stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 16:23:04 UTC 2011
On 27 April 2011 07:37, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
My pleasure. Another issue comes now to my mind:
To do anything one must be alive, and our species lifespan is of
course (one of?) the sorest limitation we are currently faced with at
a personal and collective level.
But I am under the impression that until a few years ago when people
were thinking of transhumanism, or at least "wet" transhumanism, the
emphasis used to be on more intelligent, faster, stronger, more
beautiful, more flexible, more resilient individuals with acuter
senses and quicker responses and enhanced features in general. See,
eg. Gregory Stock.
Now, there is not doubt that in average healthier and stronger
specimen usually (have the ability to) live longer. But isn't it the
case that short-term prospectives in the public discourse of
transhumanism have recently ended up emphasising longevism to the
detriment of everything else?
Perhaps because this is felt as a more immediate. and a less
threatening!, concern for our hypothetical public? Or is our age in
average increasing? :-)
More information about the extropy-chat