New Methuselahs: Can We Cheat Death Long Enough to Live ...

Looks backward pessimistically, not forward:
I was disappointed in this article. I expected it to discuss current (and near-future) technologies, but instead, most of the article was about the past. Specifically, it was about how people have tried to increase their lifespans in the past, and how they failed. (There is no discussion of the dramatic increase in the average human lifespan over the past century.) There is some discussion of outdated and discredited theories of aging, but essentially none of current theories of aging. There are a number of references to science fiction and literary treatments of long-lived individuals and societies, but very little science. Frankly, the title is misleading. This article is not about the 21st century or a "biomedical revolution" at all. Early on, the authors say, "What are the legitimate prospects for becoming virtually immortal in our time? That question we address here." Unfortunately, they don't.

What you wrote about supplements!:
Only four stars. If you are right, I've been wasting money for more than 15 years. The supplements haven't hurt, and maybe helped. What I was thinking. A thought-provoking essay, anyway. I still prefer to think Kurzwell is more correct.

Pink Reflections of Sunrise Die to Gray Haze. Life's Luminous Gifts Mused in Morning Memoir.:
This thought provoking piece is more of summary than a direct dive into data about anti-aging possibilities. THE NEW METHUSELAHS summarizes a few historic paths of sci fi and science, dramatizing people's ways of thinking about immortality, which have been built partially through centuries of literature satirizing desires for it. This piece is also an interesting, well-done advertisement for Michael R. Rose's recent book, "THE LONG TOMORROW: How Advances in Evolutionary Biology Can Help Us Postpone Aging." Due to this advertisement's success, I took some time to study Amazon's buying page on that book. One of several editorial reviews by scientists and other professionals stated: >> "In this hugely enjoyable book, Rose provides a thorough but never too technical survey of one of the most instructive strands of the biology of aging--manipulating the rate of aging by accelerating evolution. If his attempt to extend his studies to mice had succeeded, we might be much closer now to extending human lifespan."--Aubrey de Grey << That review gave insight to the (understandable) bitter edge in this Amazon Short, NEW METHUSELAH, an edge which I did not feel in the previous four Shorts in this series. An interesting review (of THE LONG TOMORROW) by Publisher's Weekly stated: >> Rose relates the progress of aging research in an autobiographical format. So, interspersed with experiments on long-lived fruit flies, there are almost voyeuristic glimpses into Rose's own life: the suicide of his brother, the murder of his brother-in-law, the tragic end of his first marriage. << To me, that sounds interesting. None of us works in an emotionally disconnected vacuum (not even desperate housewives with unplugged tools). Customer reviews were also intriguing. A "memoir" they termed this scientific text, and they gave interesting teasers on Rose's concepts of evolution-enhanced-anti-aging. These comments reminded me of an interesting Short (by Helen Epstein) I reviewed recently. Synchronicity? Greg and Mike might use the "delusional" word for Carl Jung and the New Age movement. Actually, I'm also repelled by some of the "pseudo" (more like charlatan) in that limp noodle realm, though I mean no disrespect to anyone's brain sparks or sand boxes. A free flow of good humor could become the saving grace of the human race. What I'm wondering is, what might result from Rose's fruit flies, the ones which have the advantage of an accelerated evolution? Greg and Mike avoided mentioning the movie, "The Fly" or "The Fly II" in their discussion of historic sci fi movies/novels exploring mad scientists researching and applying anti-aging avenues. "NEW METHUSELAHS" is not only an ad for Rose's "LONG TOMORROW"; it's a preparation for the mind, a preface attempt to remove cultural blockage of the concepts presented in that book. The appeal to me of buying and reading "THE LONG TOMORROW" is evolving. Wanna go with? I'm about to slip briefly into memoir mode, as Michael R. Rose did captivatingly in the above noted book to which much of this Amazon Short directs its readers ... The peak of a Full Cancer Moon was sinking slowly behind The Grand Mesa on Wednesday, January 3, 2007, when I returned to the typing of this review. As the moon set, to the left of that luminous loss, the first rays of a Capricorn Sun were reflecting pink on the tip of the mesa. In minutes, that gorgeously fat pearl-of-nature was no longer visible. I paused my fingertip dance across keyboard as a few clouds on the Eastern horizon hazed away the rising sun's reflection on the Western mesa top, and the view seemed to dim, with the luminescence and pink reflections giving way to ... what. Those observations were real, were true. In a sense. From my angle. From my need to enjoy the beauty of peaceful clarity in a uniquely evolving morning. I hadn't even had my coffee yet! Soon, I would perk a pot. "Drip" would be a more correct term than "perk" for the process I use. Clearer, more precise terms can always be found to describe more accurately what one has observed, but sometimes the observer wants to use whatever words rise first in attempts to reflect moods, to record personal reactions. (A bout of harried editing could be indulged later.) Some of the words in NEW METHUSELAHS exposed angry frustration bleached into well-done sarcasm. Few people enjoy being blocked in what they believe are righteous pursuits, blocked by what appears to be stubbornly delusional ignorance. Scientists who draw conclusions with which I don't agree, I often call "pseudo." Scientists who draw conclusions with which other scientists don't agree are often described as delusional. There are many terms for disagreement, when what each of us wants is to avoid being blocked when we have compulsions in progress, especially when we're convinced that the efforts could erase some of the suffering in the world. (A Nobel Prize might be looming, too, or even a viable, steady personal income from the naturally enthusiastic efforts of soul.) Probably like most people, I see ambition as "a good thing," an essential "thing" ... unless someone else's ambition thwarts my own. If I'm reading Benford and Rose correctly, they want to create opportunities to live "here" (we've still to determine where that is, precisely, in both physical and metaphysical terms) as long as they wish, forever maybe, in healthily functional bodies. I'd like that, too. I also want to have the choice to die when I'm ready, and I might be perverse enough to be ready at a peak of physical virility (which is long gone but conceivably renewable), a peak made possible by scientists like this pair. I can't quite buy that this Universe, this way of being is "all there is"; and at times I'm curious to explore an alternate way of being (maybe with more pearly luminescence and pink reflections), through the gateway we call death. Yet, I'd hope to be able to "leave" in a way of celebration, at a peak of "pubescence" rather than at a nadir of physical decay and despair. I remain interested in alternatives, desirous of retaining choices for avenues to Walkabout. I have no desire to block the paths of others, unless they do harm to me (there's the rub, define harm). Slurp. Ah, hot coffee! No harm in that. DO NOT tell me different. I won't believe you. So there. Blaaahhhh. (But, please keep writing, Greg & Mike!) As the world turns, it's a wonder we don't all fall off... So... does gravity have anything to do with aging, asks a seasoned woman stooping low? Gud-day, mates, Linda Shelnutt