X-Message-Number: 19076
From: 
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:12:48 EDT
Subject: Scientific American on Antiaging and Immortality,  

--part1_10d.123a7bed.2a131e20_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Someone was clever enough to post the URL of SA to the position paper on 
Antiaging, etc.  

I thought it may be relevant to post the section on immortality here, 
although I find it annoying and full of hubris on the part of the Scientific 
American Editors.

Here it is anyway.  Does this strike anyone else as slightly obnoxious?  I 
understand that SA wishes to maintain credibility, and must adopt a 
"skeptical" wait and see attitude.  But I think they could have done better 
than this!  The current Editors at SA are really blowing it these days, in my 
opinion.

Quote follows:

IMMORTALITY
Eliminating all the aging-related11 causes of death presently written on 
death certificates would still not make humans immortal.12 Accidents, 
homicides, suicide and the biological processes of aging would continue to 
take their toll. The prospect of humans living forever is as unlikely today 
as it has always been, and discussions of such an impossible scenario have no 
place in a scientific discourse. 
11Carnes BA, Olshansky SJ. A Biologically Motivated Partitioning of 
Mortality. Exp Gerontol. 1997;32:615-631. 12Hayflick L. How and why we age. 
Exp Gerontol. 1998;33:639-653. --
    
(End quote)

Well, there we have it, friends.  The "FINAL WORD" from respected scientific 
authority.  A short and sweet dismisal of even the potential of immortality, 
with a calm assurance that there is no greater chance of scientific and 
biological immortality today than there has *EVER* been.  Anyone else ticked 
(disapointed, angry) at Scientific American besides me?

But we would do well to remember that the burden of proof is on the CLAIMANT, 
and as it stands in 2002 there is certainly NO proof that any of us can prove 
our anti-aging regime works, much less cryonics or immortalism.

So, while I applaud skepticism in general, to imply that we are no closer as 
a race to figuring out aging and potentially conquering death than a medieval 
alchemist is demonstrably falsified by the data in many issues of Scientific 
American.  Do these guys read what they publish?

SO, while I respect their skepticism, I am annoyed at their hubris.

If they keep slopping things up like their positions on nanotech, cryonics, 
and anti-aging, I will discontinue my subscription.

Regards,

Rudi


--part1_10d.123a7bed.2a131e20_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19076