From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Sep 03 1999 - 21:57:37 MDT
On Friday, September 03, 1999 4:26 PM Brian Manning Delaney
<bdelaney@infinitefaculty.org> wrote:
> A recent comment by Natasha Vita-More, on the Transhuman list, reminded me
of
> the importance of stepping back from thoughts about what might or might
not be
> possible in four or five or six decades, and being certain that we
actually are
> still alive decades from now. Calorie restriction, I contend, is currently
the
> only appreciably effective life-extension regimen with good evidence
behind it
> (others might add cryonics here too, where "evidence" would mean more than
> merely empirical evidence). Personally, I'm willing to put up with the
hassles
> of being on CR for now; but when a newer, equally effective means of
> life-extension is available, I'll happily bag CR. Likewise, when a
_currently_
> available, non-CR, putatively effective life-extension regimen garners
> sufficient scientific support to enable us to scratch the "putatively,"
I'll bag
> CR. One question, then, is what to make of the handful of existing studies
that
> purport to show a slowing of aging -- albeit a small slowing of aging --
by
> means of something other than CR.
Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I'm too tired right now to check
http://www.lef.org/ -- but isn't the Life Extension Foundation funding
research to find out why CR works? If so, possibly one route to overcomnig
the CR problem -- that is, that we've plenty of food and love to eat it,
even lean guys like mean:) -- is to find out how it works and to find
another means to get the same effect.
Stay young and live long or else!:)
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:01 MST