Re: life extension vs. natural law

Gina Miller (
Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:19:19 PST

You said:

                                                             well past a 
mere 3338 years (which sounds suspiciosuly arbitrary to me).

I'm in error for not recalling where I read that, but I did read that number 3338. Maybe it was speculated the hopes of recognizing that our environment would have an effect as well any manipulation to the aging gene. I read it online. I didn't create the thought, however, I just repeated it.

You said:

>Hope I can prove you wrong, by having this consveration with you at the
Far Edge Party in a mere 200,000 years. By then, I'll probably have gotten bored with the human form, and gone on to something more capable of flight. :-)

Is this a predesignated party, or hypathetical? His is this new form you dream of concieved in form? Just curiouse, besides, one could always revert back to the primitive and human shape we originated in ,couldn't we!
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
E-mail at:
Web Page at:

Get Your Private, Free Email at