Bill
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe that's why Deepak backed away from
promoting anti-aging, or so I've been told.
My contention is that conceiving even the remote possibility of stopping the
aging process within our lifetime can lead to positive changes in one's
lifestyle.
For example, what if the odds were 50% that we would live to experience
the arresting of the aging process? What about 5%? or 1/10 of 1 percent?
If we can hang around long enough to get it stopped (aging), it would give
us another 100 years to be around for incomprehensible advances in
science, medicine, sociology, and technology. Just look at the last 100
years of advancements.
To just automatically write ourselves off when we approach 80 puts a
damper on innovative thought and frequently inhibits safety and healthy
habits in favor of the more destructive instant gratification of high
risk, over-consumptive lifestyles.
Possibly, just possibly, we might get to stay around a lot longer than
those gone by. That, too, can be sad when we think that they might have
been able to share it with us. Another reason to not let ourselves think
favorably about major anti-aging progress in the upcoming decade.
Don Ashley, Houston
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996 WalkerBill at aol.com wrote:
> Residents of the Causacaus (sp?) in Russia took the names of their fathers
> to avoid the draft. This was exposed back in the 1970s, as I'm sure Chopra
> knows. (It caused the yogurt craze when the "150-yr.-olds" made it into the
> press). --BIll
>