...which begs the question, "Who has rights to research?" *see dialogue
below*
Research on anti-aging (immortality via perpetual cell division) has just
as much chance of success as research for cancer, AIDS, std's, athlete's
foot.
What percentage of govt'l funding goes for each?
Does one group of people have any more right to research? If they find
cures for cancer, heart disease, the genetically programmed cessation of
cell division will surface as major mortality factor.
Why wait for cure for cancer for public to discover aging was the
culprit? Aging being the demise of healthy cells and strong immunity
defense systems. Aging needs to be addressed now. In the forefront of
research. Not in the basement.
The 'cure for old age' can be available for people in their 50's today.
Maybe the 60's. It is likely to surface soon and be available for the
masses w/in 14 years. But strong public support of research is needed.
65ers up are facing the gallows. Unless research is significantly
stimulated with funding and public support.
Each year of delay deprives hundreds of thousands of seniors the
opportunity for immortality. Again, immortality does not refer to
eternity or invisible shields in traffic. Immortality means cells
continue to divide and immunity continues defending.
Diseases of choice due to improper consumption and laziness will still be
available. As will injuries of choice due to carelessness.
Who determines which group gets the research? Does the press shape the
public into pushing the legislators and administrators into graduated
efforts to find treatments? What is in the headlines? (besides OJ)
Where is the silver haired lobby? Certainly our seniors have not turned
to sheep. They are reluctant to get into it because they don't want to
get their hopes up and see their loved ones get left behind.
That leaves the middle agers. They are receptive. They are picking up
on longevity talk and fitness. The 50's are the front runners. They are
beyond the rat race. They have the energy. They have the vision. They
have the resources to grab the ball and run. The 50's are not afraid to
embrace the incomprehensible effects of physical immortality.
The youthful 20-40's are preoccupied with their own contemporary issues.
Research on limitations of cell division and subsequent breakthroughs
will probably take care of the cancer. Heart disease can be reduced
significantly by adjustments in consumption. ( this idea challenged also)
Convincing society that smoking and drugs reduce longevity has been a
challenge. How about convincing the masses to exercise? And then comes
this thing about genetic manipulation and engeneering, and
nanotechnology, and internet telecommunications, and interactive TV, and
cars that can go 150 miles per gallon. Oops! Who suppressed that last
technology? It couldn't have been the oil lobbyists.
The masses were repulsed by the idea of indoor toilets. Not only was it
unsanitary, but sacrilege. Plumbing was surfacing but the public didn't
know it. They clung to their dogma. Change and vision are threatening.
Who wants 150 year old skin anyway? It won't cut it in the disco's.
Just give me mental alertness, mobility, minimal pain, and social
interaction and I'll take whatever skin comes with the extra 100 years.
The multibillion dollar cosmetic industry will keep up with the hundred
thousand dollar anti-aging labs. I'm already using hand cream to
moisturize my dry skin when the air pressure is low.
On 26 Feb 1995, Rick Abrams wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950225170433.8301A-100000 at corona>,
> Patrick O'Neil <patrick at corona> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 24 Feb 1995, Brian Rauchfuss - PCD wrote:
> >>
> >> If significant life-extension is available but is denied, is this really
> >> different from mass-murder? Would it not be better, at least to offer
> >> people the choice between reproduction and life-extension (note that 2 or
> >> less children per couple does not create an exponential population problem).
> >
> >No it would not be murder. No one has a "right" to life extension any
> >more than they have a right to transplant organs. When doctors withold
> >treatment for a patient for varied or sundry reasons, it is cannot be
> >considered murder. Since when did you or I have an inalienable right to
> >chemotherapy....
>> Patrick,,, words fail me. ....move your head from side to side
> very, very, very slowly. Otherwise the 'bong, bong, bong' of
> your brain rattling about will deafen you.
>> Have you ever been sick (not mentally, you've already clarified
> that)? Have you ever needed a doctor for a life theatening
> condition? If you ever get that sick, are you going to refuse
> treatment because you don't have 'a right' to it?
>> You remind me of a guy I went to college with, Vietnam era. He
> hated draft resistors, until he lost his IIS (student) deferment.
> Then he discovered more important things to do than go into the army.
> Just like when the doctor says you have six months left, then you'll
> demand a transplant 'because it's your right.'
> --
> rha
>>
