Polemics for longevity

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@ilr.genebee.msu.su)
Date: Sun Jan 16 2000 - 11:59:26 MST


I hope that you get this in time. This is my meager attempt at
some of those "controversial" sound bites you would like.

If it turns out that the producers move forward with this and you can
give me enough advance notice, I might be able to come to England
to participate (dropping in on a flight between Seattle and Russia).

So, here are some pithy statements:

“According to Robert Bradbury, president of Aeiveos, an aging research
firm, life-extension advocates must also fight several other foes: human
naturalists, religious deathists, and bureaucratic fearmongers.”
    - Wired Magazine, August, 1999

“If we can eliminate the major causes of death (heart disease, cancer,
diabetes, etc.) and the underlying causes of aging (that we must still
discover), then people will die only from accidents. Using the Y2K
accident rate in Western countries, this would provide an average
lifespan of approximately 2000 years.”
    - Robert Bradbury, American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
      December, 1999

“It doesn’t take being clever, or having the right education, or knowing
the right people or even being lucky to get very very rich. It simply
requires living long enough.”
    - Robert Bradbury, circa 1995

“During the ten year period from 1995 to 2005, the costs for research to
understand the fundamental causes of aging (i.e. the genetic
predispositions and the fundamental analysis of the changes in gene
expression that occur during aging), will decline by a factor of 100,
perhaps as much as 1000 times. This is probably unprecedented in the
history of scientific research -- for the costs of understanding
something affecting every single human being to move from the realm of
being prohibitively expensive to the realm where almost any scientist
can productively work in the field in such a brief period of time.
  - Robert Bradbury, Results of studies conducted by
    Aeiveos Sciences Group during the fall of 1996.

“The problem with all of the predictions to the ‘Limits of Growth”’ is
that they assume there are no changes in technologies that support
societies. Because of this, they are fundamentally faulty and will
provide universally incorrect conclusions. The only near term limits to
growth that exist are the of the full utilization of the entire power
output of the sun and most of the usable matter in the solar system.
Until we get to that point, there is little to be concerned about.”
    - Robert Bradbury, Conclusions of the limits of evolution within
      solar systems derived from the studies of Matrioshka Brains.

The first objection that people raise when contemplating living
indefinately is the overpopulation problem. I have to tell them, that
I’ve traveled by ground across the United States and parts of Canada on
many occasions. I’ve also flown over large portions of Europe, Russia
and the Pacific Ocean. I’ve got news for them -- the world is empty,
completely and desolately empty. While we may have problems in selected
cities or suburbs where population densities are high, the world as a
whole has many centuries to go before it reaches this stage. By then,
most people will probably prefer to live in space anyway if only because
“land” is cheaper and there is much more power available. We can look
forward to an era when individuals residing on planets would be
considered to be living in the slums.
    - Robert Bradbury, reflections on the impacts of increased

Also, there is further background information in my somewhat dated paper
on the Issues Involved in Longevity @ http://www.aeiveos.com/issues.html


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:19 MDT