<D4x7uD.KnF at midway.uchicago.edu>
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <D4x7uD.KnF at midway.uchicago.edu>, bmdelane at ellis.uchicago.edu
(Brian Manning Delaney) says:
>>In article <JJ.95Mar3185139 at columbus.cis.ohio-state.edu>
jj at columbus.cis.ohio-state.edu (John Josephson) wrote, among other
>>I'm not especially interested in living long, independently of the
>>quality of life. That is, I'd gladly give up some of the feeble
>>period at the end for some enhanced "youthification" before.
>>But the situation is quite dynamic: Q is whether the extra "feeble"
>years carry you to a time where de-feeblification is possible. If the
>answer is No -- and the tricky part here is that we just can't answer
>the Q yet -- then I agree w/your above statement.
>Brian M. Delaney <b-delaney at uchicago.edu> [DO NOT cc: articles to me.]
Wouldn't the two goals, life extension and life quality, be more useful
with some symetry (sp?) I agree with John's point. There is not much
point in living longer if you do it in pain and feebleness. Not to
mention the increased cost to continue those frails years at the end of