• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Pinto, Jim - orignial


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 21 December 2003 - 03:43 AM


Pinto, Jim, is a technology entrepreneur, investor, futurist, writer and commentator. He was born in India, lived in England for 8 years, and in the US since 1968. He was named California Small Business Person of the Year for the State of California in 1980. He has been featured in many books and national journals as a pioneer in participative management. He has traveled widely throughout the world, and has significant experience in the comparative study of American, European and Japanese Business cultures.

Website: www.JimPinto.com Focuses on advances in technology and social changes of relevance to futurists; can be custom-tailored to your special interests. (See Pinto's essay in this book)

Posted Image
http://www.jimpinto.com/home.html

>Hello, Bruce :
>
>Yes, I'll be happy to submit an article
>for your book.
>
>You can publish any of the ones that are
>already on my website.
>
>Predictions & Possibilities:
>http://www.jimpinto.com/futures.html
>
>Or, suggest a relevant topic, and I'll write
>specifically for your book.
>
>Let me know.
>
>Cheers:
>jim
>----------/
>Jim Pinto
>Tel : (858) 353-JIMP (5467)
>email : jim@jimpinto.com
>web: www.JimPinto.com
>San Diego, CA., USA
>----------/
>See Jim Pinto's new book - Automation Unplugged:
>Pinto's Perspectives, Pointers & Prognostications
>http://www.jimpinto..../unplugged.html
>

===

Hi Jim,

Wonderful! I'll inform the editing team of
the good news.

Perhaps you may like to expand on your
newsletter discussion:

“More on human longevity – 3”
http://www.jimpinto....nov12-2002.html

Personally, I have a burning interest in
the problem of: death = oblivion.

You may have already written about this
somewhere else… if so, I'd enjoy learning
your ideas.

However, feel free to contribute any topic where
you have an interest that relates to the quest for
physical immortality.

Regards,
Bruce

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 04 February 2004 - 10:16 PM

Jim,

Thanks for sending this update as I must have missed
your first email.. sorry.

I'll forward your submission to the editing team as over the
coming weeks, they will review and provide feedback.

However, I can go ahead and give you my personal opinion now,
so that you may wish to make any changes.

My initial feeling is that it's a wonderful introductory piece
for the concept of increasing lifespan. However, I do not wish
to give false hope and would like to await editors review.

Personally, I'm a bit more radical in term of physical immortality. Thus,
I feel the article could well to dive a little further into the concept of actual
physical immortality (infinite lifespans) and especially the underlying
reasoning for wanting physical immortality. For example: death = oblivion.

Please see: "Why Physical Immortality"
http://www.imminst.o...T&f=67&t=811&s=

Yet, please know that I really appreciate your essay submission and
hope we can continue to develop a relationship.

In this regard, I'd like to invite you to join ImmInst as a featured chat guest
sometime in the near future. Please let me know if this is something which
may interest you and I can send more information about our online chats.

Bruce

#3 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 04 February 2004 - 10:16 PM

Here is the first draft of my submission
for your book:

* The search for longevity

This is about 4,250 words - feel free to edit
to suit your requirements. Or, let me know whether
you'd like me to edit further.

I'll welcome your comments and suggestions.

Cheers:
jim

--

Jim,

Thanks for sending this update as I must have missed
your first email.. sorry.

I'll forward your submission to the editing team as over the
coming weeks, they will review and provide feedback.

However, I can go ahead and give you my personal opinion now,
so that you may wish to make any changes.

My initial feeling is that it's a wonderful introductory piece
for the concept of increasing lifespan. However, I do not wish
to give false hope and would like to await editors review.

Personally, I'm a bit more radical in term of physical immortality. Thus,
I feel the article could well to dive a little further into the concept of actual
physical immortality (infinite lifespans) and especially the underlying
reasoning for wanting physical immortality. For example: death = oblivion.

Please see: "Why Physical Immortality"
http://www.imminst.o...T&f=67&t=811&s=

Yet, please know that I really appreciate your essay submission and
hope we can continue to develop a relationship.

In this regard, I'd like to invite you to join ImmInst as a featured chat guest
sometime in the near future. Please let me know if this is something which
may interest you and I can send more information about our online chats.

Bruce

#4 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 04 February 2004 - 10:17 PM

The search for longevity

Humans have always been intrigued with the concept of immortality. Woody Allen quipped, “I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying”.

Literature has often dealt with the concepts of longevity and immortality, most often as an evil – vampires or monsters that lived forever, usually conquered by mere mortals through an Achilles heel, like a silver bullet, or a stake though the heart.

But the scientific quest continues, made possible, at least conceptually, by the acceleration of technology that brings practical life extension and transference of consciousness to synthetic beings ever closer. Indeed, there are some who are already considering this next century to be the age of major longevity breakthroughs, with the emergence of trans-human and post human beings.

Defining the human lifespan

The first longevity revolution occurred in the early 20th century, as infant mortality declined and infectious diseases were conquered. Today we are at the cusp of the second longevity revolution, the actual postponement of old age; and beyond that, the theoretical prospect of immortality.

Based on available evidence, the human life span shows no sign of approaching a fixed limit imposed by biology or other factors. Rather, both the average and the maximum human life span have increased steadily over time for more than a century. The complexity and historical stability of these changes suggest that the most reliable method of predicting longevity has been merely to extrapolate past trends. Average human life expectancy has been increasing at 2 1/2 years per decade for the last 150 years. Today it is about 76 years. At this rate, it will reach 100 in six decades.

But, of course, those predictions do not take into account the significant genetic engineering and biotechnology advances that are already occurring, and will continue to occur with accelerating rapidity in this century. Most scientists agree that major advances will cause 20- to 40-year jumps in longevity to occur in this century. In this century, a dramatic increase in lifespan is inevitable. It's not science any more – it’s engineering. And it’s already a social problem that will soon become a serious political dilemma.

The essence of aging

What is aging? My friend who is 80-something described it this way, "I feel like a young man in constant poor health." Aging is accompanied by lots of simultaneous changes – graying hair, thinning bones, weakening muscles, failing immune systems. So far, researchers have not figured out whether those changes are aging itself or just symptoms of some more general process of decay.

Aging beyond natural limit is a relatively new phenomenon. Over evolutionary history, once creatures began to falter in any way, they were eaten, killed in combat, or dropped dead of disease – eaten by bacteria – so they never had a chance to get old. Aging is not a natural state for humans; the evidence indicates that 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, most humans did not live much past 30. Today, the only creatures that actually experience aging are human beings and the animals they protect, such as pets and livestock.

The defining political conflict of the 21st century will be the battle over life and death. On one side there are those who counsel humanity to quietly accept our morbid fate and go gently and gracefully. On the other side are those who yearn to extend the enjoyment of healthy life to as many as possible for as long as possible.

As a futurist speaker (my primary avocation) I always generate a laugh when I suggest that when I'm 120, I'll be dating a cute 90-year old chick. And, if my wife is in the audience, some turn to look at her to see how she is reacting. But seriously, if indeed the average human lifespan extends to 200, who would want to be married to the same person for 160 years? And, how would the audience react if I said instead that I’d be dating a cute 30-year old? Or, a cute 150 year-old?

And there are more problems. Surely too, no one could enjoy the same kind of work for a century. Indeed, ones resume might include past careers as a doctor, politician, engineer, lawyer, fireman and rock-star; with 100 years experience in the same field, one would probably be considered stale. But, we’ll cover more in the realm of societal changes later.

Modern biomedical researchers have made great progress in unraveling the mystery of aging. Physical immortality may not be possible. But within the next few decades, science may indeed be able to radically postpone death. Most babies born in the last decade will probably live well into the next century. And, just as we honor centenarians today, soon there will be people whose life has spanned three centuries.

How old is old?

Just a generation ago, 40 was over-the-hill. The idea of sexy 50-, 60-, 70- and 80-year-olds seemed a contradiction in terms. This is no longer true – as has been demonstrated by Tina Turner, Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton, Farrah Fawcett, Candice Bergen, Lauren Hutton, Sophia Loren, Jane Fonda, Raquel Welch, etc. Not to mention Peter Jennings, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Harry Belafonte, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, Ricardo Montalban, Harrison Ford, Paul Newman – and the list goes on and on.

Today, there is a whole new industry involved with halting, slowing or actually reverse aging. Their marketing message is NOT just achieving advanced years, but doing so vigorously, and even youthfully. Americans are spending an estimated $6 billion on substances from ginkgo biloba to human growth hormone that claim to offer new powers.

Some skeptics believe that all these potions producing nothing but expensive urine. But, consider this:
 Respected demographers calculate that half the babies born today will live beyond 100.
 The number of 100-year-olds in the US has been increasing by over 7% per year since the '50s. The fastest-growing group of drivers in Florida is over 85.
 Dozens of companies (some staffed by distinguished scientists) are in the business of dramatically slowing aging.
 Bets have been placed (amounting to millions on payoff) that at least one person alive today will live to 150.
 Eminent technologists believe that science will evolve so fast in their lifetimes that they themselves will live energetically for a very long time, if not be effectively immortal.

Life extension mechanisms

But, before science can catch up to extend life, probably the most promising immediate thing that anyone can do to increase his or her own longevity is to stop eating too much. Calorie restriction is currently the only known technique for increasing the life spans of many different organisms.

Regenerative medicine with therapeutic cloning is the next best bet for near-term success. Anyone who needs a new heart or liver, may soon be able to grow a new perfect transplant using their own cells. The process would involve transferring the nucleus of a person’s own skin cells to a human egg, which would then grow in a petri dish, from which stem cells would be harvested and transformed into the desired tissues for personal transplant.

As the breakthroughs of nanotechnology approach, medical nanotechnology is already on the horizon – computer-controlled molecular tools much smaller than a human cell and with the accuracy and precision of drug molecules, to remove obstructions in the circulatory system, kill cancer cells or take over the function of sub cellular organelles.

The list of believers includes William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences in Rockville, who is biotech's first billionaire; Ray Kurzweil, the technology futurist; and Eric Drexler, the nano-technology guru and author of the ground-breaking book "Engines of Creation."

Ray Kurzweil sees biotechnologies within the decade that will allow the re-growth of tissues and organs to prevent hardening of the arteries and cure diabetes. He agrees that the vast majority of people are going to get sick and die in the old-fashioned way; but he suggests that may not be necessary –technology is right on the cusp!

Ray Kurzweil points out that the human biological systems are really very inefficient, not optimally engineered. A well-designed blood system should allow a person to sprint for several minutes without getting tired. And the human gastro-intestinal system is inefficient – it stores too much fat.

Beyond 10 years Ray Kurzweil sees technologies that will supplement red and white blood cells with little robotic devices that are hundreds of times faster. And he also sees gastrointestinal systems being replaced with engineered ones that would allow us to eat as much of anything as we want, for sociability and pleasure, while intelligently extracting nutrients from food and trashing the rest.

This long view has had a profound perspective on Ray Kurzweil's own life. Now about 56, he says: "I really envision living through this century and beyond, and it does give me a sense of the possibilities. I am not looking to slow down 10 years from now and be happy if I make it to 80. It's liberating. I envision doing things and being different kinds of people that the normal model of human wouldn't allow." Ultimately Ray envisions us expanding our brains through "intimate interaction with non-biological intelligence" (computers).

Bioengineering

Genetic & biological engineering will be the most important development of the next century. Within 100 years (maybe less) humans could evolve into a new species, maybe even a new genus, as scientists play with DNA – altering chromosomes, adding and subtracting genes, etc.

Many people think bioengineering is a dangerous move. Dangerous it may be, but it is unstoppable. Evolution has always been dangerous. What happens when a species evolves to live in a certain environment, and then the environment changes? Our environment is changing today, because of over-population and many other factors. Homo spaiens, in the fairly near future, will be poorly adapted to the environment. So, let's evolve! And, can we speed it up?

During this century, we will get increasing numbers of bioengineers working on the DNA changes, at least some of them will develop breakthroughs that will bring significant changes. Perhaps our great grandchildren will look back on us as we view Neanderthal man – not very intelligent….

AI and IA

This century will see the dramatic intersection of two major advances – Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Augmentation – that will bring starling changes.

Hitherto, we have considered robotics as a totally segmented realm of science – developing machines with human characteristics. And we haven’t been successful at it. Robots are very smart in some ways, like computers, but very dumb in others – conceptual understanding, humor, emotion. And, we tend to segment those off as distinctly “human” characteristics. As soon as machine intelligence achieves our arbitrary goals, we quickly move the goals-posts and redefine human intelligence.

The merging of AI and AI has startling results. Human frailties are already being augmented with machine capabilities – hearing aids, eyeglasses, wheel chairs, pacemakers. Those simple examples are quickly and easily extrapolated.

For example, students are supposed to take qualifying tests totally from memory, without looking up textbooks. Well, what about a calculator for math tests – some allow that, as a compromise to modern reality. Well, what if the “calculator” was a PDA, with textbooks in memory, and perhaps with a wireless connection to the Internet? If that is disallowed, then how about the PDA not being a separate external aid, but an internal body appendage (like an internally inserted brain pacemaker)? Clearly a human with that appendage would pass the highest intelligence tests, with a clear (and unfair) advantage.

Within the next few decades intelligence augmentation may be commonplace. And people without IA would be considered as ridiculous as shortsighted individuals who refuse to wear glasses, or deaf people who spurn hearing aids.

That line of thought brings us to direct life extension. The advantages of physical augmentation will come first as medical aids, intended to reduce ailments, but then quickly adopted by those without ailments, as performance extenders. For example, Viagara is intended to assist erectile dysfunction, but is already sold widely to people who don’t have that problem, and are merely seeking to improve their performance. Similarly, glucosamine, calcium and many other health aids are taken, not as cures, but as preventatives and health extenders.

Suppose a pill was available (as it soon will be) to reverse aging? How many people would refuse to take that pill? And then, what would be the consequences if use became commonplace?

Let’s go further. When the human body continues to degrade physically, suppose a person could download his or her mind – their total consciousness – to a machine. Why would they NOT choose to do that? And, when the machine developed problems (bugs, viruses, etc.), they could choose another machine (like buying a new computer) and download their consciousness to the new one. Would that define immortality? The barriers are psychological, social and religious – not scientific.

Beyond that, suppose clones were available, essentially personal duplicates that include all a person’s physical and emotional characteristics, it would seem to be a waste to allow that duplicate to re-learn everything that the original has learned over a lifetime. Why not have a brain download, which would essentially yield a complete duplicate, eliminating the need for the original. That certainly would be one form of immortality.

If the duplicate was owned by the original, it would seem natural for it to perhaps be stored in a vault somewhere, to be used in case of the original’s untimely death from whatever cause. Ah, but what are the rights of the duplicate? The problems are intrinsically social, ethical, legal and spiritual.

Human cloning

In the 1930s, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World forecast a society based on clones, with a population optimized for productivity and happiness – humans bred for work, skills, administration, leadership, etc. In this century, that prospect looms.

Major controversy has surrounded the advent of every human reproductive technology, from artificial insemination to in-vitro fertilization. These were also denounced at first; but then they were adapted to serve human procreation needs and ultimately became commonplace practices. Like its forerunners, human cloning will happen – inevitably.

The '97 cloning of a sheep was a milestone. But, the prospect that the same methods might be used to clone human beings has been widely condemned by clerics, ethicists, sociologists and politicians as unethical and socially dangerous.

Clerics of many different faiths attack human cloning as a violation of God’s order; that same objection has countered technology advances since Galileo. Ethicists denounce it as a denial of a unique genetic identity; the same criticism was levied against in-vitro fertilization. Social critics warn that cloning would simply permit the rich to indulge in reproductive egomania, or entrepreneurs to mass-produce superior athletes; but that's not really a deterrent.

Human cloning already has many advocates, including those who cannot have children by conventional means. If human cloning is made reliably safe for both mother and child, market demand will soar and likely overpower moral objections. It seems inevitable that human cloning, if made medically safe, will undergo rapid adaptation to human wants and needs. Somehow, DNA manipulation seems like a reasonable alternative to the lottery of the human biological birthing process.

According to polls, most people already support therapeutic human cloning – the creation of cloned embryos for research, particularly on stem cells. Therapeutic cloning today will hasten the arrival of reproductive cloning tomorrow. Even without it, cloning techniques and technology are advancing rapidly. Human cloning research will surely yield still further improvements in safety and reliability. Once human cloning is made physically safe, it will proliferate.

Someday soon, somewhere, a biologist will implant a cloned human embryo in a willing woman’s womb. The demand is already evident. Calls have come from gays and infertile couples who wish to have genetically related children, and from people who want to clone lost children or loved ones.

Human clones will not be what some expect – replacement duplicates. They will, like everyone else, be born as babies, each genetically the same as its clonal parent, a new kind of identical twin; but since each will be shaped by environmental influences, each will develop uniquely. How the child will turn out psychologically and emotionally is anybody’s guess. But that uncertainty will not stop prospective clonal parents, just as similar unknowns have not stopped conventional reproduction.

The first human clone will probably be born outside the US - perhaps in China, where work on human cloning is proceeding. Wherever the child appears, its birth will undoubtedly electrify the world; people will want to know if it remains healthy, and how it develops as it grows to adulthood. One imagines that other cloned children will follow and become commonplace. This will then become a new commodity in the growing emporium of human reproduction.

Within a few short years - or even perhaps a decade, given that there may be problems that need to be ironed out – human cloning and genetic engineering will be commonplace. Of course, the conservatives will be leery of these unnatural methods; and the orthodox will insist, "God did not intend it that way." But, when the relatively safe and successful delivery of an increasing number of genetically engineered human clones is demonstrated, who will choose instead the dangerous lottery of the conventional birthing process?

Societal changes

With cloning, genetic engineering and the emergence of augmented and synthetic humans, will come the need for new thinking in all the systems of human society – laws, ethics, morals, theology, philosophy. Do clones have a soul? Are they allowed to vote? Can they be bred as soldiers? The specter of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World looms.

Just recently, I watched as my son, his wife and another couple watched with delight as their babies, born at the same time about six months ago, were doing similar things - moving on all fours, getting ready to walk, etc. I wondered aloud what they would say and do when another set of parents proudly announced that their cloned baby, born at the same time, was walking and talking already. One of the mothers declared spontaneously - "Well, we wouldn’t be their friends!" The ensuing discussion was interesting, to say the least.

Later, I mused about his parents’ response when my grandson announces that he was bringing home his new fiancée - a cyborg (synthetic human). How will my son (his father) respond when his wife asks, "Guess who’s coming to dinner?"

It is interesting to speculate what the elite universities will be like some 50 years from now, when genetically engineered clones and techno-humans (humans with intelligence augmentation) are a major part of student enrollment. One wonders what will happen when a majority of the enrollment at Ivy League colleges is genetically engineered and synthetic humans. Will there perhaps be separate universities just for "conventional" humans? Perhaps too, there will also be military schools and colleges training clones specifically for hazardous and heroic military operations.

Similar questions have been dealt with extensively in science fiction: should healthy humans be removed at make room for others? Is suicide or voluntary termination legally acceptable? Would a person’s soul be considered transferable to synthetic human? Indeed, would a synthetic human be considered to have a soul? Would marriage be allowed between humans and robots with demonstrated intelligence at least equal to humans? The possibilities generate totally new levels of societal complexity.

And all the while, the gap between the haves and have-nots seems to grow ever more unbridgeable. For the majority of the world, the spread of disease is the most urgent problem. They see the west as greedy and arrogant to be calling for free trade and then not supplying Africa, for example, with drugs that are available because they don't have money. Millions of people are dying because pharmaceutical companies won't let poor countries make AIDS drugs. These are the people who will be following the old tried and true path of 'natural selection', not cloning and genetic engineering. They are facing much harsher circumstances than we are, and in the long run may turn out stronger as a result. And wouldn't that be scary. Imagine the justice they would dole out if they took power, and the "more advanced" countries were stuck with outdated genes, looking for DNA handouts.

During the course of history, humans achieved dominance over one another first through brawn and then brain (communication, organization, intelligence). Leaders were chosen based initially on physical prowess, and then intelligence, to remain in control. Power passed by hereditary lineage, with the assumption that offspring would have the same ‘royal’ characteristics, cultivated additionally through education and upbringing. This often proved to be tragically wrong and inferior heirs were usually displaced by a competitive combination of brawn and brain.

In the next few thousand years, competitive advantage was gained by brainpower – science and technology. History makes it evident that man-with-tool inevitably survived and conquered man-without. Superior discipline, plus the technology of war, built the Roman Empire. Even spiritually advanced humans (India a few centuries ago, Aztecs and American Indians within the last two) were quickly subjugated by competitive technological prowess.

In just the past few decades DNA was discovered; and then sequencing of the human genome bought a new level of knowledge of our biological makeup. As we begin to understand the subtle yet significant DNA differences and achieve the ability to manipulate gene sequences, the consequences will be awesome.

Technology has already enhanced natural biological processes through the virtual elimination of disease and significant increase in human longevity. While intrinsic intelligence has not really changed, knowledge has increased steadily, to the point where human intelligence augmentation is significant and increasing fast.

It is clear that genetic selection and manipulation, in addition to reducing the propensity for disease through elimination of undesirable genes, will also improve physical characteristics and intelligence. Soon, choosing the physical and mental characteristics of a child through cloning and genetic selection will be vastly preferable to the current painful process of biological lottery.

We need to stop focusing on the warnings of myopic moralists and outdated ethicists. Let’s do some creative thinking about where human cloning, genetic selection and longevity science will really lead.

If there is danger in human cloning and genetic manipulation, it is that they introduce potential for either peaceful or violent changes in society. Here are some possibilities to consider:

It has been said that democracy is ineffective and dictatorship is the best form of government – if one could be assured of a succession of benevolent dictators. Cloning could clearly be used to perpetuate a genetically stable lineage for a great leader, with genetic manipulation to eliminate undesirable character traits. Beyond that, perhaps the life of the good dictator could be extended significantly. Even the mere belief in a controlled genetic influence on behavior will surely encourage many of those who are in power to try human cloning. Cloning and genetic manipulation could produce a new “queen bee” for every generation.

Harkening back to Huxley’s Brave New World: When cloning and genetic manipulation becomes possible (notice the When, not If) any government could develop production of soldier-clones (vastly better than volunteers or involuntary conscription) and the resulting “defense” forces would provide undeniable competitive advantage.

Evolution is speeding up exponentially. In this next century, technology speed-up will continue with major evolutionary consequences. History makes it evident that man-with-tool inevitably survived and conquered man-without. Technology has caused and will continue to cause significant societal change.

The technology tools of the future will evolve a new form of techno-human. People will be constantly connected to the world through intelligent processors and communications. The distinction between reality and non-reality will blur.

The combination of human and synthetic intelligence has the potential for tremendous good. Human/machine web-intelligence already exists, survives and grows, independently and inexorably. I am optimistic about the synergy that can develop between natural and synthetic intelligence.

Joel de Rosnay postulates "symbiosis" between man and machine : "The origin of a new life-form on Earth – a still embryonic macro-organism made up of the totality of human beings and machines, living creatures, networks and nations – trying to live in symbiosis with the planetary ecosystem."

Human DNA is 98.6% the same as the gorilla and 97.8% the same as orangutans, our original biological roots. Sequencing of the human genome will bring a new level of knowledge of our biological makeup. Technology will enhance biology through the virtual elimination of disease and significant increase in longevity. Within the next few decades, the average (techno)human lifespan will increase well beyond 100 years, and by the end of this century to a couple of centuries.

What are the societal and philosophical changes that will occur? Perhaps, the new balance of life will allow future humanity to focus, not on technological advancement, but on spirituality and love.

Related links:

 Ronaly Bailey – Forever Young – The new scientific search for immortality:
http://www.reason.co...b.forever.shtml

 Book : Steven N. Austad Why We Age What Science is Discovering about the Body's Journey through Life:
http://www.mikeogara...views/whyweage/

 Washington Post - Forever Young : Suppose You Soon Can Live to Well Over 100, As Vibrant and Energetic as You Are Now. What Will You Do With Your Life?
http://www.washingto...1&notFound=true

 In the future, humans will become cyborgs:
http://timesofindia....show/433959.cms

 Intel gives health care a dose of tech
http://zdnet.com.com...103-964447.html

 Should We Extend The Human Lifespan Indefinitely?
http://www.biologyof...we/shld_nts.htm

 Experts discuss future of human lifespan
http://washingtontim...33402-2023r.htm

 Life Expectancy Trends:
http://library.think...expectancy.html





Jim Pinto is a futurist, technology entrepreneur, angel investor and writer, You can email him at: jim@jimpinto.com. Or look at his poems, prognostications and predictions on his website: www.JimPinto.com .

Read extracts from his new book, “Automation Unplugged” at: http://www.jimpinto..../unplugged.html

Attached Files



#5 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,956 posts
  • 1,810
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 February 2004 - 10:09 AM

Just to be clear, this has been published somewhere before?

#6 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 06 February 2004 - 11:03 AM

original, sorry.. [!] added retroactively

#7 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 06 February 2004 - 11:36 AM

JimPinto wrote:

>Hello, Bruce :
>
>I'm glad you got my email and essay.
>Your website has been down for the last
>couple of days - not sure why - and perhaps
>the email too got lost. Let me know if you
>got this one.
>
>

Sorry, yes.. we have now fixed a technical problem.
All should be working OK now.

>Yes, I thought about the ttle as "The scientific
>search for immortality" - and you'll notice that
>I do touch on it in a couple of ways in my article.
>However, I'm not sure I can make that the focus.
>
>

Right.. the subject of oblivion is a difficult topic.


>I tried to get the article you referred -
>but the website was down, so I couldn't read.
>
>


Sorry.. should be up now..
Please see: "Why Physical Immortality"
http://www.imminst.o...T&f=67&t=811&s=


>I'd like to read a couple more of the essays
>from the book, to see where that leads. Other than
>that, perhaps you can feature my essay as a lead-in
>to your main subject.
>
>

I'll let the editing team know. Thanks.


>I'll be a chat guest, as you suggested,
>

Wonderful!


>but I need to have more time to get the drift of the current chats.
>And, because your website has been inaccessible, I haven't
>been able to browse.
>
>

I understand. Past chat archives found here:
http://www.imminst.o...rchive/chat.php



>I'll be interested to see what suggestions come from
>your editing team.
>
>


The team will be in contact with you over the coming weeks.

Thanks!
Bruce



>Stay in touch-
>(Let me know if you got this email)
>
>Cheers:
>jim
>----------/
>Jim Pinto
>Tel : (858) 353-JIMP (5467)
>email : jim@jimpinto.com
>web: www.JimPinto.com
>San Diego, CA., USA




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users