The Mail
The New Yorker
Readers respond to Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s piece on flying cars and Dhruv Khullar’s article on longevity.

As a longtime observer of the proponents of so-called flying cars, I read Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s piece with some amusement (“Flight of Fancy,” April 22nd & 29th). Flying cars have faced five technological hurdles since the earliest days of the concept: they cannot be effectively controlled by anyone but a skilled pilot; they are too noisy (heard any silent helicopters lately?); they can’t carry enough fuel for any but the briefest journeys; they require too much energy use per passenger, per mile; and they don’t offer a reasonable level of safety for pilots, passengers, or those on the ground. These were the same five hurdles faced by the inventor Paul Moller, who has made protracted efforts to devise a Skycar since the mid-twentieth century; since then, only one impediment has to an extent been overcome. Autopilot, or at least highly assisted flight control that enables non-skilled pilots to fly, is no longer a fantasy. Otherwise, very little has changed since the first Skycar of the nineteen-sixties, and, short of earthshaking breakthroughs in physics, at least two of the original hurdles are likely insurmountable.

Flying cars are a topic best discussed by starting with their obstacles and impossibilities, not with whatever tech bro has the best virtual-reality presentation and a barely working prototype. The field, such as it is, remains approximately where it was the last time I had a firsthand view of it, in the nineties, with Moller’s Skycar attached to an immense crane, from which he would fly it in circles on a cable.

James GiffordAurora, Colo.

Dhruv Khullar’s article about longevity demonstrated the misaligned incentives of our health-care system (“No Time to Die,” April 22nd & 29th). Who wouldn’t want to improve the quality of our lives as we age? But the longevity evangelist Peter Attia seems concerned only with longevity for a few, while others lack basic medical attention. Americans give lip service to preventive medicine but do not support primary care, even though studies have shown that communities with more primary-care physicians per capita have better health outcomes. In Cleveland, where for almost forty years I was a family practitioner, the hospital system where I trained closed the family-medicine residency at its urban academic campus and around the same time opened a state-of-the-art physical-therapy facility at a suburban one.

Ezekiel Emanuel, the health-policy professor whom Khullar interviews, is correct that longevity for all would be better enhanced by a focus on people without access to basic medical services rather than on those who are obsessed with living longer. Health care in our country is fragmented, and the entry of private equity and profit-oriented companies has not benefitted patients. A cohesive and humane public policy would improve and lengthen many more lives than the targeted, expensive, and questionable interventions that Attia prescribes for his well-heeled clients.

Richard WeinbergerSolon, Ohio

I enjoyed Khullar’s balanced discussion of Attia’s theories and methods of healthy aging, even as I wondered whether the extra years would be worth the effort. I was reminded of my long-deceased mother’s philosophy of living, aging, and dying: “If you only eat healthy foods, force yourself to exercise even when you don’t feel like it, and don’t smoke, drink, or party, you can live to be a hundred. At least, it will seem like a hundred.”

Bob KeefeWebster Groves, Mo.

Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to themail@newyorker.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.
Readers respond to Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s piece on flying cars and Dhruv Khullar’s article on longevity.
As a longtime observer of the proponents of so-called flying cars, I read Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s piece with some amusement (“Flight of Fancy,” April 22nd & 29th). Flying cars have faced five technological hurdles since the earliest days of the concept: they cannot be effectively controlled by anyone but a skilled pilot; they are too noisy (heard any silent helicopters lately?); they can’t carry enough fuel for any but the briefest journeys; they require too much energy use per passenger, per mile; and they don’t offer a reasonable level of safety for pilots, passengers, or those on the ground. These were the same five hurdles faced by the inventor Paul Moller, who has made protracted efforts to devise a Skycar since the mid-twentieth century; since then, only one impediment has to an extent been overcome. Autopilot, or at least highly assisted flight control that enables non-skilled pilots to fly, is no longer a fantasy. Otherwise, very little has changed since the first Skycar of the nineteen-sixties, and, short of earthshaking breakthroughs in physics, at least two of the original hurdles are likely insurmountable. Flying cars are a topic best discussed by starting with their obstacles and impossibilities, not with whatever tech bro has the best virtual-reality presentation and a barely working prototype. The field, such as it is, remains approximately where it was the last time I had a firsthand view of it, in the nineties, with Moller’s Skycar attached to an immense crane, from which he would fly it in circles on a cable. James GiffordAurora, Colo. Dhruv Khullar’s article about longevity demonstrated the misaligned incentives of our health-care system (“No Time to Die,” April 22nd & 29th). Who wouldn’t want to improve the quality of our lives as we age? But the longevity evangelist Peter Attia seems concerned only with longevity for a few, while others lack basic medical attention. Americans give lip service to preventive medicine but do not support primary care, even though studies have shown that communities with more primary-care physicians per capita have better health outcomes. In Cleveland, where for almost forty years I was a family practitioner, the hospital system where I trained closed the family-medicine residency at its urban academic campus and around the same time opened a state-of-the-art physical-therapy facility at a suburban one. Ezekiel Emanuel, the health-policy professor whom Khullar interviews, is correct that longevity for all would be better enhanced by a focus on people without access to basic medical services rather than on those who are obsessed with living longer. Health care in our country is fragmented, and the entry of private equity and profit-oriented companies has not benefitted patients. A cohesive and humane public policy would improve and lengthen many more lives than the targeted, expensive, and questionable interventions that Attia prescribes for his well-heeled clients. Richard WeinbergerSolon, Ohio I enjoyed Khullar’s balanced discussion of Attia’s theories and methods of healthy aging, even as I wondered whether the extra years would be worth the effort. I was reminded of my long-deceased mother’s philosophy of living, aging, and dying: “If you only eat healthy foods, force yourself to exercise even when you don’t feel like it, and don’t smoke, drink, or party, you can live to be a hundred. At least, it will seem like a hundred.” Bob KeefeWebster Groves, Mo. Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to themail@newyorker.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.