Mark,
Thank you for picking up the ball and replying positively to the
possibility of an extra 100+ years for people.
It's amazing how many people subscribe to this newsgroup who have such
tunnel vision. Surely there are more people who can see the profound
benefits possible. Even with only remote possibilities it seems like one
could place more value on each moment of experience.
More later.
Don dashley at tenet.edu
On 13 Feb 1995, Mark Gardner wrote:
> Response to Patrick's note:
>>> >From: "Patrick O'Neil" <patrick at corona>
> >Subject: Re: Attitudes to life extension via genetic engineering
> >Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:18:11 -0700
>>> >I have spent a lot of time considering the possibilities of life
> >extension mediated by genetic engineering or, more likely, biological
> >manipulation. I cannot deny an attraction to a much longer youth filled
> >with ever more experiences and learning (perhaps a few Ph.D's?) but...
>> >Conversely, I have considered the wideer ramifications of such
> >manipulations and capabilities and have come to the conclusion that
> >significant life extension in general would be disastrous.
>> ***** pages and pages taken out **********
>>> >Fisheries are overfished, and arable land is limited. Where does
> >the food come from?
>>>> Pat, get a life........you are assuming that all of the people that are now
> dying in the prime of their life would somehow be worthless if they kept on
> living. Think of the millions and millions of well educated experience
> people who fade away just when we could use them the most. These people have
> gone through the burden of education, paying for their house, raising
> children. What a cheap resource to find a rocket scientist or something
> without having the expense of training one. What if Einstein or Feynman were
> still alive.
>> On the other hand we could use a few less whining liberals.
>>>
