> More, the ideal rate at which you decrease the temperature surely varies
> amongst different cell types. I read at least one good documented
> experience (I'll try to find the authors) with the freezing of an
> animal's brain in which they concluded that extensive tissue damaged was
> observed.
True. However, the damage can likely be reduced significantly by
using clever cryoprotectants compared to plain freezing. Also, there
is a problem with too slow cooling, according to Mike Darwin (I know
I'm quoting him all the time in this debate) we would want around
1 degree celsius/minute, instead of one degree per hour. Tricky.
> Speaking about how long it will take for us to control aging, never
> forget that even when we correct all the errors in our genome that
> create aging now, we will have to worry about the errors that will cause
> us diseases when we are 200, 300 or 1000 years old!
I don't think genetic errors is a likely problem once the "basic" ones
are fixed. The genome is finite, and if we can fix one part of it so
well we can stop aging it seems likely we can deal with the secondary
aging problems. However, there are likely many other reasons beside
genes to why we age; we need some radical restorations after a few
centuries anyway of the non-replenishing systems, plain damage and
waste built-up, not to mention to expand our capacity to avoid getting
trapped in a loop.
> Visit my site at: http://mithlond.esoterica.pt/~jpnitya/
BTW, I can't access your essay or your homepage, please check the
read permissions on your files.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y