X-Message-Number: 7304
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 08:45:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: The Horror of an Extended Life

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Olaf Henny wrote:

> Judging from the these letters we are all a near-suicidal bunch, tired of
> hanging about on this planet.  I cannot help but think, that there was
> considerable prejudice in the selection of reader's responses based on the
> editor's (editors') personal views, rather than a true reflection of the
> tenor of the mails received.

Sorry, I disagree; I think the letters published were almost certainly
representative of the majority of letters received. The life/death cycle
is so fundamental to human beings and the world around us, tampering with
it is like tampering with DNA (indeed, extending maximum lifespan may
ultimately *require* tampering with DNA). And you know how unpopular that
is. Recently I asked several editors if they would be interested in a book
about computational molecular biology, the relatively new science in which
computational techniques are applied, in particular, to the human genome,
to sort and compare sequences with the possibility of ultimately
"reprogramming" them. The unanimous response was that such a book would
have to be a "grim warning" rather than a "utopian promise" because the
utopian version would only sell to a small number of techno-nuts, while
the grim warning would appeal to the mass market. (Needless to say, I 
declined to write the grim warning.)

We live in a country where the majority of people are not just ignorant of
science, but scared of it. Once they see their neighbors living twice as
long and aging half as fast, maybe then they will stampede to buy those
life extension treatments. In the meantime, though, I believe the early
adopters will remain a rather small minority. 

Incidentally, Olaf, I apologize for not joining your crusade to write
letters to TIME magazine. I do believe in fighting the good fight, but I
also believe in choosing the most favorable terrain. I do not regard TIME
as a benign environment for us. It is an old magazine in many senses of
the word, regardless of recent attempts to make it look fresher. 

If you are interested in mass-circulation print media, I believe the best
bet is USA Today. Although it has been much maligned in the past, it has
become the print equivalent of CNN, and its editorial position on
science-related, topical issues such as Net freedom has been unfailingly
progressive, bordering on libertarian. A cautiously positive op-ed piece
on life extension or cryonics might work there. 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7304