From: Geoff Smith (geoffs@interchange.ubc.ca)
Date: Fri Dec 17 1999 - 20:16:16 MST
<RANT>
Yes, I read that article too, and I didn't mention because it's
completely and utterly ridiculous. It hurts to read stuff like this...
how can a journalist talk to all these scientists, and come to the
conclusion that only -20 year olds have a chance at immortality? By the
author's own admission, 40 years olds may live to 135, so they'll be
around in 95 years. 95 years of technological progress, without
immortality? Is this guy crazy?
And this is supposed to be a progressive techno-savvy magazine?
</RANT>
I've found the online articles thoroughly disappointing. Can someone
comment on the hardcopy Wired? I'm hoping the overly-critical and
pessimistic online content is meant to provoke you into buying the
magazine.
Geoff.
Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
> Or, even worse, check THIS out, labelled "Immortality Reality Check:"
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/lifespan.html
>
> "Ask enough gerontologists, biologists, geneticists, and biotech
> entrepreneurs about the potential for immortality, and you'll get a range
> of conflicting answers that fall into three camps: Forget It, Could Be,
> and Can Do. Almost all agree that immortality won't mean literally living
> forever. Eventually, everyone will step in front of a hovercar or succumb
> to an ubervirus of mysterious origin. Still, doesn't "almost forever"
> sound pretty good? Based on our conversations with the experts, here's the
> realm of possible scenarios for gauging your chances of crossing the
> rainbow bridge into superlongevity."
>
> They don't anticipate anyone's got a good shot at living past 200 who's
> alive today. "If you are Minus 20: Bingo!"
>
> -Dan
>
> -unless you love someone-
> -nothing else makes any sense-
> e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:06 MST