From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Jul 19 2000 - 13:07:13 MDT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, CYMM wrote:
> CYMM SAYS: What's the idea Robert? ... spread the paradigm... make it a
> mainstream thing and so eventually some of the national resources would be
> channeled by the political directorate into LE...?
>
> A socioeconomic approach to LE??? Hmmm.
Of course its a socioeconomic paradigm problem. If we "thought"
we could "solve" aging to the same degree we "thought" we could
build a quasi-effective missle defense system, don't you think
we would have spent $100B on that instead? (Spike or John, correct
me if that figure is wrong). That is roughly 30x the amount
spent on the human genome project and equal to ~6+ years of
the current NIH budget.
One would like to believe that with a year or two of intensive
retraining, most of the bright engineers & software people at
Lockheed, Boeing, etc. who work on defense projects could
refocus on micro & nanoengineering to extend life. Now isn't
that an interesting concept?
And believe me it will take that level of effort -- the design
of biobots with several thousand "parts" or nanobots with
potentially billions of atoms will require large teams of
people who understand large scale engineering efforts --
those are generally *not* the people who work in life sciences
related fields.
The important thing to relize about Life Extension efforts is
"THE PROGRAM *IS* BROKEN". It was not and cannot (by nature)
be designed to allow you to live indefinately. To fix it
completely you are going to have to reengineer it. The only
way to do that is with large scale engineering efforts.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:02 MST