On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, CYMM wrote:
> CYMM SAYS: That seems reasonable... but Gh & CoQ10 are mostly for
> post-reproductive individuals in my opinion.
Actually, the would both be essential to developing a functional
reproducing individual (unless you are looking for a really "short",
"slow" mate... :-?). The genetic program doesn't seem to have
feedback loops that completely promote the up-regulation of the
production of things like some hormones in response to a decline
in production due to random cell loss, nor does it seem to have
much replacement capacity after you reach maturity (when I get my
hands on that damn programmer....). Thats why you "may" need
GH -- but if we figure out how to:
(a) determine reliably (and cheaply) if you are suffering from a loss and
can supplement; or
(b) engineer and deliver new cells to complement the deficiencies; or
(c) promote the division and differenation of possibly pre-existing stem cells,
then we effectively have patches to the program. (Note that when
I look at a problem I try to see if there are different non-intersecting
paths for solutions, if so, then the probability of getting at least
one of them is to work is much greater.)
CoQ10 on the other hand seems to be a double-bind situation.
We probably wouldn't need CoQ10 on a prehistoric diet (with a
fair amount of meat), but cut out your meat intake and then start
taking cholesterol synthesis inhibitors and you have taken a hammer
to both the dietary and internally synthesized sources. Sure you can
eliminate the drugs and go back to eating meat, and your mitochondria will
be very happy, but your blood vessels won't (but what can you
expect when the blind programmer is typing on the keyboard with
> Aren't you putting a little too
> much faith in the rate of technological development?
I warned you that I like to live on the edge!
> I mean if the curve has the shape you imagine but progresses at 50%
> the rate you had surmised, you can miss the bus! A heartbreaking situation.
If it develops at 50% the rate I imagine, then I'm still probably ok.
If it develops at 30% then its probably even money that I'm a popsicle.
If Robin's economics are correct then its likely that many of us with
extended lifespans, reanimated or uploaded will be relying on the
generosity of strangers to provide economic niches. I'm not overly
optimistic on those proabilities (unlike LE itself). Unlike many
people on the list (lets say Natasha perhaps), its only some days
that I wake up and view the possibility of completely re-engineering
myself and self-evolving into who knows what with complete enthusiasm.
> Or, Robert, do you, as you're so close to the cutting edge, know something
> that we average LE people don't know?
On my current life, I've got maybe 30+ years left (on average).
That would be equivalent to looking back to 1970. We didn't
even *have* genetic engineering, much less the genome in 1970.
I'm simply guesstimating the progress of the last 30 years
continues and increases over the next 30. I cannot imagine
that in 30 years we would not be able to grow and administer
replacements for every organ and supplement your mind with
tailored neuronal stem cells. And that is without having *any*
nanomedicine, which if Robert Freitas is correct, will develop
like wildfire once you have diamondoid nanoassembly, which if
Jim Von Err is correct, we will have by 2010.
Mind you, I don't recomend my approach to people much older than
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:47 MDT