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.
Aubrey De Grey thinks that there is a 50 percent chance that within 25-30 years (he said this about 10 years ago) that we will begin to be able to get aging under control. This means that if your body is in good enough shape by 2030-2040ish you have a good chance of never growing old and living centuries if not thousands of years.
Personally I'm all for it. I like life and in my opinion when it comes to living there's no such thing as too much of a good thing. Growing old sounds horrible and painful and I'm not strongly convinced either way about an afterlife.
What do you think?
I love his optimism, but I doubt we're going to see it in our lifetimes... For now, cryogenic freezing!
We need to be figuring out ways of getting rid of old people (especially the current crop of boomers) instead of prolonging their unproductive and expensive lives.
How about Death Panels? You know, the ones Conservatives are always screaming bloody murder about?
How about Death Panels? You know, the ones Conservatives are always screaming bloody murder about?
Well, how about an assessment for 70 year olds that have contributed much more to societies moving parts than say.....35. 40. 45 year old slackers who have done nothing?
EVERYTHING organic deteriorates over time- EVERYTHING. While there may be componants of medicine which can promote longivity (through identification of gene activation with aging and advances in organ regenesis), nothing can prevent organic chemical compounds from eventual degradation.
Innovation seems to come from those under 50 years of age. What would our world be like if we did not have the energy and drive of youth? Certainly, along with it comes more impulsive behavior, but creativity is a positive attribute of the young.
Natural resources are limited. There would have to be laws that limited people to only "replacement" number of children (2) to keep the population in check. Competition for scarce natural resources would produce starvation and war.
As we know today, the least intelligent and least industrious tend to have the most children. Prolonging lives would result in an "Idiocracy" scenario in which the average IQ would deteriorate more rapidly than it is now (witness the IQ decline in America since the advent of social engineering- we are becoming a nation of idiots collectively).
Life is precious BECAUSE TIME IS LIMITED.
Wise words, I must admit.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-30-2013 at 05:11 PM..
Well, how about an assessment for 70 year olds that have contributed much more to societies moving parts than say.....35. 40. 45 year old slackers who have done nothing?
Can we kill them first?
You want Death Panels for 40 yr olds, too? Sure, knock yourselves out.
Actually, I fully expect to see such technology develop and that it will be kept in short supply by pricing it horrendously high (lets face it, people with the means would pay WHATEVER it takes to undergo such a process - making the "owner" of such technology wealthy beyond all imaginings). The end result is that the very wealthy will end up with very extended lives (probably not "forever" but very very long - in the hundreds of years) while the average person is left to a more natural lifespan.
Actually, I fully expect to see such technology develop and that it will be kept in short supply by pricing it horrendously high (lets face it, people with the means would pay WHATEVER it takes to undergo such a process - making the "owner" of such technology wealthy beyond all imaginings). The end result is that the very wealthy will end up with very extended lives (probably not "forever" but very very long - in the hundreds of years) while the average person is left to a more natural lifespan.
Ken
Then the federal gvt will start subsidizing the poor through Medicare and adding 3 trillion dollars in deficit a year to a already 500 trillion national debt.
Then the federal gvt will start subsidizing the poor through Medicare and adding 3 trillion dollars in deficit a year to a already 500 trillion national debt.
Nope.
Ken
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.
