Re: The REAL Generation X

Joe Jenkins (
Thu, 18 Mar 1999 12:05:58 -0800 (PST)

---"Michael S. Lorrey" <> wrote:
> Joe Jenkins wrote:
> > Consider the "ultimate generation gap" - that gap between mortality
> > and immortality. My best conservative guess for defining this gap
> > as follows:
> >
> > Birth Date
> > <1957 "mortal generation"
> > 1957 - 1967 "The real generation X" (grey/fuzzy area)
> > >1967 "Immortal generation"
> >
> > note: this is for the overall population, early adaptors of
> > and cryonics subscribers are exempt.
> I am guessing that this is based on average life expectancy. Note
that > the
> current average includes people of all ages.

Really, I thought we had some recent discussion on this list that future medical technology was factored in and people with different ages had different life expectancies. So much for my memory :-)

> It all depends on when you expect life extension technology to become
> available. I'm thinking the next ten to fifteen years. We won't need
> nanotech to become immortal, IMHO, just good genetic engineering based
> health care. Come down with a flu one week, you are immortal the
next. We
> will need nanotech to revive those cryo'ed, but those still living
> retirement age today should make it, for the most part.

So, what I call "the real generation X" is just above retirement age as per your forecast. That would mean most cryonics subscribers are mitigating a much smaller perceived risk than I had assumed.

Following your forecast, I am 25 years ahead of "the real generation X". That means it is unlikely that I'll reach an age where it is difficult to procure life insurance to fund a needed cryonics suspension.

If I were to face near term anticipated death because of some freak disease that just happened to be incurable between now and then, I could use my 401K money to set up suspension arrangements and let my family have the half a mil insurance that is subsidized by my company.

That pretty much covers most of the risks that can be mitigated if you also consider accidents that cause brain damage or that occur in situations where suspensions cannot begin in a reasonable time. Add to that murder or suspected foul play incidents that will require autopsy and were pretty much at a 99% chance that my death will not require prearranged cryonics. Why would I want to spend $500 a year starting now for that measly 1%. A lot of people on this list put cryonics at 50% or less probability of success. I put it at 90%, but don't subscribe for these other reasons. I take calculated risks with my life every day. In this case, I sacrifice that 1% for my $500 techno gadget every year.

Chances are that I will sign up eventually, but it won't be for that 1%. It won't be charity either. It will be to support the research needed to benefit the situation described above where I could have reached into my 401K savings.

Joe Jenkins

Get your free address at