Why don’t futurists try harder to stay alive?

A significant share of the broader ‘singularitarian’ community believes that they have a chance to live for hundreds of years, if they can survive until the arrival of an AI singularity, whole brain emulation, or just the point at which medical technology is advancing fast enough to keep extending our health-span by at least a year each year (meaning we hit ‘escape velocity‘ and can live indefinitely). Some are sufficiently hopeful about this to have invested in cryonics plans, hoping to be revived in the future, including Robin Hanson. Many others plan to do this, or think they should. (For what it’s worth, I am not yet convinced cryonics is worth the money – for reasons I am writing up – but I do think it warrants serious consideration.)

But there are much more mundane ways of increasing the chance of making it to this glorious future: exercise regularly, eat a nutritious diet low in refined carbohydrates, don’t smoke or hang around those who do, drink in moderation, avoid some illegal drugs, develop strong social supports to lower suicide and other mental health threats, have a secure high-status job, don’t live in an urban area, don’t ride a motorbike, get married (probably), and so on. While the futurist community isn’t full of seriously unhealthy or reckless people, nor does it seem much better in these regards than non-futurists with the same education and social class. A minority enjoy nutritional number crunching, but I haven’t observed diets being much better overall. None of the other behaviours are noticeably better.

I am fairly confident that the lowest hanging fruit would be raising fitness levels, which may even be lower among us than the general population. In addition to the immediate benefits regular and strenuous exercise has on confidence, happiness and productivity, it makes you live quite a bit longer. One study suggests that just 15 minutes of moderate exercise per day adds three years to your life expectancy (HT XKCD).

Now, maybe you are skeptical that those few years will allow you to live long enough to reach the end of involuntary death. Probably they won’t, but the whole life extension approach is to bank on a low chance of a giant payoff (living for hundreds or thousands of years). Furthermore, as the Singularity Institute has compellingly argued, we should not think we can confidently predict when AGI will be invented, if at all. The same is true to a lesser extent of progress towards whole brain emulation, or ending ageing. Furthermore, cryonics preservation procedures, and the selection of organisations that offer cryonics are gradually improving. Extending your life by five to ten years by doing all the ordinary things right could really make the difference; at least anyone considering gambling on cryonics should surely also find regular jogging worth their time.

I have even heard smart people claim that there is no need to worry about staying healthy because new technology will cure any diseases you get by the time you get them. But uncertainty about how soon such technologies will appear, combined with the high potential reward of living a little longer, would suggest exactly the opposite.

If I had to provide a cynical explanation for this apparently conflicting behaviour, I would suggest people are signing up for cryonics, or engaging in nutritional geekery, to signal their rationality and membership of a particular social clique. Going to the gym, even if it is a better bet for extending your life, doesn’t currently have the same effect. If you fear you’re stuck in that or some similar trap, consider using Stickk or Beeminder to make sure you do the rational thing.

GD Star Rating
a WordPress rating system
Tagged as: , , ,
Trackback URL:
  • waltersear

    I do, fwiw. But I’m a kind of Amor Mundi singularitarian.

  • Robert Easton

    I think the one I’m failing worst on is living in an urban area. But I also find the claim that that hurts life expectancy strange. Does the result hold up when controlling for income? i.e. I expect disproportionately many low income people, who have poor life expectancy for other reasons, to be city dwellers.

    • http://www.robertwiblin.com/ Robert Wiblin

      Robin is in the best position to answer this one – I’ve seen it show up on most lists of this kind.

    • Robert Wiblin

      Robin is in a better position to answer, but it shows up in lists of correlations from observational studies (controlling for other factors insofar as that is possible).

    • Tim Tyler

      WSJ says city dwellers live longer these days: “City vs. Country: Who Is Healthier? Urban Areas Clean Up, Residents Live Longer, Stay Fitter; But Stress Is Less in Rural Regions”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304793504576434442652581806.html

    • http://overcomingbias.com RobinHanson

      Multivariate regressions on mortality, which have as controls income, rural living, and many other variables, consistently find living to be healthier away from urban centers. Air pollution is one contributing factor.

      • Chris

        But those regressions are problematic if where you live has a causal effect on the other factors, right? It seems natural that ceteris paribus living in a lower-pollution environment can be healthier. But it’s not all equal. Urban dwellers are more likely to get at least some exercise walking, for example. Thus New York City has a very high life expectancy despite unfavorable demographics. The Wall Street Journal article posted above says that “The nationwide problem with obesity hits rural areas hardest. Overall, 19% of rural children aged 2 to 19 are obese, and 36% of them are overweight, according to the center’s report. By comparison, 15% of urban kids the same age are obese, and 30% are overweight.”

        I strongly suspect that the effect of obesity there is going to swamp pollutants, which people like to focus on but which really aren’t a huge factor in healthiness in rich modern societies  So I think the best life-maximizing advice is to live outside a rural area if you can commit to exercise and so forth, but if you’re self control is less strong, a city could be best.

      • Chris

        That last sentence should be to live outside an urban area of course. (And “you’re” should be “your”…)

      • VV

         Any study on lifestyle and life expectancy is going to be complicated by the sheer length of the average human lifespan.

        People who die now, at 80-something, after having lived in rural areas had probably, for most part of their life, a greatly different lifestyle than people currently living in rural areas. Decades ago, obesity was much less prevalent.

  • Ely Spears

    Is there a serious claim in there that associating with cryonics advocates benefits your social status more than regular gym attendance!?

    • Robert Wiblin

      With the general public no, but for a particular in-group, sure.

      • Carl Shulman

        I don’t know what futurist circles you may have traveled in, but in the ones I have encountered health and fitness, both as signals of virtue and for their direct effects on physical appearance and ability, are definitely more conducive to social standing than cryonics.

        With regards to your list of ordinary health practices, I practice all of them other than living in a rural area (which would have very large costs), but do not have cryonics arrangements in place.

        Also, if your utility function is bounded with respect to years of life (the alternative has crazy Pascalian implications), a modest prospect of life extension isn’t enough to much affect your value of statistical life. Say you think that a super-long life with advanced technology would be three times as good as an ordinary Western life, and that you have a 10% chance of this happening if you avoid death from ordinary avoidable causes. Then your VSL only goes up some 20%. That’s not enough to support radical changes.in behavior. 

        To get really big behavioral implications you would have to think that super-long lives were incredibly valuable, e.g. worth accepting large risks of near-term death for a chance at long life, or be unreasonably confident that your unassisted lifespan was very close to a boundary between reaching “escape velocity” (implying that the technology would work, no disasters would kill you, etc) and missing it.

      • Pablo

        I don’t think that our reluctance to accept large risks of near-term death for a chance at long life are due to our having a utility function bounded with respect to years of life.  Most folks sharing this reluctance would also reject a similar risk in exchange for the same benefit concentrated over a normal lifespan.

        Also, if many singularitarians do have such bounded utility functions, as you suggest they do, their concern with existential risk seems harder to explain, unless they arbitrarily discount the future differently depending on whether it’s their own or other people’s.

    • dmytryl

      Cryonics may associate with status because it’s expensive.

      • kurt9

         Not really. Most of the people I know in cryonics don’t have much in the way of personal assets. Cryonics is usually paid for with life insurance, which is relatively inexpensive in purchased young.

      • http://juridicalcoherence.blogspot.com/ srdiamond

        Well, it may still be expensive; it’s just that the account’s owner doesn’t bear the cost. A big diamond ring is high status, no matter how it was acquired. 

        So, what is the price?

      • kurt9

         So, what is the price?

        About $100K for neuro and $250K for whole body. In my case, I have about $1.5 million in life insurance. $100K for my neuro and $1.4 million for my wife (yes, I actually believe in taking care of family first, guess I’m not such a narcissist after all, am I?).

  • Just Sayin

    “metal health threats” … “it makes you live quite a bit longevity” … “the whole live extension approach” … “the Singularity Institute has compelling argued”

    When someone wants to have their ideas taken seriously, there’s some low-hanging fruit in the form of proofreading their own writings. Any explanation, cynical or otherwise, for why some refuse to do so?

    • Robert Wiblin

      Hah fair cop. Fixed. Non-cynical explanation is that I was rushing to finish this and get to bed as I have an early flight.

  • Philo

    I’m a utilitarian, not an egoist.  For now my trying to stay alive is consistent
    with my utilitarianism, for I think the world is better with me than without
    me.  And I wouldn’t mind a bit of
    life-extension, provided my quality of life were kept up to a reasonably high
    standard.  But I don’t want to live
    forever, since I expect that eventually the world will be better if I get out
    of the way.

    • kurt9

       I’m not sure I want to live “forever” either. However, I certainly want to live far longer and healthier than all of the people who don’t agree with my worldview (e.g. Christians, Muslims, Socialists, and Luddites).

    • Robertwiblin

      That´s one of my doubts about the value of cryonics. – Rob W

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=5310494 Sam Dangremond

    “Wiblin’s wager” of physical fitness?

  • kurt9

    Fitness, supplements, and having a good job/career can increase your chances of making it (to the life extension breakthroughs). However, I’m not convinced that marriage is of benefit to anyone who is already doing these things. The health benefits of marriage that are often touted by social conservatives is the result of selection bias. They are assuming that guys who don’t get married have unhealthy life style habits and that marriage is the only thing that cures these men of such habits.

    Other people I know who are into life extension/transhumanism already practice healthy living. Most of them are rational with money (e.g. live within their means). The marginal benefits of marriage for such individuals are likely to be non-existent. 

    As far as cryonics goes, marriage can have a negative effect on long term survival and can actually be lethal. There is much discussion in the cryonics community about the “hostile wife phenomenon”.

    The key point is that intelligent, competent people who consider themselves transhumanists, those into life extension and what not, are quite different than the average Joe Blow. Social conservatives are often not aware of this profound difference and thus do not realize that their ideas and suggestions, that are targeted towards the people who may need them, are simply not applicable to people like us. We are not like the average people in society and, thus, do not need the memes and ideologies that are targeted for such people. The social conservatives would do better to realize this reality.

    • John Smithbg

       Oh, sorry, we forgot that you are indeed ‘special’.

      Now, who';s a good boy?

      • kurt9

        Why do people like you insist that your worldview has “jurisdiction” over those of us who want nothing to do with it? What would it take to disabuse you of this notion?

        I/WE AM NOT LIKE YOU. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this?

      • Bamoqi

        Just ignore them. This is just a case of mistakening correlation as causation, and mistakening subject optimal as objective optimal. If you are indeed among the intelligent, competent subset of people, there is no need to mind people who make such basic errors.

      • John Smithbg

         Because, for starters, I am not a libertarian and I do not believe in unconditional rights to opinions, actions and worldviews.

        Also, your positions and your determination to be left alone to do as you please (especially the creating strong AI and using biohacks parts) clearly reflect on and change my life in ways I find unacceptable.

      • Bamoqi

        John Smithbg:

        So basically you are serving your own ideology/agenda, which is fair enough. Just that it is kind of crafty and annoying that the mainstream conservatives and progressives both like to phrase their ideologies as “it is good for you” when it is actually “it is good for ME”.

      • John Smithbg

         Bamoqi,
        I do not see libertarians or transhumanists/singularitarians/whatever behaving any differently.

      • kurt9

         Because, for starters, I am not a libertarian and I do not believe in unconditional rights to opinions, actions and worldviews.

        Also, your positions and your determination to be left alone to do as
        you please (especially the creating strong AI and using biohacks parts)
        clearly reflect on and change my life in ways I find unacceptable.

        What makes you think I give a rat’s arse what you believe? Your beliefs are your business. My life is my business. If you don’t like it, that’s tough sh*t.

      • John Smithbg

         kurt9, are you able to follow a simple train of thought. Just to remind you, you asked me “I/WE AM NOT LIKE YOU. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this?”. And I responded. The question was not “what compells me to agree with you”. Honestly, your train of thought is either inconsistent or crappy.

        Also:
        ” My life is my business. If you don’t like it, that’s tough sh*t.”
        Well, yes, and MY life is MY business and I intend to not allow the likes of you to change it radically by altering the environment in which I exist.
         Tough sh*t, eh?

      • kurt9

         Because, for starters, I am not a libertarian and I do not believe in unconditional rights to opinions, actions and worldviews.

        Also, your positions and your determination to be left alone to do as
        you please (especially the creating strong AI and using biohacks parts)
        clearly reflect on and change my life in ways I find unacceptable.

        You will have to give up the dream of ever having influence over those who do not share your worldview.

      • John Smithbg

         I actually do not have to give up anything as I am entirely uninterested in changing anyone’s convictions. I do not give a flying f*ck about what you believe. What I do care about is your acts and the way they reflect on me. And I intend to influence that via the means it was always influenced throughout human history, And, no, the means is not persuation. It’s violence.

    • VV

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

      • kurt9

         Special pleading? Are you kidding me?

        I’m not pleading anything. All I’m saying is that other peoples’ beliefs do not apply to me. I know what I am and what I want to become. I certainly don’t need yours or anyone else’s approval when it comes to my personal worldview and life choices.

        I’m not telling anyone what they can and cannot do. Its the other jerks in here who are trying to tell me what I can do or not do with my own life and body.

        This is rude and offensive. Indeed, this kind of discussion is not acceptable polite conversation in regular face to face life.

      • VV

         You can believe whatever you want. The point we were discussing was the correlation between certain lifestyle choices and longevity.

        You claim that for a particular lifestyle choice, marriage, the correlation does not apply to “intelligent, competent” transhumanists.

        You don’t give any good reason that would explain why that correlation doesn’t apply, other than a generic and self-serving claim that these people are actually intelligent and competent, which is a) unsupported b) weak (correlation between standardized measures of intelligence such as IQ and longevity applies largely to below-average individuals) c) possibly overwhelmed by negative correlations (e.g. depression, akrasia) d) not shown to be sufficient to compensate for any positive effect of marriage.

        That’s pretty much a textbook example of special pleading.

    • http://juridicalcoherence.blogspot.com/ srdiamond

      The key point is that intelligent, competent people who consider themselves transhumanists, those into life extension and what not, are quite different than the average Joe Blow.

      Yes, definitely: more narcissistic; to the point of considering themselves very special.

      • kurt9

        So, what’s it to you if we are?

      • kurt9

        What makes this world view so “special”? And how did you stumble on this special worldview without being special?

        Because it offers greater openness and freedom than all other worldviews. That is why it is superior to all other worldviews.

      • kurt9

         Now that I’ve thought about it, I’m not narcissistic at all. Why? Because I believe my chosen worldview, libertarianism/transhumanism, is special. Not that I, myself, am special at all.

        Also, I respect the rights and choices of others, even when they are different from mine. Now, does that sound like a narcissist to you?

        Pray tell?

      • http://juridicalcoherence.blogspot.com/ srdiamond

        Well, I think a narcissistic would usually say (and probably even believe) that he respects the rights and choices of others; probably would be more likely to make this declaration than one who was less narcissistic.

        What makes this world view so “special”? And how did you stumble on this special worldview without being special?

      • kurt9

        Well, I think a narcissistic would usually say (and probably even
        believe) that he respects the rights and choices of others; probably
        would be more likely to make this declaration than one who was less
        narcissistic.

        No. You call me a narcissist simply because I do not agree with your worldview, not because I’m really a narcissist.

        I have never suggested or even insinuated that you or anyone else must adopt my worldview. I am well aware that most people do not identify with my worldview. I recognize and accept this. I merely ask to be left alone to live my own life and pursue my own objectives in peace. For this, you condemn me as a narcissist.

        You, on the other hand, make clear that you seek to impose your worldview on others who may not identify with it at all. This makes you the bad guy in here, not me.

        I think it narcissistic to believe that one is right and that all others are wrong and that it is acceptable to impose one’s beliefs and worldview on others. This is the REAL definition of narcissism, not to mention arrogance.

  • Joe626

    It reveals something about what kind of life they consider to be worth living.  If they felt that those activities enriched their lives, on balance, they would already be doing them.  Otherwise it’s a Pascal’s mugging.

  • Faul Sname

    Why do you think we don’t? I do all of the above except for the “not living in an urban environment” part (because living in an urban environment means I can replace driving with walking) and the “having a high-paying job” part (because I’m still a college student, though my job is enough to cover my living expenses). 

  • BF

    Just to be clear, what evidence is available for the lower life expectancy from “refined carbohydrates”? My understanding is that the evidence that those are harmful is largely based on theoretical arguments as well as some evidence that an Atkins style diet will help you lose weight in the short run. This is certainly not the main point of the post, but I’m curious if anybody has some literature on this.

    I think that I might live in a rural area in the future now.

  • http://kajsotala.fi/ Kaj Sotala

    I’m not sure whether “why dont futurists try harder to be more fit” is particularly more interesting than “why dont people in general try to be more fit”. Everyone knows that it would be a good idea to be more fit, but maintaining regular exercise generally requires considerable effort, and many people just don’t have the energy for it.

    Healthy habits could somewhat extend your life, but if you find it unpleasant to maintain them, it could mean a seriously reduced quality of living for your whole remaining life. (Yes, you would probably get used to some of it, and the improved health could make your quality of living generally better, but if you’re asking “why don’t people” rather than “what should people”, “a reduced quality of living” is what people tend to alieve will happen.) So in effect, people will feel like the tradeoff:

    – Feels guaranteed to seriously reduce the quality of your life for the rest of your natural lifespan
    – In exchange for what’s probably a couple of years of extra (uncomfortable) life
    – And *maybe* a long comfortable life after that, if whatever life extension technology happens to be made available just within that window of extra couple of years
    – And if it’s still capable of saving someone as old as you
    – And if you actually get a couple of extra years from the habits, given that the life-extending effect is a statistical average not a certainty
    – And if the studies are actually correct on what does extend life, given that the field is infamous for contradicting its own advice every decade or so and its methodology doesn’t seem to be making much improvement
    – And the payoff you get from living a long life is subject to the normal heavy discounting that makes people favor their current self over their future self even when there’s just a day of difference between the two, not many decades, and they often favor their current selves even in cases when they know *for sure* that they’ll have a horrible hangover the next morning, instead of the outcome being subject to vast uncertainties like the ones listed above.

    Why people would refuse to make a trade like the one listed above doesn’t really seem like much of a question to me.

    • VV

       All of this makes sense, but doesn’t explain why the same people are willing to take such a long shot as cryonics.

      • Carl Shulman

        Probably because they think it it is less of a long shot than you do. Robin says he thinks cryonics has a 6% chance of working:

        http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/break-cryonics-down.html

        Value of statistical life for Americans is in the millions of dollars. If Robin were right to assign a 6% chance of success,  that would make cryonics a good deal by the standards of ordinary medical care or paying for a personal trainer.And conditional on cryonics working, then one expects a very rich and technologically advanced society: the correlation boosts the expected value at least somewhat (depending on how much better one thinks the longer life; as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, very big ratios don’t seem psychologically realistic).

      • http://juridicalcoherence.blogspot.com/ srdiamond

        1. Robin thinks the standards of ordinary medical care aren’t “realistic.”

        2. The 6% figure, as I understand it, is supposedly based on technical prerequisites. The fact that technology is all that you “transhumanists” know doesn’t mean it’s all there is. You must also count on the likelihood that some distant future society will enforce your contract–that it is both sufficiently diligent and sufficiently sympathetic.

        3. As Kurt 9 says, “What’s it to you [if we're narcissists]” Well, a distant-future society or even a near-future one might well care. What makes you think such a society would be interesting in resurrecting some privileged, narcissistic persons who overvalued their own existence. What’s the social value of “saving” such creatures? Far more likely, such a society will say “good riddance,” assuming that your frozen heads haven’t already been destroyed in war or social disorder–perhaps even in an uprising against the sort of narcissists who chose to preserve themselves, amongst all the other worthy causes.

        4. No doubt, you rely on cryonics eventually becoming a mass movement. Unlikely, because there’s no automatic tendency to identify with a future psychologically noncontinuous version of yourself as if it were you. Consider, this thought experiment. In a distant corner of a sufficiently large universe, a microscopically exact copy of yourself pops into existence, and you learn that this copy will endure great horrors. Do you find yourself care? Is it you?

        You’ve got the intuition of personal identity wrong, and you’ve been confused by a philosophers’ trick.

      • VV

         Maybe. Hanson’s estimated probability of success seems to be unrealistically high, but I’ve seen estimates as high as 65% http://lesswrong.com/lw/fz9/more_cryonics_probability_estimates/

        Anyway, even conditioned on the 6% estimate, you should take into account risk aversion.

      • kurt9

         You must also count on the likelihood that some distant future society
        will enforce your contract–that it is both sufficiently diligent and
        sufficiently sympathetic.

        What’s the social value of “saving” such creatures? Far more likely,
        such a society will say “good riddance,” assuming that your frozen heads
        haven’t already been destroyed in war or social disorder–perhaps even
        in an uprising against the sort of narcissists who chose to preserve
        themselves, amongst all the other worthy causes.

        This demonstrates a lack of understanding of cryonics. We don’t expect any “external” society to reanimate us. Or at least I don’t. It will be the future members of cryonics and similar transhumanist organizations, say in 2100 or 2200, who will do the reconstruction and reanimation of cryonics members. In other words, it will be future versions of ourselves that will do the reanimating. Why do I think this? Because if I happen to make it (without having to be cryo-preserved) I plan to reanimate all of the people who get cryo-preserved? Now why would a so-called “narcissist” such as myself make such a commitment to others, even those I don’t know personally? Because I feel a sense of commonality and, yes, even loyalty to those who share my values. Any I know others who feel the same way as others.

        How about that? A “narcissist” who believes in loyalty to others. Who would of thunk it?

      • http://juridicalcoherence.blogspot.com/ srdiamond

        Now why would a so-called “narcissist” such as myself make such a commitment to others, even those I don’t know personally? Because I feel a sense of commonality and, yes, even loyalty to those who share my values.

        Do you? I admit that these claims, if true, would refute the “diagnosis” of narcissism–perhaps even help rebut my intuition that it’s narcissists who desperately want to believe their resurrection is feasible.But what’s the evidence before us? Robin Hanson shares your transhumanist/libertarian ideology, yet you rather brazenly violate his posting-numbers restrictions. Libertarian principles include a deep respect for property rights, yet you lacked the desire to respect Hanson’s or, on the other hand, the motivation to discover or observe Hanson’s strictures: 8 posts showing. (I’m just making a point, not telling you how much you should post–as I’m not a libertarian or a great respecter of property rights.)

        If you’re relying on the solidarity of your fellow narcissists, then your chances look truly dismal. 

        By the way, you never answered regarding how unspecial you came to appreciate this very special ideology, which I contend is part of justifying exceptional views. (See my “Is epistemic equality a fiction? The confusion between belief and opinion and the natures of fanaticism and philistinism” — http://tinyurl.com/6kamrjs )

    • Sly

      Except actually working out would probably raise not lower the quality of a random person’s life. 

    • http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.in/ JLL

       For a regular person, exercise is an investment of maybe 5-10 extra years, but for an immortalist it’s potentially an investment of an extra 1000 years.

      http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-live-forever-my-5-steps-to.html

  • kurt9

     You don’t give any good reason that would explain why that correlation
    doesn’t apply, other than a generic and self-serving claim that these
    people are actually intelligent and competent, which is a) unsupported
    b) weak (correlation between standardized measures of intelligence such
    as IQ and longevity applies largely to below-average individuals) c)
    possibly overwhelmed by negative correlations (e.g. depression, akrasia)
    d) not shown to be sufficient to compensate for any positive effect of
    marriage.

    Quite the contrary. The positive longevity benefit due to marriage is exclusively because marriage results in most men taking better care of themselves and living healthier life styles. We are all familiar with the “Max Tucker” stereotype of a hard-partying single guy. This is the ONLY plausible mechanism of how marriage offers positive benefit to longevity.

    My point was simply that most life extension/transhumanist types that I know personally already live healthy life styles and take care of themselves, whether they be married or single. Hence, the notion that marriage itself offers benefit to such people is spurious at best. This is reality, not special pleading.

    • VV

       So you counter statistics with stereotypes. Very much intelligent and competent.

      • kurt9

         Not at all. All I am saying is that the marriage contribution to health is specifically and exclusively due to the fact that it curbs excessive bahavior on the part of males that lack such self-discipline outside of marriage. Since life extensionists, by definition, already have such self-discipline, there is no basis to claim that marriage, by itself, offers any additional benefit to such people. You claim otherwise and fail to provide evidence (because such evidence does not exist) to back up such claim.

  • kurt9

     By the way, you never answered regarding how unspecial you came to
    appreciate this very special ideology, which I contend is part of
    justifying exceptional views.

    I don’t have to justify or convince you of anything. You’re the one obsessed with trying to convince me that your worldview is correct and mine wrong.

    It obvious that you are mentally ill and I will not spend anymore time arguing with the mentally ill.

    • John Smithbg

       This definitely wind the award for the most moronic ad-hominem post ever.

  • http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com TGGP

    I haven’t signed up for cryonics or done those other things. I’m kind of indifferent to the prospect of longer life.

  • Sackerson

    Genesis reckons 120 years as the average lifespan, not threescore and ten. We seem to be achieving that for some individuals now.