--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "njnavarro2004" <njnavarro2004@...>
wrote:
>
> As I see it, "life-extension" and "survivalism", as typically
> defined, are really like the two sides of the same coin. IOW, why
> should I, as a life-extensionist, only be concerned with "endogenous"
> threats? And why should a so-called "survivalist" only be concerned
> with "exogenous" threats?
>
> [Actually most life-extensionists are also concerned with exogenous
> threats to health such as pollution and radiation. But it is true that
> they are generally more concerned about chronic threats than about
> acute ones. --Paul]
>
> [I agree with Paul. I became more concerned with exogenous threats
> when I got into life-extension a few years ago. At that time I
> realised that if I take good care of my health I might have good
> chances of being alive when/if technology will allow humans to live
> much longer than what is currently normal. If I have the potential to
> live much longer than what is currently normal I also potentially have
> many more years of my remaining life to lose if I die. Therefore it is
> only reasonable for me to be more concerned about exogenous threats
> than a person that either does not plan to live for so long or does
> not have good chances of being alive when extended lifespans will
> become available. But I admit that as a life-extensionist I am
> currently more concerned about endogenous than exogenous threats.
-°Olafur]
>
> [You left out a third reason why a person would not be a life
> extensionist and therefore, might not be so concerned about exogenous
> threats. Many people simply do not know about the possibilities of
> radical life extension or do not think there is any real evidence that
> such a thing is possible. Also your own lack of concern about
> exogenous threats is likely related to your age. It appears that it is
> much harder for young people to strongly and seriously consider their
> own personal fragility. This may be related to less experience with
> the death or major disabling of those who they know well. --Paul]

I realised after reading Paul's comments above that using the phrase
"concerned" was not the best thing for me to do to describe my feeling
about endogenous and exogenous threats. I would like to clarify better
what I really meant. The truth is, I am not more concerned about
endogenous than exogenous threats in the sense that I am more
*worried* about them, as a life-extensionist I just spend much more
time thinking about endogenous threats than exogenous ones.

[Which is likely because you (and almost all life extensionists) think that you
have more ability to have some effect on the endogenous threats than on the
exogenous ones. I used to think the same way. However, I have come to realize
that although it is not going to be easy, it is possible that my efforts to
combat exogenous threats can be even more important overall than my efforts
against endogenous threats. Certainly if I don't even try to change the
exogenous threats from the society around me, they will both continue and become
worse with time. --Paul]

[Yes I do think I have more ability to have effect on endogenous threats than on
exogenous ones. Eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly and taking various
supplements among those that are available is something I can do if I want to
since I have control over my own body. On the other hand a lot of exogenous
threats depend much more on the people around me who I can only influence rather
than control. The latter I agree is harder to do and potentially more important
than trying to effect endogenous threats. -°Olafur]

[Actually it is not a choice of one or the other. Any life extensionist must
always act against endogenous effects that may end his life. However, as time
progresses, even though there are more ways to effect endogenous processes, we
are being prevented by government agencies from applying more and more of them
to ourselves. IOW, we have less and less actual control over our own bodies.
Therefore, if one does not make some effort to combat, overcome and/or
circumvent these exogenous restrictions (which prevent the full use of all
available tools to combat endogenous threats), one is not going to succeed at
the optimal possible extension of one's life. --Paul]

I do think
that my chances of being alive when extended lifespans will become
available are very good and am therefore not particularly worried
about dying from old age. On the other hand I can be very worried
about engaging in activities that can result in serious disability or
death. One example of this is my visit to Grand Canyon which I went to
with Paul and Kitty during my visit to them this year. They can
testify that I don't like being close to the edge of a cliff where
falling down would most likely result in either major injury or death.
The reason is not that I am very afraid of heights as I am, but that I
can't consider walking close to the edge without thinking "what if?".
What if I slip and fall? What if someone accidentally runs into me and
I fall? I better keep 5 feet between me and the edge so I won't die
if I for some reason happen to fall. And I've been cautious like that
for a long time before I got interested in life-extension. When I was
younger and some kids were climbing somewhere high such as up on the
roof of my old elementary school, I was one of the kids that stood by
thinking "These guys are nuts".

[I had to chuckle reading Olafur's mention of the Grand Canyon and his fear of
heights. He did approach the edge the first time with considerable caution -
which I caught with my camera - but he'd shown a fair amount of calm the day
before sitting on Devil's Bridge in the Sedona area. I'm working to get all the
photo pages of his visit completed and upload them together. In the meantime,
I've uploaded to the Photo section here (Olafur's album) the two pictures I'm
referring to. (Olafur was sent all photos taken shortly after he arrived back in
Iceland, and saw many of them while still in AZ.)
http://health.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/photos/browse/31f8?c=

I don't take many risks, especially associated with enjoyment/fun. I treat
heights cautiously, like Olafur. I remember all too well a 12 year old nephew
who visited many years ago and on an excursion to the Grand Canyon was so
foolhardy that he nearly fell over the edge. I had visions of having to tell my
sister that her son was dead at the bottom.... **Kitty]

[Particularly note Olafur holding on to a tree at the edge of the Grand Canyon
in the second photo. I and Kitty were frankly surprised at his apparent lack of
concern shown in the first photo. My view was that sometime that rock bridge is
going to fall down. I sure don't want to be on it when it does so. Therefore, I
did not go out to the middle of it at all, but only to the outer edge where it
is still very strongly supported. --Paul]

[I knew Kitty was going to post that picture of me holding that tree:-) I tend
to rely a lot on my vision for balance. The result is that while I do have very
good balance, if for some reason I cannot rely much on my vision my balance is
much worse. As an example I can stand on one leg for several minutes or until I
get tired and lose my concentration. If on the other hand I close my eyes I am
lucky if I make it 20 seconds without losing my balance. Similarly when I stand
outside and look straight up at the sky or stand somewhere high and look down to
the ground my balance isn't very good. In both cases the reason is that the
environment I am looking at is so far away that a shift in my balance won't have
any detectable effects on the angle and distance at which I see the environment
making it much harder for me to use my vision to maintain balance. Consequently
when I looked over the edge of Grand Canyon my first reaction was to hold on to
something. The reason for my lack of concern in the first photo (at Devil's
Bridge) is that I tried to look down on the bridge when walking on it rather
than looking at the ground below. That way I could make good use of my vision to
maintain my balance. -°Olafur]