[lsparrish]

Good point! One thing Stephen Hawking doesn't have is centuries worth of incremental advancement in technologies like say, powered exo-suits.

IMHO living for centuries with the body of a 90 year old wouldn't be so bad. (Supposedly there's a point where the body stops getting any more frail.) And as long as you can keep mortality risk to a low enough level for long enough, it's just a matter of time before youthfulness-restoring tech comes along.

[gwern]

> IMHO living for centuries with the body of a 90 year old wouldn't be so bad. (Supposedly there's a point where the body stops getting any more frail.) And as long as you can keep mortality risk to a low enough level for long enough, it's just a matter of time before youthfulness-restoring tech comes along.

I'm sure you've seen http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-w... already, so you know you can't live for centuries with the body of a 90 year old because the decay and mortality is just too bad, fancy exosuits or no.

So this leads to the kind of odd thought experiment which runs more accurately like 'imagine you have the organs and general health of a 12 year old, but are weak and debilitated and functioning at a low level (though not getting any worse); would you still find life worth living today?'

I'd say the answer is yes. Elderly suicide is more frequent than among the middle-aged or younger, so life isn't as good (not a surprising claim), but suicide is still rare, so life is still somewhat good.