Cry said:
I don't think I would choose this. Although it is different than being "immortal" (no way in hell would I choose that lol), seeing as you could still die in an accident(until they eradicate accidents!). What happens when you feel you have lived enough and you want to pass on? If you wanted to pass on, how would this be accomplished? How would the people that love you/depend on you feel? How would it affect/change their lives? How do people in this age feel about people denying medical aid to themselves or others even though the medical aid is available and would save their/others life? Are there any moral/ethical issues if everybody chose to live 1000 years or more(over population, scarce resources, ext)?
For me, I am not positive that "death" is an ending to everything I might experience. In fact, I would gamble that death is not the final experience I will have. However, I am and always have been a horrible gambler. I will go when I go, and be thankful for every bit of life I got to live.
I'm pretty sure death is the end, so it's probably harder for me and other non-religious people to just accept that we shouldn't strive to develop this technology. If you want to die, assisted suicide will be legal. It's already legal in a number of states, and, like marijuana and gay marriage, it's a trend that's not going to be stopped. And even if it were illegal, you could still choose to end your own life.
mconlonx said:
Would not go this route. There are too many people on the earth right now, subsidized by input of non-renewable energy resourses. We are way overextended, regarding sustainably supported population level. Age increasing efforts are obscene, a Western, third world conceit. Funding would be better spent on quality of life issues within a usual lifetime for a greater majority. Age extending efforts, like fertility studies, are globally not ethical, they are selfish pursuits.
The US throws away something like 40% of it's food. There are people who live out of dumpsters on the food that's thrown away. And it's all perfectly good! Businesses can't be bothered to get it to where it needs to be so they just dispose of it. Fixing inefficiencies like these will sustain a much larger number of people than we do today. Not to mention we already have ways of growing food indoors, vertically. Harnessing the sun's energy is constantly getting more efficient. There was recently a breakthrough on making liquid fuel from the sun's rays. There's also the work Elon Musk is doing with TESLA. As for living space, there is still plenty (won't be a need for so many graveyards either, how much space do they use?), and more and more people are opting to live tiny or on wheels. Globally not ethical, but yet benefits humanity as a whole. Doesn't compute. By that logic, we should stop funding cancer research. The amount put toward this research is dwarfed by that of cancer alone, and corrupt "charities" like Susan G. Komen keep the money for themselves. We'd do more to combat cancer by funding this rejuvenative research. Quality of life for a greater majority will be a result of these technologies, and we'd also happen to live longer as a result. Your argument doesn't hold much water.
gsfish said:
Recurring theme with all these groups. Methuselah Project, Fight Aging,etc. Give us money but no promises, just a chance.
Don't worry about overpopulation, IF this research ever bears fruit it will only be affordable for the top 0.001%.
From the SENS website. "Even after we have used these new therapies to repair an aging tissue, metabolic processes will continue to cause new damage. This simply means that rejuvenation biotechnologies are not a one-off fix, but will need to be periodically repeated to preserve youthful function. Just as cars need regular rounds of oil changes and spark plug replacements to keep them running smoothly, people will need to go in to rejuvenation clinics to keep up with their regenerative treatments to continue postponing age-related disease."
Bottom line is that this is all just speculation. One small part of this overall research is to cure cancer and how long has that been going on? Once they cure all forms of cancer they can then go on to the other six forms of "damage". Send them money now.
Sorry, I'm the ultimate skeptic.
Guy
I'd be weary of any scientific venture that promises anything. They are not developing a product with pre-determined features. They're not selling anything. They're working on loosely defined, complicated problems yet have the most practical approach of anyone. Disregarding the fact that there are populations shrinking today (Japan, South Korea) and the fact that you're forgetting about all of the other advances in technology that will be happening alongside this over the years, how is overpopulation a worse problem than the 100k people lost every day to aging? Overpopulation is a cinch to deal with in comparison, and I've no doubts we'd be able to adapt. Not to mention, we're going to be branching out into space.
You assume only the super rich will afford it, yet the technologies that will be needed to implement these methods, when they are worked out, already exists. It will likely be subsidized by taxes. If it WERE only available to the super rich, there would be riots like you've never seen before. All of these are not as big a problem as 100k people dying slow, painful deaths every day.
You're misunderstanding cancer as one of the types of damage. Yes, one of the types of damage typically leads to cancer, but the way we've combated cancer until now has hardly been preventative. With this approach, we'd stop the cancer from ever developing by fixing the damage before it becomes a problem. All of the work already being done on cancer only means SENS has to spend less time on this type of damage. There is also the Prevent Cancer Foundation which works on early detection.
As for it not being a one-off fix, if you'd gone a little deeper into the information you'd have heard the once every 10 years estimate. If we can manufacture as many flu vaccines as we do every year, I'm sure we can manufacture enough of these drugs for the entire population every 10 years.
Seraphim said:
Would I want to live indefinitely?
No.
As the activities of life became more mundane with the passing of time, one would have to ever increase the novelty of events to make living bearable. Eventually, as acceptable options wane, one would eventually turn to the perverse.
Much as an adrenaline junkie does more and more dangerous stunts to get the same rush of yesterday. Eventually...
I've done all I've wished to do, accomplished what I set out to accomplish, and am content to spend my remaining time enjoying the beauty of the world - while it and I last.
I think life becomes more mundane and passes more quickly as a partial side effect of aging. Mind and body are one, after all. Do you remember being so bored in your mid 20s? That's the proposed biological age we'd be able to achieve with these technologies.
As for the novelty problem, I already feel like I'll never learn about everything I want to. If you're bored with life, you're just not looking in the right places. Not to mention the technologies that will be developed in the future. Virtual reality, for example.
LeeRevell said:
Best case, they do develop some miracle method of stopping aging......
It will be hyper expensive and made available only to those in the upper half-percentile of citizens who can afford it. You and I would never be given the chance to take part.
But if we could..... major uber-over-population will result.
We are already overdue for a mega-cull given Earth's history of cutting population growth of out-of-control organisms.
See above.
Seraphim said:
Another thought of mine, though I didn't voice it.
How long before the earth is incapable of supporting us? There is only a geologically short period of time in which the earth will be inherently compatible with the human population. For whatever reason - and I'm not getting into THAT debate - the earth changes. It always has. I'm not sure I'll want to live in the enviroment of 100 years from now. No matter how hard it tries, mankind cannot stop the inexorable aging of the world, along with the inherent changes. Man may survive using technology, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the conditions under which we'd be forced to survive.
Energy use/production is becoming more efficient year after year. Yes, our population might (there's room for debate) be pushing it for our CURRENT technologies, but that's largely a result of inefficient distribution and implementation. These problems are really non-issues in the face of 100k people dying slow, painful deaths every day.
You don't have to live in that kind of future. You are free to die, and I'm sure you wouldn't be alone in that regard, but I can state with relative certainty that the number of people who choose to die despite this new technology will drop over time. Like any new tech, there is an adoption rate. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "aging of the world," or why you're so certain of mankind's future ability to stop it.
