On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, john grigg wrote:
> Robert Bradbury wrote:
> Live fast, freeze young, and leave a reanimatible corpse.
> (end)
>
> How about this?
>
> Live well, freeze old, and leave a reanimatible corpse.
>
Well, John, to be *blunt* (oh no, I hope the blunt police
aren't around...) it depends a great deal on your
"rate-of-living". I've been bicoastal (NY/LA & NY/SF)
in times past, and am now bicontinental (Nrth.Am.(SEA)/Eur(MOS)).
While I don't recomend this as a life-extension strategy
(even with melatonin), it does tend to push you to the
limits of reality of the real rate-of-change in societies.
Now, I suspect the definition of fun in Alaska is
a little different tnan SEA/NY/LA/SF/MOS. Where you are living,
it may take 30+ years to watch the restaurants turnover
(once per generation????) & that is probably interesting.
Where I've lived the "hot" site is viable a few years or less.
After you have seen a couple of turns, it makes sense
to snooze for a while until something completely different
comes along (e.g. I can't believe the degree to which
young people, now-a-days, are getting various accessories
put into or onto their bodies). In a fast-turn environment
that may take decades, in a slow-turn environment that may
take centuries. Arguably, information transfer will compress
the lag-time from the fast-turn to the slow-turn environments.
However, the *main* point to my "freeze young" proposal
was in the context where "young" means mentally "adept"
or "flexible". It is an open question regarding the degree
to which the brain "solidifies" as one accumulates experiences,
but it is clear that diseases like Alzheimer's, if allowed
to progress, give you a *clearly* different brain than the
one you might like to be able to recover.
My comments regarding "youth" were primarily intended to
direct attention to the problem of preserving functionality
and identity rather than some chronological age.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:04 MDT