Genetic Research stops aging...
wright at clam.Hi.COM
Tue Oct 22 12:00:44 EST 1996
In article <cummins-2210961529020001 at vetmac3.murdoch.edu.au> cummins at central.murdoch.edu.au (Jim Cummins) writes:
>In article <wpenrose.200.004A3E9F at interaccess.com>,
>wpenrose at interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) wrote:
>> K. Eric Drexler, the nanotechnology man, claims in Engines of Creation that
>> one of the possible outcomes of the new science is endless, healthy
>> death caused only by accidents and violence.
>Check the latest Nature. New statistical techniques for assessing
>probabilities estimate that the *maximum* potential lifespan of humans is
>between 100 and 135 years.
I think you two might be talking past each other. If we could get
tons of little nanotech robots cruising around our bodies, repairing
damaged cells (of all varieties) and so on, who knows how long we
On the other hand, without such gizmos, I wouldn't doubt that it would
be unlikely to live past 130.
This conversation strikes me as more appropriate to sci.life-extension.
-- David Wright :: wright at hi.com :: Not an Official Spokesman for Anyone
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"The difference between a printing press and a modern digital long-
distance network is that the press produces money much more slowly."
-- Neil Kirby, Lucent Technologies
More information about the Bioforum