U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2012, 12:21 PM
 
5,210 posts, read 9,102,901 times
Reputation: 5879

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
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?
If you're biologically 21 when you're 100 years old, you could keep on having babies, raise multiple families of kids with different husbands or the same young husband. Or you could have your kids, raise them and take a 50 year break to travel, become an Olympic athlete, whatever, and then settle back down and have another family....you would still be 21 physically.

In reality, though, when people live an extra 30 or 40 years longer than most other people, they have 30 or 40 years extra of old age. Not 30 or 40 extra years of being 21. So, there's a catch to their longevity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2012, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
15,693 posts, read 26,672,250 times
Reputation: 20272
Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva View Post
In reality, though, when people live an extra 30 or 40 years longer than most other people, they have 30 or 40 years extra of old age. Not 30 or 40 extra years of being 21. So, there's a catch to their longevity.
Maybe people should start living like they live in Okinawa.

Here are the basics.

When they talk food most of it is grown in their own gardens. The other food is made not bought, as in making their own bread. Most of what we call whole grain bread is a joke. I have read the labels at the store.

Something else interesting to note is that the health of Okinawans was very good and even into their twilight years they maintained a quality of life and youthfullness that we all desire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,278 posts, read 2,949,661 times
Reputation: 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
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?
You could, of course, reverse the question too, and say "Do we have a moral duty to attempt to live forever, so we may forever be a guide for society?" Eight decades or more of experience could be a valuable resource...and 150, or 1,000, could be much more so.

Last edited by Clintone; 12-13-2012 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 03:15 PM
 
5,210 posts, read 9,102,901 times
Reputation: 5879
I don't think that lifespan is a moral issue. If someone is blessed with a longer and healthier than normal life - that is truly a blessing, not something that is "debatable", IMO.

I think parents of young kids owe it to their *children* to live reasonably healthful and responsible lives - while their kids are dependent on them. But we don't owe it to "society" to try and live exceptionally long lives anymore than we should feel obligated to society to die early. Life belongs to the individual, not society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,278 posts, read 2,949,661 times
Reputation: 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
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.

Is it a moral choice?
I really don't see 80% of the population losing several hundred years off their lives and taking things quietly...unless democracy toppled into some ogligarchy ruled by the ultra-rich, who ruled a liassez-fair government devoid of voting privilages for most persons.

...but it would be a possibility that only the ultra-rich would be able to afford life-longevity, or be able to pay for it if it is to exist. In that case it might be validly viewed as morally wrong to extend one's life. I'm not sure such a thing could be definitively called right or wrong though. They paid for it, which meant they probably earned much of it somehow...but at the same time there could be wiser persons who could assist society more by living longer, who just aren't as skilled of businesspersons.

In regards to transhumans and genetically enhanced offspring, with chosen traits...that may not be so different from how the Amish behave now. They get by. Humans' strength doesn't seem to be skills they're born with (at least in terms of survivability in modern society)...so much as just not being born into a warzone or something. The plain old Homo-sapiens might not be the top choices of the transhumans for employees, but I'm sure they'd find ways of getting by...and they would probably eventually go extinct as a species, but what's so bad about that? We'll never meet most other members of our species anyway.

We're going to need to get together and make some decisions about what is right and what is wrong in the future...and be able to back it up by hard thought, and be able to clearly explain it to everyone who disagrees in a way they can understand, and find ways of leaving be the people who still disagree.

Last edited by Clintone; 12-13-2012 at 04:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 09:12 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,411,397 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I was the same as you when I first heard about it, however, since then I have done a lot of research on the topic and we just in the early stages of research in stem cell's and genetics. Already what they are finding is amazing and once it kicks in, sometime in the 2020's, life expectancy will go up faster then we age. If you look at the trend line it make sense as in the 20th century the rate of how fast life expectancy went up, went up. It will just accelerate once we really begin to apply stem cells and genetics.

Will we be able to chain smoke cigarettes, drink a quart or more of hard liquor a day, take Big Pharma's pills that kill 125,000 Americans a year, have a terrible diet, get no exercise, be exposed to 85,000 toxins, & still live several hundred years?

Or will we have to be health fanatics & get rid of all the pollution, like no driving cars, no oil refineries, no cancer treatments that involve cutting, burning & poisoning, just some that are 100% effective? Nuclear power plants leaking, no problem? Nuclear bombs gone forever? Will car crashes be somehow a thing of the past? Will alcohol-related violence somehow end? Will farmers grow all food organically?

Will cancer curing cannabis oil, illegal since 1937, be re-legalized?

Will police stop killing unarmed people when they are rarely penalized? Will we no longer have wars, when they are so profitable for some? Will mental illness be eliminated, so there be no more homicides, no more suicides? No fatal accidents of any type? Will mountain climbing be illegal? Will amusement parks be illegal? Swimming pools? Can we really eliminate all things that might shorten lives? No skateboarding, no skiing, no hockey? No plane crashes? (make flying illegal?)

Will there be no new viruses, or a 100% cure for all of them? A ban on junk foods? Elimination of radon? (an invisible odorless gas that is 2nd leading cause of lung cancer). Best wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 11:45 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,411,397 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946 View Post
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.

I think the statement longevity is unaffordable might be factually correct if we can't eliminate greed. We need at least a few people honestly researching how to live longer & in better health who aren't greedy & for whatever reason the greedy don't stop them from discovering the secrets & sharing them in a way that people can afford.

It seems many of the very elderly have a few things in common: they don't drink or are light drinkers, they don't use tobacco, they get some exercise, generally have a pretty good diet, have plenty of people in their lives: family, friends, church goers. They often have some degree of independence & usually make some effort to know what's going on in the world. Genetics likely a factor, too. Many also work beyond 70 or 80, for pay or as volunteers. More people contacts & feeling useful likely helps.

But maybe all that doesn't feel enough like a guarantee to life past 100.

A man who lived in Canada, Rick Simpson, spent his entire life savings of $1.3 million curing people (for free) of cancer & other often fatal illnesses, using cannabis oil. He made a 58 minute video called "Run From The Cure" with testimonials & instructions on how people can make this illegal life-saver. So the US ordered Canada to arrest him & have him tried court-martial style, no testimony from Docs or patients.
Rick managed to flee to Europe, but his documentary is still on the internet.

Cannabis oil was removed from pharmacies in 1937, when cancer was rare. Now we have a cancer epidemic, with 60% getting it & half of those dying from it. Just re-legalizing cannabis would significantly increase our lifespan. Colorado & Washington re-legalized "marijuana". Now the whole world is watching to see if more states do it & what the response from the Feds will be. Some other plants might help us to live longer & healthier, too. 400 proven cancer cures at cancertutor dot com/ plus treatments for other sometimes fatal illnesses on that site. Best wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,961,791 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJG2012 View Post
Will we be able to chain smoke cigarettes, drink a quart or more of hard liquor a day, take Big Pharma's pills that kill 125,000 Americans a year, have a terrible diet, get no exercise, be exposed to 85,000 toxins, & still live several hundred years?

Or will we have to be health fanatics & get rid of all the pollution, like no driving cars, no oil refineries, no cancer treatments that involve cutting, burning & poisoning, just some that are 100% effective? Nuclear power plants leaking, no problem? Nuclear bombs gone forever? Will car crashes be somehow a thing of the past? Will alcohol-related violence somehow end? Will farmers grow all food organically?

Will cancer curing cannabis oil, illegal since 1937, be re-legalized?

Will police stop killing unarmed people when they are rarely penalized? Will we no longer have wars, when they are so profitable for some? Will mental illness be eliminated, so there be no more homicides, no more suicides? No fatal accidents of any type? Will mountain climbing be illegal? Will amusement parks be illegal? Swimming pools? Can we really eliminate all things that might shorten lives? No skateboarding, no skiing, no hockey? No plane crashes? (make flying illegal?)

Will there be no new viruses, or a 100% cure for all of them? A ban on junk foods? Elimination of radon? (an invisible odorless gas that is 2nd leading cause of lung cancer). Best wishes.
You are thinking in terms of today's reality and today's technology. Because of that its not really a yes or no answer but more of the changes we will be seeing will make a lot of what you talk about obsolete much like the way people lived in the pre modern world is now obsolete. The only difference is we will see the changes in less then 30 years instead of hundreds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 11:20 AM
 
2,096 posts, read 3,835,439 times
Reputation: 1214
Why wouldn't it be? As far as the argument of injustice, that only the rich would benefit, I see that as a completely separate issue. I'm not a capitalist and I think it's wrong the upper classes get to benefit before everyone else on a new technology. But if people are living 80 years, that situation is equally unjust as a situation where people are living 1000 plus years.

Even if you are a supporter of the free market, the argument of 'the rich get it first so it should be banned' could have applied to the Internet, television, medicine itself, and so on. It's a ridiculous argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,037,089 times
Reputation: 6077
I think it's "wrong" that people don't have the choice to live as long as they care to. Personally I have never found the quality of life / ease / enjoyment that would make me want to live for centuries, but for people who are easily amused, I say, let 'em go for it. More power to them.

Then again, if I knew I had a probability of, say, 500 more years before me rather than the 10 to 35-ish years I might have left to me, and in particular if those years would likely have decent quality of life, I'd be more sanguine about how much of my time has been wasted by all the BS in the world. My time would be less valuable and therefore I could patiently work through 10 or 12 wives and/or careers and/or what have you until I found all the "sweet spots" that work for me.

People tend to hand-wring about a population explosion or other nasty outcome from people suddenly having substantial longevity or virtual immortality, but that's just a failure of imagination. I think we'd work that stuff out. We'd just colonize space or whatever. Life would probably become more interesting (in a good way) as a result. It would need to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top