>My understanding of our aging goes about like this:
>1. We are doubling our knowledge about once in three and a half years.
>2. We are not able so far to make great improvements in the maximum age for
>a human being.
>3. We have made and are making significant improvements in the quality of
>life for the people over say sixty five years of age.
>4. We are making increases in the average lifespan due to more people living
>longer although less than the maximum age for a human.
>Is the above approximately correct?
Yes, except 1. You could say that the number of theories doubles every three
and a half years but I wouldn't classify it as knowledge. It's dubious
whether, say, 95% of what is written about aging is actually part of the
phenomenon in the first place. So it might even be the case that our
knowledge concerning the basic causes of aging is exactly the same as it was
30 years ago; unlikely but not impossible.
Joao Pedro de Magalhaes
The University of Namur (FUNDP)
Unit of Cellular Biochemistry & Biology
Rue de Bruxelles, 61. B-5000 Namur. Belgium.
Fax: + 32 81 724135
Phone: + 32 81 724133
Reason's Triumph: http://users.compaqnet.be/jpnitya/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:22 MDT