From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Jan 19 1999 - 04:25:55 MST
"Chris Wolcomb" <jini@hotbot.com> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:39:39 Gina Miller wrote:
> >
> >I've read somewhere, that with nanotechnology and the issue of life >extention: one could plausably design the human body to an age of 3338 years. Once reaching that age, the body in it's present state of environment, could not physically last any longer due to nautural wear and tear.
>
> Actually, aging is due now to natural wear and tear.
What is the support for this? As far as I can remember from Hayflick's
_How and Why We Age_ and other readings, wear and tear doesn't appear
to be the main factor in current aging, and people more look at
genetic and systemic factors.
I have seen estimates for multicentury or millennial lifespans based
on accidents as the sole cause of death; is this the source of the
above figure? (It seems unlikely that anybody could do a believable
calculation of wear and tear lifespans with this "accurracy").
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:52 MST