kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 05:37:46 UTC 2011
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 15:40, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why is that Stefano? Living long enough to enjoy the transhumanist
>> future seems like it would be the transhumanist way. What am I missing
> Nothing wrong of course in having such a wish, as it may be the case
> for, e.g., cryonic tourists. Nor, say, in adopting even far-fetched,
> experimental or high-risk life-extension, rejuvenation, or, for that
> matter, enhancement, strategies.
> What I would contend does not sound not very transhumanist IMHO is
> accepting an *aggravation* of the current limits of human performance
> in exchange for some marginal increase of one's lifespan as if it were
> an uncondtional bargain.
> If anything, I would feel more inclined to jump on technologies and
> strategies which promise to push such limits further away even at the
> risk of being the proverbial candle burning at both end (see the
> Forbidden Planet or Blade Runner).
I see, life isn't worth living if you are living it in constant hunger
pains? That makes sense to me. I have the advantage of good longevity
genetics, as well as never having smoked, or participated in alcohol.
I know some people think these "sacrifices" are too much, but it's
just normal to me. So given the idea that CR doesn't push the maximums
out for healthy people much, I'll pass too. :-)
Thanks for explaining your position, I get it and agree.
More information about the extropy-chat