...would you rejuvenate? Randall's choices would make a lot of sense for me, too. Though I'm not sure how useful this is as a thought experiment. How likely is it that we'll actually be presented with such menu?
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9593
2 Comments
Leland wrote:
I would go for the endocrine system rather than vascular system. The vascular system has inate rejuvination capabilities. A blocked artery is sometimes routed around. Many components of the endocrine system that fail are not restored by the body. So I would consider family history and go after the most vulnerable organs in the endocrine system. But I'm an engineer and not a doctor, so what do I know...
I do think the Brain is unrealistic/off-limits. To me, the Brain is the essence of me, so I consider brain rejuvination akin to a lobotomy. The brain might be restored to full capability, but the stored data gets lost. I assume Mr. Parker just means restored brain capability, but for me, if my brain is functioning enough to make the decision of the three choices, then the brain needs to be left alone. I do know people, survivors of serious accidents, who I wish had access to medical means to recover lost brain functions.
Carl Pham wrote:
Strange question. In fact, the systems of the body are so strongly interconnected, right down to the molecular level, that I suspect it would make little difference which you chose. You could buy yourself a few more years, to be sure, but not double your lifespan or anything.
Autopsy results generally show that most people are dying of many different things at the time of death; it's just that one in particular got there slightly ahead of the other. That is, if you go down from a heart attack, your stroke was probably not far behind, and you probably already had prostate cancer, or maybe a little lung cancer, and your kidneys were failing, too.
The concept of rejuvenation itself is kind of silly anyway. Whatever tweaking you can do is clearly most easily and cheaply done before birth. Why waste resources giving 55-year-olds a boost so they reach 95 instead of 75, when you could re-engineer your newborns and have them reach 250 instead of 75 for the same effort? If I had to choose, I'd certainly choose tripling the lifespan of my children over extending my own by 20-30%.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on May 29, 2008 11:53 AM.
I would go for the endocrine system rather than vascular system. The vascular system has inate rejuvination capabilities. A blocked artery is sometimes routed around. Many components of the endocrine system that fail are not restored by the body. So I would consider family history and go after the most vulnerable organs in the endocrine system. But I'm an engineer and not a doctor, so what do I know...
I do think the Brain is unrealistic/off-limits. To me, the Brain is the essence of me, so I consider brain rejuvination akin to a lobotomy. The brain might be restored to full capability, but the stored data gets lost. I assume Mr. Parker just means restored brain capability, but for me, if my brain is functioning enough to make the decision of the three choices, then the brain needs to be left alone. I do know people, survivors of serious accidents, who I wish had access to medical means to recover lost brain functions.
Strange question. In fact, the systems of the body are so strongly interconnected, right down to the molecular level, that I suspect it would make little difference which you chose. You could buy yourself a few more years, to be sure, but not double your lifespan or anything.
Autopsy results generally show that most people are dying of many different things at the time of death; it's just that one in particular got there slightly ahead of the other. That is, if you go down from a heart attack, your stroke was probably not far behind, and you probably already had prostate cancer, or maybe a little lung cancer, and your kidneys were failing, too.
The concept of rejuvenation itself is kind of silly anyway. Whatever tweaking you can do is clearly most easily and cheaply done before birth. Why waste resources giving 55-year-olds a boost so they reach 95 instead of 75, when you could re-engineer your newborns and have them reach 250 instead of 75 for the same effort? If I had to choose, I'd certainly choose tripling the lifespan of my children over extending my own by 20-30%.