Re: life extension vs. natural law

From: Gina Miller (echoz@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 18 1999 - 23:19:19 MST


You said:
                                                             well past a
mere 3338 years (which sounds suspiciosuly arbitrary to me).

I'm in error for not recalling where I read that, but I did read that
number 3338. Maybe it was speculated the hopes of recognizing that our
environment would have an effect as well any manipulation to the aging
gene. I read it online. I didn't create the thought, however, I just
repeated it.

You said:

>Hope I can prove you wrong, by having this consveration with you at the
Far Edge Party in a mere 200,000 years. By then, I'll probably have
gotten bored with the human form, and gone on to something more capable
of flight. :-)

Is this a predesignated party, or hypathetical? His is this new form you
dream of concieved in form? Just curiouse, besides, one could always
revert back to the primitive and human shape we originated in ,couldn't
we!
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
E-mail at:
echoz@hotmail
Web Page at:
http://www.delphi.com/nanogirl

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:52 MST