Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: AMSA@cucisa.bitnet Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Drexler on immortality, source of nano books. Message-ID: Date: 21 Mar 90 04:11:26 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 28 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu I haven't read Drexler's books, but there's a more immediate issue to consider when discussing how to make humans "immortal": NO living system thus far has the blueprints for "immortality." Replacing parts with nanotech using the original "blueprints" of the living system is not the real obstacle, although the engineering issues may be a challenge. The real obstacle is that all living systems have a blueprint that programs for DEATH eventually. Living human cells can reliably replicate for less than 100 generations. It would seem that if one were to provide all the growth media necessary for the cells, it could live forever -- but this has been shown not to be the case. Therefore, the real obstacle is to change one innate feature of every single living system's blueprint WITHOUT radically changing the living system (undoubtedly, many proteins are probably responsible for aging, which is not just a matter of "wearing out", but they all function to bring the organism to death). It would not do much good to download the software if the hardware had to be corrected and can't accept the code... Edison Wong amsa@cucisa.bitnet [This is true of human (and other higher vertebrates) but not of lower forms, at least not necessarily. It certainly isn't true of "all living systems". There are theories to the effect that human cells have a replication limit as a cancer defense, etc. If E. Coli had a replication limit, the whole species wouldn't last more than a few days... --JoSH]