X-Message-Number: 3903
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 14:59:53 -0500
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <>
Subject: Very long lives

> if he can provide one computer which is still in active use after 60
> years, ...

Obviously he can't, since computers weren't yet invented 60 years ago.

Yes, present-day computers tend to be short-lived.  So what?  And even
if they always remain so, the point is that if it's possible to treat
*mind* like any other piece of information, then a mind will be as
effectively immortal as a book or a symphony.  Books from centuries ago
are still available, and should remain so for at least as long as our
civilization lasts, even though no individual assemblage of ink and
paper will last very long.

> All the computers I know were taken apart and junked ...

In every case where someone took the small effort required, their
programs survive.  And could be run again today on better hardware.

> Yet even if we do nothing, in a few centuries or so (given that we can
> maintain our present condition) our lifespans would show an increase.

Why should that be?  There's currently no selective advantage for longer
lifespans.  Children are not significantly more likely to die before
having children if their parents die young.

The simplest way to select for longer lifespans would be to, in each
generation, sterilize that half of the population whose ancestors died
or showed signs of aging at a greater than average rate.  I would not
want to live in such a society.  And nobody alive today would benefit
from such a program in any case.



Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3903