Re: life extension vs. natural law

Anders Sandberg (
20 Jan 1999 10:23:12 +0100

"Gina Miller" <> writes:

> You said:
> >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.
> Are we not to believe that if the gene that predisposes the timeline of
> our life, that there are no other factors?

Sure. You can certainly help aging on the way by for example smoking. But wear and tear doesn't seem to be the main *cause* of aging. Individuals prevented from activity does not live longer than active individuals. Then again, in the body the borders between the theories start to fade. One promising possibility is that aging has something to do with metabolism and the stress response (as suggested by the methuselah strain of fruit fly and the CR-related research), which of course means that if you are stressed you will live shorter.

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