Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it would be very sad to outlive your spouse and kids like that, all alone, no heirs. That lady lived for a long time (122 years!) but she died alone in a house that she no longer owned. I don't know that I would call that a good quality of life. Just a really long life.
She was famous, a tourist attraction, and considered a huge asset to her town. I doubt she was left alone.
That doesn't mean there aren't people left alone in old age. If it happens and one is not able to get out, then I guess we adapt. It does sound unpleasant, so I guess we have an obligation to find out who in our area is alone and visit them often.
I think it would be very sad to outlive your spouse and kids like that, all alone, no heirs. That lady lived for a long time (122 years!) but she died alone in a house that she no longer owned. I don't know that I would call that a good quality of life. Just a really long life.
I agree with you but in the future, and by future I mean in the next 10-20 years, everyone will be living longer and healthier lives so at 120 or 200 we will be as physically active as we were when we were 21.
I think of the Heston movie SOYLENT GREEN. Everything depends on quality of life. No quality, then why live. I'd like the option of ending mine when I decide and to do it "cleanly". When I see pics of these very old people, I see nothing but grim albeit there are rare exceptions. When I can't see, can't pee, can't hear, can't taste or cannot remember where I live, it is time to go, perhaps past time. But not for a moment do I think we will see much increased longevity. It is unaffordable.
I'm 66 and in good health. Won't last. Never does. Never will.
Just like with all technology at first its expensive then goes down and so will the ability to have us live long and healthy lives well past the age of 100. To be honest at 66 there is a good chance you will see it as we are about 10 years away from it becoming mainstream.
What street is this? The same street that says Bigfoot it's their garden, the world is flat and Aliens abducted them last month?
It's just absurd. No human being in the history of the world has ever remotely come close to living to be 150. Yet you think it's going to miraculously happen in the next few decades?
Just because no human in the past has done it does not mean we wont. People said the same thing about flying, no human has flown and we are not meant to fly, yet today we have jets and have been to the moon. At one time no one had phones, cars, electricity, I could go on and on yet in a short time span we invited all of them. So yes today living past 100 is a novility but with the advances coming in genetics and stem cells and nano technology we are very close (about 10 years) of it being a reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulysses61
And you people who actually want to live to 150 need to visit a convalescent hospital. These people are abandoned, miserable, iin terrible health and waiting to die. And most are half of 150. I guess in your skewed (and utterly ridiculous "fantasy"), you're going to be ambulatory, having sex 4 times a day, having a fantastic quality of life and be gorgeous at 150.
No words...
You are thinking in terms of today's medical technology. Once I get to 110 or 150 or 200 I will be the same as I was when I was 21. Actually most likely I will be in better health.
Everybody seems to be asking the question as it applies to today... which it really doesn't.
Asking "is it moral to live to age 200 in 2012?" is like asking if it's a good idea to have an 80 MPH speed limit on roads in 1905.
Sure there's doubt if the technology will exist (I obviously think it will but I might be wrong) but let's forget that for a moment and go back to the question.
Say they year is 2060 and anyone who is in the top 10% income bracket can afford to go to their doctor and start the process to get their brain transplanted into a brand new body cloned from their own genetic material. The new body would be manipulated to remove all their physical defaults, look exactly like they want it to, would age at 1/4 the speed of a normal human and be enhanced well beyond the capabilities of normal man both physically and mentally. The technology would exist to repair and augment the original brain without loosing the brain's consciousness, memories and sanity.
They would also be capable of having children with the same traits or order a "designer baby" with abilities along the same lines.
Essentially, what would be happening is the creation of several entirely new speices of the Homo genus... transhumans as it's usually called today.
Meanwhile, most of the world would be stuck in the old natural form. Though they will still benefit from medical advancements they would be clearly inferior to the transhumans much like Neanderthal man or Homo Erectus were to us... and we all know what happened to them.
What got me thinking about this was watching "X-Men" The superheroes were seperated from normal society in a "us vs them" dynamic as mutants in a human dominated world... you know the story.
The difference between my hypothetical real-life scenario and "X-men" is the "superheroes" will (mostly) choose to become transhumans.
The problem with your hypothetical scenario is more then likely the cost will be expensive at first and the technology will not be that great but then in a short period of time the cost will go down dramatically so everyone can afford to do it and the technology will improve as well. Just look at cell phones. In the 80's they were expensive, when you saw someone with a cell phone you knew they had money, and did not work good. Today they are cheap and there are billions of cell phones on the planet and they work a lot better.
The problem with your hypothetical scenario is more then likely the cost will be expensive at first and the technology will not be that great but then in a short period of time the cost will go down dramatically so everyone can afford to do it and the technology will improve as well. Just look at cell phones. In the 80's they were expensive, when you saw someone with a cell phone you knew they had money, and did not work good. Today they are cheap and there are billions of cell phones on the planet and they work a lot better.
The people who have the advantage may try to keep the advantage by inflating the cost of entry. Wealthy people already do it with neighborhoods... keeping prices too high for "undesireables" to move in even if the actual physical nature/location of the neighborhood does not warrant the higher price.
The people who have the advantage may try to keep the advantage by inflating the cost of entry. Wealthy people already do it with neighborhoods... keeping prices too high for "undesireables" to move in even if the actual physical nature/location of the neighborhood does not warrant the higher price.
"They" may try, I don't think "they" will, but with all technologies in time they will go down in price and become better. I can't think of any information technology that has gone up in price and not down as it has improved.
It maybe a non-issue at the moment but it certainly looks like scientific advancements will eventually make it possible to live far longer than the normal human lifespan. Barring the arrival of the Apocalypse , many younger people alive today will someday have the option to practically double their lifespan... perhaps even become functionally immortal.
So considering we live in a finite world with a rapidly growing population and nowhere to spread out is it moral to do so? Would it be better to step aside and let someone younger have a go... or to die with dignity and let your children have your stuff?
What if you have a pension or retirement benefits; the contract says you get it until death so would it be right to collect for another 150+ years past your retirement?
What about class issues? Certainly the rich will be the first and perhaps only people who would have access to such technology.
Or do we have a right to live as long as we can by whatever means we can?
Whatdayathink?
In your hypothetical scenario you are envisioning, would women still be able to have children at the mid point of their life expectancy, like they are today?
Or would people grow up, have children, raise children, and then live with an empty nest for 100 years?
I dreamed of a world where no one aged and no one died (medical science was so advanced that even accidents were no concern). The population expanded exponentially, as people not only had babies but also were able to make infant clones of themselves and raise them. Somehow the very fabric of space was used to generate fresh energy and fresh matter and fresh space, resulting in unlimited resources and unlimited living standards.
I don't think I would mind it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, many younger people alive today will someday have the option to practically double their lifespan... perhaps even become functionally immortal.
