Re: life extension vs. natural law

Anders Sandberg (
19 Jan 1999 12:25:55 +0100

"Chris Wolcomb" <> writes:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:39:39 Gina Miller wrote:
> >
> >I've read somewhere, that with nanotechnology and the issue of life >extention: one could plausably design the human body to an age of 3338 years. Once reaching that age, the body in it's present state of environment, could not physically last any longer due to nautural wear and tear.
> Actually, aging is due now to natural wear and tear.

What is the support for this? As far as I can remember from Hayflick's _How and Why We Age_ and other readings, wear and tear doesn't appear to be the main factor in current aging, and people more look at genetic and systemic factors.

I have seen estimates for multicentury or millennial lifespans based on accidents as the sole cause of death; is this the source of the above figure? (It seems unlikely that anybody could do a believable calculation of wear and tear lifespans with this "accurracy").

Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!                  
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y