calculate the life expectancy if one tossed all 'medical' causes and just kept the various forms of misadventure. I suspect that that 1,000 year figure thrown around in the article probably assumes no skiing, no hang gliding, not even commercial flights. That is, if it is really meaningful and not just a figure plucked from the air.
Some SF authors (Niven comes to mind) have examined the idea of perpetual youth. Would the possibility of a very long life span make us more or less cautious? It seems that, at least in America, as progress is made towards reducing one cause of death, a great part part of the population then demand that work be done on the next. No degree of 'safety' (much of it illusionary) seems enough for the bulk of the population. Meanwhile, more and more people seem to be taking up high risk sports, perhaps because life without any excitement is too boring.
Personally, I suspect that most people would just self distruct (by suicide or by extreme sports) when the 'been there, done that' feeling gets too powerful.
--Pete
Occhidiangela,Dec 9 2004, 09:43 PM Wrote:1000 years, eh? Right, 930 of them wearing Depenz! No thanks.Ah, but the article is not just about extending life, it is about extending *youth*. Ageing has always been the fly in the 'eternal life' ointment.
[right][snapback]62451[/snapback][/right]
I don't know how much of the article to believe, although based on my reading I've been saying for thirty years or so that the first 'immortals' are probably among us. But from the little bit of scientific literature I still read, I get the distinct impression that the 'death clock' is still poorly understood. We seem to be wired for about 115 to 120 years, and if nothing gets us before then, we just kinda 'drop dead' when the clock runs out.
Be interesting (but not interesting enough that I plan to do so) to calculate the life expectancy if one tossed all 'medical' causes and just kept the various forms of misadventure. I suspect that that 1,000 year figure thrown around in the article probably assumes no skiing, no hang gliding, not even commercial flights. That is, if it is really meaningful and not just a figure plucked from the air.
Some SF authors (Niven comes to mind) have examined the idea of perpetual youth. Would the possibility of a very long life span make us more or less cautious? It seems that, at least in America, as progress is made towards reducing one cause of death, a great part part of the population then demand that work be done on the next. No degree of 'safety' (much of it illusionary) seems enough for the bulk of the population. Meanwhile, more and more people seem to be taking up high risk sports, perhaps because life without any excitement is too boring.
Personally, I suspect that most people would just self distruct (by suicide or by extreme sports) when the 'been there, done that' feeling gets too powerful.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?