<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/10/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Brett Paatsch</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><div><br>Brett, there are a couple of points that you miss...
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Sure individuals want extended healthspans for themselves<br>and those they care about, ... existing systems are just
<br>not set up for those sort of minority aspirations to be able<br>to be effectively shared widely enough.</blockquote><div><br>You should go read the Wiki entry on the Gates Foundation [1,2] and research some of the efforts they are funding. The Gates Foundation programs are largely focused on the non-aging related causes of death (AIDS, malaria, hookworms, etc.). In contrast the
<span class="normal">Ellison Medical Foundation  does have very specific efforts related to aging and biogerontology. You could Google on </span><span class="normal"> </span>the Sam and Ann Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies @ U. Texas San Antonio or efforts by
<font size="-1">Eli and Edythe Broad of the Broad foundation which include the </font>"Broad Institute" at Harvard & MIT and the "<span class="normal">Broad Institute for Integrative Biology and Stem Cell Research" at USC
<span style="font-weight: bold;">.</span></span><font size="-1"><b></b></font><br><span class="normal"><br>I tend not to discuss it but much of what EMF is doing, in terms of promoting information sharing and research in biogerontology mirrors to a significant extent what I attempted to do with Aeiveos Corporation in the 1992-1995 time frame. I consider myself to be in part indirectly responsible for the EMF because I doubt Larry would have put his attention on and committed funds to the area if I had not actively worked to get him to see that aging was a problem which could really be taken apart *and* solved.
<br><br>People should understand that t</span>he combined net worth of the top 400 richest people in the U.S. (alone)
is more than $1 Trillion. You don't have to share the ideas "widely"
if they are shared among the right people.<span class="normal"> I would observe that the wealthiest people, in terms of both quality and quantity, have the most to lose by failing health (aging) and death. As a group, many of them are also relatively unencumbered by concepts involved in the disempowerment of a critical support base that robust lifespan extension would likely facilitate . So the wealthy generally have a lot to gain and relatively little to lose by extending the human lifespan.
<br></span><br>People *will* commit resources to the area of postponing or eliminating death because (a) they feel it is a noble thing to do and represents a contribution they can make to humanity; or (b) it is in their own self-interest. Both of those concepts, IMO, may motivate many people to begin to asking why we are devoting more funds to "putting people on Mars" than extending human health and longevity by 7 (or more) years?
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Unfortunately scientists as a class aren't to my eye<br>anyway much better at reading how politics in democratic systems
<br>acts as a sort of sheet anchor to pure technological progress.</blockquote><div><br>Scientists "as a class" don't have to read the "politics in democratic systems", all they have to do is get a significant number of people to start clamoring -- "You can put men on the moon -- Why can't you stop aging?"
<br><br>It is also important to keep in mind that the people having the debate currently are *not* the people who will solve the problem. Jay Olshansky is a demographer (a very good one) and as such is perhaps poorly qualified to comment on what can and cannot be done with respect treating and eliminating aging. You generally do not turn to people who are experts at comprehending complex systems (scientists) as the people who will offer the best insights into how to put solutions together (engineers) -- particularly if the solutions one most desires to engineer may have little in common with the systems being taken apart .
<br><br>Also see .<br><br>Robert<br></div><br><div>1. <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm">http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm</a><br>2. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation
</a><br>3. <a href="http://www.ellisonfoundation.org/index.jsp">http://www.ellisonfoundation.org/index.jsp</a><br></div>4. The significant extension of human lifespan potentially disempowers those who believe in and are supported by concepts involving "souls", "afterlives", "heaven" & "hell", etc. If one is going to live hundreds, thousands (or trillions(!)) of years, the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" have much less throw weight. Conservative parties which have strong religious subgroups are likely to have significant problems when mere humans start to have control over "life" and "death" (an area formerly the exclusive domain of "gods").
<br>5. For an extreme example, an analysis of how telomere shortening does or does not contribute to aging (say among all of the scientists who are experts on telomeres) contributes *very* little towards building nanorobotic vasculoid systems  that can be implanted in the human body and would eliminate heart attacks, strokes and cancer as causes of death.
<br>6. Freitas, R. A. & Phoenix, C. J., "Vasculoid: A Personal Nanomedical Appliance to Replace Human Blood", Journal of Evolution and Technology 11 (Apr 2002).<br><a href="http://www.jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.html">
http://www.jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.html</a><br><a href="http://www.jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.pdf">http://www.jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.pdf</a><br>7. As a child I grew up in a relatively unique environment. I got to take lots of things apart -- pinball machines, old radios and oscilliscopes, motorcycle and automobile engines, geological formations, etc. I also got to put things together things such as tinkertoys or erector set projects, plastic car, boat and airplane models, relatively complex HO model train systems, model rockets, various electronic projects and chemistry experiments and of course the motorcycle and automobile engines (hopefully in better condition than before they were taken apart). My first "real" job was at a florist facilitating the assembly of complex biological systems, usually geraniums and my second "real" job was taking apart and putting together stepping motor electronic driver boards and the stepping motors themselves. (This was all before the age of 18). It is my firm belief that one cannot *really* discuss the problems of aging and lifespan extension with people who do not have significant experience with *both* taking relatively complex things apart and putting them together.