Subject: CryoNet #22694 - #22695 - msg#00017

Previous Message by Date:

CryoNet #22690 - #22693

CryoNet - Sat 18 Oct 2003 #22690: President's Council on Bioethics - More Anti-Longevity Rhetoric [Clement, James] #22691: 110'th update on fly longevity experiments [Doug Skrecky] #22692: Re: #22684 [Jeffrey Soreff] #22693: Immortality on Ice (Discover) [WalkerBill] Administrivia To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to: cryonet-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with the subject line (not message _body_): subscribe To unsubscribe, use the subject line: unsubscribe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22690 From: "Clement, James" <james.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: President's Council on Bioethics - More Anti-Longevity Rhetoric Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:40:58 -0400 October 17, 2003 Bush's Advisers on Biotechnology Express Concern on Its Use By NICHOLAS WADE Laying a broad basis for possible future prescriptions, the President's Council on Bioethics yesterday issued an analysis of how biotechnology could lead toward unintended and destructive ends. Called "Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness," the council's report concerns present and future interventions intended not to restore health but rather to alter genetic inheritance, to enhance mind or body, or to extend life span beyond its natural limits. These range from selecting the sex of children, to drugs that change the mind or improve athletic performance, to the various research projects that seek to tap the body's presumed capacity for extreme longevity. While the report is not attributed to a single author, it is written in a graceful style quite distinct from standard government prose and very similar to that of Dr. Leon R. Kass, the council's chairman. Dr. Kass said in an interview that the purpose of the report was educational but that the council, created by President Bush two years ago as an advisory body on bioethical issues, would use it as a springboard for future recommendations. The report's overall thrust is that people's desire to improve themselves or to give their children an edge carries the risk of putting strain on human nature in many unintended ways. The council expresses concern at "the attractive science-based power to remake ourselves after images of our own devising." It asks if the purpose of medicine is "to make us perfect, or to make us whole?" It concludes that "the human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement.' " One attempt, where individuals' interest may clearly differ from society's, is that of choosing the sex of one's children - to balance the sexes within a family in some cultures, to obtain a son in others. The report notes that a sex ratio of more than 106 boys to 100 girls can be regarded as evidence of sex selection - usually achieved by sonogram and abortion, though sperm-sorting methods developed from animal husbandry are also available. In Cuba the sex ratio is now 118, in China 117, in Egypt 108.7 and in Venezuela 107.5. There have also been significant changes in the ratio among two American ethnic groups: over the last 20 years, the sex ratio for Chinese-Americans has risen to 107.7 from 104.6, and for Japanese-Americans to 106.4 from 102.6. Previous ethics commissions, the council notes, have had little to say in favor of sex selection yet have insisted that it should not be made illegal. The council is not so sure. "Having one's sex foreordained by another is different from having it determined by the lottery of sexual union," the report observes. The council is also concerned about prescribing mood-changing drugs to children. Though some children need medication to help concentrate, others take drugs to improve performance. This is not the best way to learn self-control, in the council's view. "By medicalizing key elements of our life through biotechnical interventions," the report says, "we may weaken our sense of responsibility and agency." Turning to aging, the council notes that many aspects of life are tuned to the orderly cycle of birth, marriage and death, and says that to disrupt this cycle by indefinitely postponing death could change life's meaning in unacceptable ways. "The pursuit of an ageless body may prove finally to be a distraction and a deformation," the report says. The prospect of death makes each generation eager to pass on its wisdom and goods to the next; but with immortal life, this incentive would fray. Further, who would not hesitate a little at saying "until death do us part" if life expectancy at the time of marriage were a full century, the council asks. And while three-generation families may be a blessing, having five generations around at the same time could be just too much. The council's report draws attention to the power of commercial enterprises to shape people's desires, driving them to consumption of Ritalin, Botox, Rogaine, Viagra and Prozac. It notes that scientists, another interest group, "are especially inclined to resist legal limitations that might be imposed on their activities based on ethical considerations" - presumably a reference to the continuing debate over the appropriate use of human embryonic stem cells. The council's message is that neither commerce nor science, despite their utility, should be allowed to dictate a reshaping of human nature. The 310-page report is online at the council's Web site, bioethics.gov. A.G. Edwards & Sons' outgoing and incoming e-mails are electronically archived and subject to review and/or disclosure to someone other than the recipient. We cannot accept orders for transactions or other similar instructions through e-mail. We cannot ensure the security of information e-mailed over the Internet, so you should be careful when transmitting confidential information such as account numbers and security holdings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22691 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Skrecky <oberon@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: 110'th update on fly longevity experiments This is the 110'th update of my fly longevity experiments. Average temperature was 25.8 C during this run. Estimated maximal longevity using the formula (363 - T*11.2) is 74 days. Here I continue testing raw produce extracts. Parsley and high dose mint proved to be toxic. Apricot and endive lettuce appeared to be beneficial. Run #110 Percent Survival on Day supplement 3 9 15 20 26 31 36 41 46 51 57 63 68 ____________________________________________________ control one 97 92 82 59 38 31 21 13 5 0 - - - control two 97 67 58 52 24 18 9 9 3 3 0 - - apricot 8% 100 94 88 79 58 42 27 15 9 6 6 0 - apricot 33% 97 92 86 75 72 64 53 50 17 14 14 6 0 endive 8% 97 84 61 52 35 29 29 16 10 3 3 3 0 endive 33% 100 92 88 81 38 31 27 19 8 8 4 4 0 mint 8% 100 80 70 67 37 27 10 10 7 3 3 3 0 mint 33% 71 33 25 21 0 - - - - - - - - parsley 8% 100 67 52 52 33 29 5 0 - - - - - parsley 33% 98 2 0 - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22692 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:40:21 -0400 From: Jeffrey Soreff <soreff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: #22684 Randall Burns writes: >These factors combine to make me question the long >term political stability of the United States-they >strike me as the type of thing that could lead >eventually to another incident like the Civil War. We >have never yet seen a Civil War fought in a country >with a high tech infrastructure and nuclear weapons. >A while back, I wrote a claim, USgn that is hosted on >www.ideosphere.com >That claim was an attempt to project the chance of >major destabilization in the US by 2025. >(Hyperinflation at the level no government has >survived, civil war, breakup) >At present it trades at 20-25% >If we assume these are realistic odds, then the chance >of the US maintainnig its present form in 66 years, is >only 42% or so. That is a fascinating point. One ironic possibility: A lot has been written about the possibility of unstable arms races driven by advances in molecular nanotechnology. Wouldn't it be odd if _inter_national nanotech wars are avoided, but the US successfully implements general purpose molecular nanotechnology, and starts large scale use in its military - just in time for a civil war? Best wishes, -Jeffrey Soreff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22693 From: WalkerBill@xxxxxxx Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:07:32 EDT Subject: Immortality on Ice (Discover) Anybody know where this guy can get the old Discover program (c. 2000) on cryonics? I'm a chemistry teacher and I have seen this Immortality on Ice show. I would LOVE to have a copy for my class, but I can't find a place to buy it. Can you point me in the right direction? thanks mpickens Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of CryoNet Digest *********************

Next Message by Date:

CryoNet #22696 - #22699

CryoNet - Mon 20 Oct 2003 #22696: Re: right to life and right to free speech [John de Rivaz] #22697: Re: Platt on Poulation [Bob] #22698: A new tack on cancer fighting [Olaf Henny] #22699: How to find cooperative funeral directors [Henry R. Hirsch] Administrivia To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to: cryonet-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with the subject line (not message _body_): subscribe To unsubscribe, use the subject line: unsubscribe To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to: cryonet@xxxxxxxxxxx (Note: A "Subject:" line starting the message body replaces the "Subject:" line in the header. This gives a second opportunity to provide a meaningful subject line.) Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW, including search engines, make certain that your postings reflect how you want the world to see you. To retrieve past messages, send email to: archive@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message numbers in the subject line. (Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.) You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL: http://www.cryonet.org/ For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email to me at "kqb@xxxxxxxxxxx". - Kevin Q. Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22696 From: "John de Rivaz" <John@xxxxxxxxxxx> References: <20031019090000.32096.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: right to life and right to free speech Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:00:51 +0100 It seems clear that the US's government's biotech regulators are denying people their Constitutional right to life if they prevent research into lifespan extension. But I am not sure to what extent they are not allowed to talk about it. I would imagine that if any US government tried to legislate against research designed to extend lifespan such legislation would get rejected by the courts as unconstitutional. However if there is a powerful enough orator capable of swaying enough public opinion, then presumably the constitution could be changed giving a right to life of limited duration (say 65 years or whatever). But such a measure is likely to produce strong feeling on both sides, and could even lead to civil war or a terrorist movement that would be very hard to suppress. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and more ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22697 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob <thimblerig101@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Platt on Poulation Platt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Plus is still worried about population, although I find it hard to understand why. >>>>>>>>>>> Charles, you cite a report or 2 to support your case that those concerned with overpopulation are Chicken Littles, but is it possible that the entities generating such reports have agendas? Are they paid to say what others want them to? I think it possible, and even likely, given the forces and motivations in play. Will there be adverse consequences for those who write such reports if 100 years from now, they are proven wrong, and population grows much faster than they predicted? I doubt it. I am talking about the forces that want more immigration-driven population growth. Frankly, I see a lot of evidence that corporations and their lobbyists and the various governments here in the USA find high immigration rates to be very desirable: it increases the labor supply, thus decreasing wages, which corporate lobbies like. And it increases the population, obviously, which the govt likes. Hmm, more crowded and lower wages....great news...if you are a wealthy landowner or investor. That leaves most of us out. So, therefore, with these powerful and well-funded entities available to influence reports such as the one you quoted, I find it likely that such reports are slanted--to say the least. I find other sources more believable, given the evidence of tremendous population growth I see around me. Also, I find it likely that immigrants will have birth rates well above replacement levels here in the USA. Take a gander at some other population growth graphs: http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed2.html http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed3.html http://www.susps.org/overview/population.html http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html These graphs seem to tell a different story than the scenario you set out for us. Some of the graphs seem to have an slight exponential increase to them. And, furthermore, whenever, you (and other freemarket libertarians etc) broach this subject on cryonet, you seem to always come to the same conclusion--that population growth will level off and decrease at some point in the future. Well, so what? That says nothing about the hellacious and almost certainly dangerous and unstable conditions the USA will encounter along that path, thanks to defacto open borders. And this is not even touching on the TYPE of population increases brought on by current immigration trends, with the almost certain deleterious effects of language-based balkanization, and other negative effects of the present immigration.... You also wrote: >>>> Therefore the population growth that still exists in the US is caused almost entirely by immigration. If an agricultural crisis develops (which I find totally implausible) obviously immigration quotas will be revised downward. >>>> Really? You know, I really have to wonder whether you are seriously out of touch with how the world works, being way out there in the Arizona brush. The world does not really operate that cleanly and efficiently, as you apparently envision when you write about how obvious it would be that "immigration quotas would be revised downward" if we got short on food. Umm....how can I put this? How about a quote from the "Private Hudson" character in the movie Aliens: "Maybe you ain't been keeping track of current events, but we just got our asses kicked, man!" What I am trying to say is we are no longer living in a relatively small, homogenous, well-organized and controllable country, as many of the western european countries still are to a degree, and as your boyhood England was, and as the USA was once in the 50s and 60s. We may very well be headed for the type of semi-chaotic situation we see in most 3rd world countries. Revising immigration quotas downward may well be an empty gesture, if current trends continue. The immigrants are coming here whether we want them or not, short of effectively declaring war on illegal immigration, with troops, stationed on the border, etc. If food is in short supply here in the USA, how do you think Mexico is going to fare? And to go one step further, when I say that "immigrants are coming here whether we want them or not," let's just admit that most Americans do NOT want more immigrants (polls show that 55-80% of all Americans want less immigration). So, again, these powerful entities called "corporate lobbies" and the "government" do the wanting. Anyway, just some of my thoughts on this subject. Has not much to do with cryonics per se, but a lot to do with what is going to happen to the USA while we wait in our dewars for the development of the type of country that can someday revive us. So, not exactly off-topic. Maybe I am wrong--I sure hope so. ===== ----Bob __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22698 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:11:27 -0700 From: Olaf Henny <olafh@xxxxxxx> Subject: A new tack on cancer fighting References: <20031016090000.68357.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> New attack on cancer By Jen Kelly 20 October 2003 CANCER patients will be injected with their own blood cells, newly armed with acancer-fighting gene, in a world-first treatment created in Melbourne. Three jabs of genetically engineered white blood cells into cancer-riddled mice left them disease-free, paving the way for human trials. ... See the whole article at: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7610398%255E421,00.html Best, Olaf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22699 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:38:06 -0400 From: "Henry R. Hirsch" <hrhirsch@xxxxxxx> Subject: How to find cooperative funeral directors My method: Make an appointment to see the head mortician. When you go, look like a serious cash customer. Jacket, necktie, pressed slacks, haircut, shave, etc. Don't be apologetic about cryonics, but don't dwell on the subject. Act as if you were just another customer shopping for a plot in the cemetery. The funeral director will treat you with due respect if he believes it will be profitable to do so. Maybe it was just luck, but this worked for me in both of the major funeral homes here in Lexington, KY. One of the directors was so eager that I went further asked him what he would do if the airline refused to handle a corpse that was not embalmed or if the airport was shut down due to weather. He said he had a 4-wheel drive truck and could make the 400-mile run to Detroit under any conditions. Now that's what I call cooperative! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of CryoNet Digest *********************

Previous Message by Thread:

CryoNet #22690 - #22693

CryoNet - Sat 18 Oct 2003 #22690: President's Council on Bioethics - More Anti-Longevity Rhetoric [Clement, James] #22691: 110'th update on fly longevity experiments [Doug Skrecky] #22692: Re: #22684 [Jeffrey Soreff] #22693: Immortality on Ice (Discover) [WalkerBill] Administrivia To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to: cryonet-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with the subject line (not message _body_): subscribe To unsubscribe, use the subject line: unsubscribe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22690 From: "Clement, James" <james.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: President's Council on Bioethics - More Anti-Longevity Rhetoric Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:40:58 -0400 October 17, 2003 Bush's Advisers on Biotechnology Express Concern on Its Use By NICHOLAS WADE Laying a broad basis for possible future prescriptions, the President's Council on Bioethics yesterday issued an analysis of how biotechnology could lead toward unintended and destructive ends. Called "Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness," the council's report concerns present and future interventions intended not to restore health but rather to alter genetic inheritance, to enhance mind or body, or to extend life span beyond its natural limits. These range from selecting the sex of children, to drugs that change the mind or improve athletic performance, to the various research projects that seek to tap the body's presumed capacity for extreme longevity. While the report is not attributed to a single author, it is written in a graceful style quite distinct from standard government prose and very similar to that of Dr. Leon R. Kass, the council's chairman. Dr. Kass said in an interview that the purpose of the report was educational but that the council, created by President Bush two years ago as an advisory body on bioethical issues, would use it as a springboard for future recommendations. The report's overall thrust is that people's desire to improve themselves or to give their children an edge carries the risk of putting strain on human nature in many unintended ways. The council expresses concern at "the attractive science-based power to remake ourselves after images of our own devising." It asks if the purpose of medicine is "to make us perfect, or to make us whole?" It concludes that "the human body and mind, highly complex and delicately balanced as a result of eons of gradual and exacting evolution, are almost certainly at risk from any ill-considered attempt at `improvement.' " One attempt, where individuals' interest may clearly differ from society's, is that of choosing the sex of one's children - to balance the sexes within a family in some cultures, to obtain a son in others. The report notes that a sex ratio of more than 106 boys to 100 girls can be regarded as evidence of sex selection - usually achieved by sonogram and abortion, though sperm-sorting methods developed from animal husbandry are also available. In Cuba the sex ratio is now 118, in China 117, in Egypt 108.7 and in Venezuela 107.5. There have also been significant changes in the ratio among two American ethnic groups: over the last 20 years, the sex ratio for Chinese-Americans has risen to 107.7 from 104.6, and for Japanese-Americans to 106.4 from 102.6. Previous ethics commissions, the council notes, have had little to say in favor of sex selection yet have insisted that it should not be made illegal. The council is not so sure. "Having one's sex foreordained by another is different from having it determined by the lottery of sexual union," the report observes. The council is also concerned about prescribing mood-changing drugs to children. Though some children need medication to help concentrate, others take drugs to improve performance. This is not the best way to learn self-control, in the council's view. "By medicalizing key elements of our life through biotechnical interventions," the report says, "we may weaken our sense of responsibility and agency." Turning to aging, the council notes that many aspects of life are tuned to the orderly cycle of birth, marriage and death, and says that to disrupt this cycle by indefinitely postponing death could change life's meaning in unacceptable ways. "The pursuit of an ageless body may prove finally to be a distraction and a deformation," the report says. The prospect of death makes each generation eager to pass on its wisdom and goods to the next; but with immortal life, this incentive would fray. Further, who would not hesitate a little at saying "until death do us part" if life expectancy at the time of marriage were a full century, the council asks. And while three-generation families may be a blessing, having five generations around at the same time could be just too much. The council's report draws attention to the power of commercial enterprises to shape people's desires, driving them to consumption of Ritalin, Botox, Rogaine, Viagra and Prozac. It notes that scientists, another interest group, "are especially inclined to resist legal limitations that might be imposed on their activities based on ethical considerations" - presumably a reference to the continuing debate over the appropriate use of human embryonic stem cells. The council's message is that neither commerce nor science, despite their utility, should be allowed to dictate a reshaping of human nature. The 310-page report is online at the council's Web site, bioethics.gov. A.G. Edwards & Sons' outgoing and incoming e-mails are electronically archived and subject to review and/or disclosure to someone other than the recipient. We cannot accept orders for transactions or other similar instructions through e-mail. We cannot ensure the security of information e-mailed over the Internet, so you should be careful when transmitting confidential information such as account numbers and security holdings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22691 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Skrecky <oberon@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: 110'th update on fly longevity experiments This is the 110'th update of my fly longevity experiments. Average temperature was 25.8 C during this run. Estimated maximal longevity using the formula (363 - T*11.2) is 74 days. Here I continue testing raw produce extracts. Parsley and high dose mint proved to be toxic. Apricot and endive lettuce appeared to be beneficial. Run #110 Percent Survival on Day supplement 3 9 15 20 26 31 36 41 46 51 57 63 68 ____________________________________________________ control one 97 92 82 59 38 31 21 13 5 0 - - - control two 97 67 58 52 24 18 9 9 3 3 0 - - apricot 8% 100 94 88 79 58 42 27 15 9 6 6 0 - apricot 33% 97 92 86 75 72 64 53 50 17 14 14 6 0 endive 8% 97 84 61 52 35 29 29 16 10 3 3 3 0 endive 33% 100 92 88 81 38 31 27 19 8 8 4 4 0 mint 8% 100 80 70 67 37 27 10 10 7 3 3 3 0 mint 33% 71 33 25 21 0 - - - - - - - - parsley 8% 100 67 52 52 33 29 5 0 - - - - - parsley 33% 98 2 0 - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22692 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:40:21 -0400 From: Jeffrey Soreff <soreff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: #22684 Randall Burns writes: >These factors combine to make me question the long >term political stability of the United States-they >strike me as the type of thing that could lead >eventually to another incident like the Civil War. We >have never yet seen a Civil War fought in a country >with a high tech infrastructure and nuclear weapons. >A while back, I wrote a claim, USgn that is hosted on >www.ideosphere.com >That claim was an attempt to project the chance of >major destabilization in the US by 2025. >(Hyperinflation at the level no government has >survived, civil war, breakup) >At present it trades at 20-25% >If we assume these are realistic odds, then the chance >of the US maintainnig its present form in 66 years, is >only 42% or so. That is a fascinating point. One ironic possibility: A lot has been written about the possibility of unstable arms races driven by advances in molecular nanotechnology. Wouldn't it be odd if _inter_national nanotech wars are avoided, but the US successfully implements general purpose molecular nanotechnology, and starts large scale use in its military - just in time for a civil war? Best wishes, -Jeffrey Soreff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22693 From: WalkerBill@xxxxxxx Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:07:32 EDT Subject: Immortality on Ice (Discover) Anybody know where this guy can get the old Discover program (c. 2000) on cryonics? I'm a chemistry teacher and I have seen this Immortality on Ice show. I would LOVE to have a copy for my class, but I can't find a place to buy it. Can you point me in the right direction? thanks mpickens Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of CryoNet Digest *********************

Next Message by Thread:

CryoNet #22696 - #22699

CryoNet - Mon 20 Oct 2003 #22696: Re: right to life and right to free speech [John de Rivaz] #22697: Re: Platt on Poulation [Bob] #22698: A new tack on cancer fighting [Olaf Henny] #22699: How to find cooperative funeral directors [Henry R. Hirsch] Administrivia To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to: cryonet-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with the subject line (not message _body_): subscribe To unsubscribe, use the subject line: unsubscribe To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to: cryonet@xxxxxxxxxxx (Note: A "Subject:" line starting the message body replaces the "Subject:" line in the header. This gives a second opportunity to provide a meaningful subject line.) Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW, including search engines, make certain that your postings reflect how you want the world to see you. To retrieve past messages, send email to: archive@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message numbers in the subject line. (Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.) You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL: http://www.cryonet.org/ For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email to me at "kqb@xxxxxxxxxxx". - Kevin Q. Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22696 From: "John de Rivaz" <John@xxxxxxxxxxx> References: <20031019090000.32096.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: right to life and right to free speech Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:00:51 +0100 It seems clear that the US's government's biotech regulators are denying people their Constitutional right to life if they prevent research into lifespan extension. But I am not sure to what extent they are not allowed to talk about it. I would imagine that if any US government tried to legislate against research designed to extend lifespan such legislation would get rejected by the courts as unconstitutional. However if there is a powerful enough orator capable of swaying enough public opinion, then presumably the constitution could be changed giving a right to life of limited duration (say 65 years or whatever). But such a measure is likely to produce strong feeling on both sides, and could even lead to civil war or a terrorist movement that would be very hard to suppress. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and more ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22697 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob <thimblerig101@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Platt on Poulation Platt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Plus is still worried about population, although I find it hard to understand why. >>>>>>>>>>> Charles, you cite a report or 2 to support your case that those concerned with overpopulation are Chicken Littles, but is it possible that the entities generating such reports have agendas? Are they paid to say what others want them to? I think it possible, and even likely, given the forces and motivations in play. Will there be adverse consequences for those who write such reports if 100 years from now, they are proven wrong, and population grows much faster than they predicted? I doubt it. I am talking about the forces that want more immigration-driven population growth. Frankly, I see a lot of evidence that corporations and their lobbyists and the various governments here in the USA find high immigration rates to be very desirable: it increases the labor supply, thus decreasing wages, which corporate lobbies like. And it increases the population, obviously, which the govt likes. Hmm, more crowded and lower wages....great news...if you are a wealthy landowner or investor. That leaves most of us out. So, therefore, with these powerful and well-funded entities available to influence reports such as the one you quoted, I find it likely that such reports are slanted--to say the least. I find other sources more believable, given the evidence of tremendous population growth I see around me. Also, I find it likely that immigrants will have birth rates well above replacement levels here in the USA. Take a gander at some other population growth graphs: http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed2.html http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed3.html http://www.susps.org/overview/population.html http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html These graphs seem to tell a different story than the scenario you set out for us. Some of the graphs seem to have an slight exponential increase to them. And, furthermore, whenever, you (and other freemarket libertarians etc) broach this subject on cryonet, you seem to always come to the same conclusion--that population growth will level off and decrease at some point in the future. Well, so what? That says nothing about the hellacious and almost certainly dangerous and unstable conditions the USA will encounter along that path, thanks to defacto open borders. And this is not even touching on the TYPE of population increases brought on by current immigration trends, with the almost certain deleterious effects of language-based balkanization, and other negative effects of the present immigration.... You also wrote: >>>> Therefore the population growth that still exists in the US is caused almost entirely by immigration. If an agricultural crisis develops (which I find totally implausible) obviously immigration quotas will be revised downward. >>>> Really? You know, I really have to wonder whether you are seriously out of touch with how the world works, being way out there in the Arizona brush. The world does not really operate that cleanly and efficiently, as you apparently envision when you write about how obvious it would be that "immigration quotas would be revised downward" if we got short on food. Umm....how can I put this? How about a quote from the "Private Hudson" character in the movie Aliens: "Maybe you ain't been keeping track of current events, but we just got our asses kicked, man!" What I am trying to say is we are no longer living in a relatively small, homogenous, well-organized and controllable country, as many of the western european countries still are to a degree, and as your boyhood England was, and as the USA was once in the 50s and 60s. We may very well be headed for the type of semi-chaotic situation we see in most 3rd world countries. Revising immigration quotas downward may well be an empty gesture, if current trends continue. The immigrants are coming here whether we want them or not, short of effectively declaring war on illegal immigration, with troops, stationed on the border, etc. If food is in short supply here in the USA, how do you think Mexico is going to fare? And to go one step further, when I say that "immigrants are coming here whether we want them or not," let's just admit that most Americans do NOT want more immigrants (polls show that 55-80% of all Americans want less immigration). So, again, these powerful entities called "corporate lobbies" and the "government" do the wanting. Anyway, just some of my thoughts on this subject. Has not much to do with cryonics per se, but a lot to do with what is going to happen to the USA while we wait in our dewars for the development of the type of country that can someday revive us. So, not exactly off-topic. Maybe I am wrong--I sure hope so. ===== ----Bob __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22698 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:11:27 -0700 From: Olaf Henny <olafh@xxxxxxx> Subject: A new tack on cancer fighting References: <20031016090000.68357.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> New attack on cancer By Jen Kelly 20 October 2003 CANCER patients will be injected with their own blood cells, newly armed with acancer-fighting gene, in a world-first treatment created in Melbourne. Three jabs of genetically engineered white blood cells into cancer-riddled mice left them disease-free, paving the way for human trials. ... See the whole article at: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7610398%255E421,00.html Best, Olaf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message #22699 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:38:06 -0400 From: "Henry R. Hirsch" <hrhirsch@xxxxxxx> Subject: How to find cooperative funeral directors My method: Make an appointment to see the head mortician. When you go, look like a serious cash customer. Jacket, necktie, pressed slacks, haircut, shave, etc. Don't be apologetic about cryonics, but don't dwell on the subject. Act as if you were just another customer shopping for a plot in the cemetery. The funeral director will treat you with due respect if he believes it will be profitable to do so. Maybe it was just luck, but this worked for me in both of the major funeral homes here in Lexington, KY. One of the directors was so eager that I went further asked him what he would do if the airline refused to handle a corpse that was not embalmed or if the airport was shut down due to weather. He said he had a 4-wheel drive truck and could make the 400-mile run to Detroit under any conditions. Now that's what I call cooperative! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of CryoNet Digest *********************