Re: spike gets life extension in his life....

From: Robert J. Bradbury (
Date: Sun Feb 27 2000 - 19:15:45 MST

On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Spike Jones wrote:

> My apologies in advance to those who believe all that stuff really
> is only 5 to 10 yrs off.

Coward, won't name names will ya....

> Im pretty sure it is longer than that, 20-30 for instance, before
> we have the tech to theoretically extend life out to 150 yrs.

It only matters to someone 120+ now, whether or not we will have the
technology to hit 150 in 20-30 years.

> Question please: is there a term for the point in history where
> life extension technology is increasing our life expectancy one
> year for each year one lives, such that the mathematical
> expectation of ones remaining life stops decreasing?

The forever and ever era (TFEE).

> That point I suspect is 20-30 yrs away.

Nope, you can't put a specific date on it due to the fact that
aging rates vary with age. Aging appears to be an exponential
function with an exponent of 5-6. You can figure it out by
looking at the age-specific incidence of heart attacks, cancers,
strokes, etc.

> Wait, now I further realize that this point may have already
> been achieved for those who are under 10 yrs now, and that
> life extension techniques will likely be less effective for those
> already aged.

Yep. I'd bet its been reached for most people under 30. Its those
of us in our 40's who are on the edge while those in their 50's
and up have to look at cryonics or accelerating the singularity onset.

You have to keep in mind that 10 years ago, they were predicting
we wouldn't have the human genome until 5 years from now. According
to NCBI, as of Feb 25, 2K, 16.7% of the genome is finished and in
the database and another 47.4% of it is in draft form.

> This has surely already been hashed out, I just missed it somehow.

No, Spike, you are thinking about the unthinkable from the perspective
that most people have.

One of the astronomers from New Zealand, stopped by as I was checking
out of the hotel and commented that it must be difficult for me (given
how unwilling the astronomers are to consider a "living" universe).
I made some comment that it was worth studying in any case since
the ideas are likely to be where we are going. I realize in thinking
about this, that as change accelerates and more and more "cherished
notions" get turned upside down, its going to be really hard on most


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:16 MDT