From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Sat Dec 18 1999 - 00:51:57 MST
At 02:06 AM 12/18/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Has anyone actually read the Wired Article? It makes Extropians sound
>like a bunch of clueless loonies. In fact, I think the author's words
>were "overzealous amateurs." Ouch!
I think the phrase was "life extension zealots". Not the way I'd put it,
but surely not too wildly far from the truth! I'm know I'm pretty full of
zeal about the importance and urgency of extending the human life span. I
think any reasonable person should be. Having actually read the article
(which is quite a different thing than the older Wired News piece), I came
away with a very different impression. I've made some comments in Exponent,
but I'll say that overall it did a fine job of conveying the real progress
in the science of anti-aging.
Yes, the writer tries to position us as "amateurs" (does that include Roy
Walford and other ExI members professionally involved in the field I
wonder?), and is especially harsh to Robert. Aside from the surprisingly
rude comment on Robert, the writer was complimentary towards Natasha (he
spent an hour and a half interviewing her), and showed how her speculations
were already looking technically feasible.
While the writer's set-up was to begin with a gulf between these apparently
extreme life extension amateurs on the one hand, and the sober, research
scientists on the other, the piece overall showed how we are right on the
mark. The fact that the big name scientists came only helps how we appear.
>Robert Bradbury fairs particularly poorly, and it makes the biotech
>futures conference sound like a big waste of time:
I didn't see it that way at all. I *was* disappointed that, apart from when
the writer spun off Natasha's thoughts, he entirely focused on the Saturday
morning sessions and ignored all the other dimensions (philosophical,
legal, etc.) that we covered.
Max
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:07 MST