> But Hayflick's comments may have been meant more as a caution that
> progress against these specific diseases won't by itself change lifespan
> all that much. There is a good chance that we will be able to cure
> cancer, but the methods used won't necessarily lead immediately and
> directly to cures for other diseases. Likewise with heart disease
> and stroke. Even once we have solved these, there will still be liver
> failure, diabetes, alzheimer's, dozens of other diseases waiting to
> strike us down.
This is analagous to computer system optimization, where the mantra is
"there's always a bottleneck". You can take a poorly performing system,
analyze it, locate the performance bottleneck and remove it, but in doing so
you'll also reveal the next bottleneck.
So, with longevity I think we need to identify and remove the major
bottlenecks (risky behavior, poor diet, poor physical fitness, poor mental
fitness, etc) before we address the higher-level bottlenecks like telomere
length. What's the point of extending the theoretical upper limit from 150
years to 300 years if nearly everyone is dead before 120?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:45 MDT