Edward Case wrote:
> I think that since Star Trek had no (or little ( note: Khan ))idea that
> normal lifespans could be extended proves that the show was written to
> exclude those of us who ( with trepidation ) think that life extension is
> important.
Not so much to exclude, they just didn't grok the message at the
time. ST was ahead of its time in some ways, but not in *all* ways.
They *eventually* grokked: the later Star Treks and the movies had
life extension as a prominent theme.
> Life extension to me means to live at least a couple of
> centuries. The planet holds so many wonders to investigate! EDC
Roger that! Consider this: even Isaac Asimov missed the notion
of life extension and some sort of singularity. Consider the Foundation
trilogy. Generations came and went like sewer rats, with no steady
breakthrus in medical technology. {8-[ Arthur C. Clarke, on the
other hand, boldly predicted human immortality by 2100 in his
remarkably prescient book Profiles of the Future. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:53 MDT