From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 13:54:03 MST
Joao wrote:
> I would argue that solving aging is much more difficult than going to the
> moon mostly because we still lack the tools to change an adult human into a
> non-aging human even when we do know what causes aging--stem cells appear
> promising but there's still much work to be done.
Agreed. But first stem cells, then biotech based whole genome engineering [1],
then nanotech [2].
*But* the technology we need to do [1] does exist *now* (you'll just have
to trust me on this). Turning it into something "most" people (e.g. molecular
biologists) can use is a 3-5 year development effort. Its a much less
difficult problem than Apollo was -- by several orders of magnitude.
(Now taking those tools and turning them into cures for aging -- that
I view as being perhaps larger than Apollo -- *but* not that much larger.)
> As I write in my website, gerontology needs its Sputnik.
Also agreed.
> BTW, Robert, are you going to Cambridge for the IABG conference in September?
Am not sure at this time, I was at the one in AU but not the one that I think
was in Korea. Would like to get to the UK but am not sure I can make it happen.
But Aubrey is putting together a very good program -- you should go if you have
the opportunity.
> PS: I seem to be missing some posts. Does anyone else have this problem?
Posts run behind what gets placed on the Javien (or probably the BBS or
Lucifer servers). Suspect (given problems Brett has had lately) that
this is due to UCE/SPAM clogging up the server and/or recipient machines.
Robert
1. Bradbury, R. J., "Robiobotics Business Plan" (confidential document),
May 22, 2001.
2. Freitas, R. A. Jr., "Chromallocytes: Cell repair nanorobots for
chromosome replacement therapy," Zyvex preprint, 2003, in preparation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 13:59:37 MST