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.
Even if I could shave 20 or 25 years off of my biological age, I would still be a mother and wife with all of the responsibilites associated with being a mom and wife. And I wouldn't trade what I have now for anything - I love my kids and my husband (who I've been w/since my mid 20s) with all of my heart. So, I guess even if it were to become possible for me to go back in time physically, that wouldn't be true for me mentally.
That is a separate issue. You would still be 80 or 800 etc. You would just have the body of a 21 yo.
I come by my pessimism honestly. The optimism that both of you enjoy is admirable but where is its substance? My wife worked for the research division of a major big pharma entity. Her job and hundreds of others were abruptly terminated one year after their company started aggressively marketing their erectile dysfunction drug. That company now makes more money from their ED drug than from all other areas of the company combined and for the foreseeable future that is where all their energy is going to be placed. Cancer drugs also make pharmaceutical companies RICH!!! They don't cure cancer or even slow it down... well, they might... no one really knows. The outcomes may be in doubt when you take a cancer drug. It may help you, it may not... the money you pay for it isn't in doubt. Its real, hard cash, lots of it. Enough for any company to shut down unprofitable areas of R&D like life extension.
What has modern medicine cured lately? All we get are palliatives, drug regimens that must be followed for life, or else. There isn't much point to living longer in a world where all the many things that can kill a person have not been dealt with. The stars in 100 years? Hmmm. 50 years ago a wealthy civilian could take a supersonic airliner to Europe. That hasn't been possible for a decade or more. There has been no successor to the Concorde. We haven't been back to the moon in more than either of your lifetimes.
Sorry, it is far more likely that humanity will be effectively extinct in 100 years than that we will even have orbital capability. That's not conspiracy theorist ravings its reasoned supposition given abundant evidence of the complete neglect of our planets infrastructure and social welfare by its wealthiest inhabitants as they focus on the single minded acquisition of more wealth.
H
That's where nanotechnology comes in. Someday, pharmacuticals will be obsolete and seem just as crazy as bleeding and mercury treatments... and they really are; flooding the entire body with chemicals (and especially radiation!) to fix a problem in one tiny part of the body is NOT the best way to do things.
Nanobots will be able to directly attack the problem on a celluar level. It will be the cure for all viruses and cancer.
And if anyone doubts it's possible to build robots that small.... we're already making atom sized transistors.
That's where nanotechnology comes in. Someday, pharmacuticals will be obsolete and seem just as crazy as bleeding and mercury treatments... and they really are; flooding the entire body with chemicals (and especially radiation!) to fix a problem in one tiny part of the body is NOT the best way to do things.
Nanobots will be able to directly attack the problem on a celluar level. It will be the cure for all viruses and cancer.
And if anyone doubts it's possible to build robots that small.... we're already making atom sized transistors.
And this is in 2012. With how information technology advances exponentially, today doubling every 11 months, imagine what it will be like by 2020 or 2030? 7-17 years might seem like a long time but its really not and will be here before we know it.
That is a separate issue. You would still be 80 or 800 etc. You would just have the body of a 21 yo.
True. I would be a middle aged mom who looked less than 10 years older than her kids....something a little weird about that.
At the same time, it would be nice if dh and I could both be 21 physically and never have to worry about getting sick and old. We would still have the life experiences of a middle aged couple though - so we wouldn't be truly going back to the days of our youth...like when we first met. It's weird to think about us being together here on earth for hundreds of years...
Also, I would imagine that the odds of even a forever 21 year old managing to avoid all peril for 800 years is pretty slim. Accidents happen. So I don't think that, even with stem cell miracles, that a person could really count on living that long.
Last edited by springfieldva; 12-12-2012 at 12:36 PM..
And this is in 2012. With how information technology advances exponentially, today doubling every 11 months, imagine what it will be like by 2020 or 2030? 7-17 years might seem like a long time but its really not and will be here before we know it.
The pace of growth doesn't automatically continue indefinitely. In human history, there have been surges of innovation, but it isn't realistic to assume that a decade of innovation leads to 100 years at that amazing pace. It hasn't happened thus far.
The idea that we'll be able to extend our lifespans by 60 years simply isn't going to happen.
But the original questions asks IF we could, would it be moral to do so. Yes, it would be moral to do so.
The pace of growth doesn't automatically continue indefinitely. In human history, there have been surges of innovation, but it isn't realistic to assume that a decade of innovation leads to 100 years at that amazing pace. It hasn't happened thus far.
Human history it might have looked like there has been surges in innovation but when looked at closer it has been following a exponential growth rate since humans began to speak about 10,000 years ago. THen once the first computer was built, in 1890, the growth rate went dramatically up and we are now at the knee of the trend curve and that is why you see so much innovation in the past 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelcake4
The idea that we'll be able to extend our lifespans by 60 years simply isn't going to happen.
Oh its going to happen thanks to stem cell research, genetic and nano technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelcake4
But the original questions asks IF we could, would it be moral to do so. Yes, it would be moral to do so.
True. I would be a middle aged mom who looked less than 10 years older than her kids....something a little weird about that.
It might seem weird today but once it happens and evetroine on the planet looks young then it will be just as normal as aging is today. I mean think about it this way how odd would so many people over 65 seem to people living 200 years ago? Yet its normal today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva
At the same time, it would be nice if dh and I could both be 21 physically and never have to worry about getting sick and old. We would still have the life experiences of a middle aged couple though - so we wouldn't be truly going back to the days of our youth...like when we first met. It's weird to think about us being together here on earth for hundreds of years...
There is so much you and him could experience I would think you guys would have a wonderful time doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva
Also, I would imagine that the odds of even a forever 21 year old managing to avoid all peril for 800 years is pretty slim. Accidents happen. So I don't think that, even with stem cell miracles, that a person could really count on living that long.
With all the advanced in medical technology, including backing up the brain, it will happen sooner then you realize.
How long is the life of a man or woman? We asume that because people live into their 70's or 80's that they have lived a full life. What about the people living in Okinawa till they are 115 or what have you? I think I read that the planet has two or three places that a high concentration of Centurians live.
Lets say that we double the lifespan of everyone on the planet. You do know that in some places they will be living into their mid 70's by doubling their time on the planet. Not all people enjoy the life time that we call normal.
Looking back into the mid 1930's even in this nation of ours 65 was a stretch. One of the reasons I believe that the Social Security benefits hit within that time frame, they were counting on us being dead by then. People are living longer and having a better quality of life. I for one want to live into the 100's and would love to hit 150. My goal is to be around till at least 2100. I found it interesting as we entered the 2000's when some people were living within parts of three centuries. That is so cool. I would love to be able to do that. At the same time, I don't have a pension. I have to save for my retirement. I also don't see retiring at 65. I think that would be boring. I plan on working into my 80's. My thought is that the longer you work and are active the longer you live.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by springfieldva
I haven't done any research about this at all. But my concerns would be -
You could use stem cells to "turn back the clock" on the aging process. But DNA gets damaged and mutates over time. So each time you regenerate, you might be setting yourself up for some rather horrific or unpleasant physical changes in your body. You might, indeed, live until you're 800 but you would not resemble the person you started out as, even if you do look young for 800.
There are DNA repair mechanisms, little critters that move up and down the strands checking for mutations and repairing the tips which wear down (telomeres). Those repair mechanisms themselves age ...... but if they can be kept young, the mutations would be no more prevalent than in a 20 yo healthy person.
(some bacteria have such powerful repair mechanisms that they are able to live inside nuclear reactors, exposed to radiation strong enough to kill people and destroy electronics.)
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.
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.
