Technotranscendence wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian Manning Delaney <b-delaney@uchicago.edu>
> Subject: Re: Complete List of Non-CR Experiments Showing An Increase in
> Maximum Life Span
>> I don't know what LEF is funding, but yes, >> your suggestion is being followed, by, oh, >> about a hundred gerontology researchers. That's >> pretty much THE near-term goal for many, >> if not most, anti-aging researchers these days.
> Forgive my ignorance. I did not think
> so many were doing thus.
(Far more forgivable than my obnoxiousness!)
>> Still, it might take a while for this >> research to succeed, ergo the >> question: what to do now?
> CR, I guess, though I find it very hard to
> do so.
> So far, I only managed to
> have one good year of CR and that was in 1996.
>
> Of course, you can do everything else
> that is easier than CR and hope to
> live long enough for the research to
> pay off -- or for your favorite future
> scenario (nanotech, AI, farming cloned
> organs, uploading, etc.) to come to pass.
If we knew with a high degree of probability that the research was going to pay off within, say, ten years, then many people would decide doing CR now wouldn't be worth it (though the disease-prevention effect might motivate some to stay on it until the pill is available). The reasoning might be: "Yes, it means losing ~1-2 years as a result of five years of non-CR, but, starting in 2009, I'm aging at a CR rate again, so will likely make it to 2025, when I'm aging even more slowly (better pill/injection/suspended animation/whatever), which in turn means I'm even more likely to make it to 2040..., etc.
Getting confidence behind these numbers would help a great deal.
> Live longer!
Let us hope so!
Brian.
-- Brian Manning Delaney <b-delaney@uchicago.edu> (No need to CC replies to me.)