Do You Want to Live Forever?

[devilof76]

I do. Life is too short and death still sucks.

 

[Darth_Fatso]

Not unless all my loved ones get to live forever with me and not unless they find some way I can retain my strength. Could you imagine how you'd look and feel at 1,000 years old if you aged like normal?

 

[BadMoon]

I think most would say yes. However, imagine the complications that would arise from people living much much longer. First consumption would skyrocket. Where are we putting all of these people? Also, if you think insurance is costly now, imagine what it would be if we are all paying for people to live to even 500.

Not sure this would benefit the good of our species.

Sign me up!

 

[creature4000]

not if my brain is mush or my body is a sack of potatoes.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I wanted to post a few thoughts on this. I did not go through the thread and read everything, so these thoughts may have been posted before. If they have (which I am sure of) just imagine that I posted "I agree with________".

Population control would be a must. My opinion is that there are already too many people on the Earth. And at the rate we multiply, true overpopulation would not be far behind longevity.


I would like to live for a long time. Forever? Not so sure. But for a long time...a few hundred years I would be cool with.

I would not want everyone to live a long life like me. A very few people who are smart enough to make positive use of the wisdom that could be accumulated in a long life would be a boon to our world. A bunch of stupid ***** sucking up oxygen that could have been used by more intelligent people who would never be born due to the population control would be a bane to the world.

I realize that my thoughts leave a lot of room for debate. But this all really boils down to personal preference.

And at the end of the day...I firmly believe that the guy who said science is close to extending life is a crackpot.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I think most would say yes. However, imagine the complications that would arise from people living much much longer. First consumption would skyrocket. Where are we putting all of these people? Also, if you think insurance is costly now, imagine what it would be if we are all paying for people to live to even 500.

Not sure this would benefit the good of our species.

Sign me up!

I don't think insurance would get expensive. One of the things making long life (supposedly) possible is the control of deseases like cancer and AIDS. And if the population control went in to effect, there would not necessarily be more people that are likely to be hurt in accidents. And as time went on...the stupid people would be weeded out via accidents so there would be fewer accidents...and eventually...the need for insurance might just go away.

 

[devilof76]

I don't think you'd need population control. And I'd be violently opposed to it.

 

[Avenger]

That would guarantee failure. There is no limit to how many people this planet can support because the limits on production aren't material. Resources are theoretically limitless. Similarly to emergencies when prices skyrocket, the population will only grow according to what can be afforded. In socialist systems where everyone is guaranteed food, shelter, education, healthcare regardless of their ability to pay for it, yeah, shortages will be the norm. That doesn't happen when people are expected to feed their own.

So no, a true, working capitalist system would make it possible for people to live as long as they wanted with this medical technology at their disposal. SUpposing they needed more materials, look around you: there's an entire solar system worth of it, and honestly, the earth is a hell of a lot bigger than you're giving it credit for. Just because people haven't figured out how to use all of the material here available to us doesn't mean it's useless.

I don't disagree with your premise on socialism, which is why I called it a "true, working" socialist state. That means the people want to do what's best for each other, not for themselves at others expense. And they have to collectively believe in that, giving up some creature comforts and finding purpose in furthering society instead of personal gain and wealth. That's the only way for there to be continued innovation (drive of being better instead of financial gain). The reverse is to go boldly into this new world on the wings of capitalism, and frankly in a world where resources are scarce and hard to acquire, I don't think most of us would favor that system anymore. It would be far worse than any recent oil/gas pricing moves.

Capitalism is a pendulum, swinging on the hinge of supply and demand. Increased demand with decreased supply drives up prices. Imagine that in a world where the population continues to rise, while mortality is all but wiped out. Most of our comforts today come from oil. Without it, our systems of trade and commerce shut down. Maybe we'll develop something new. But, deforestation occurring faster than replanting can compensate, overfishing, over hunting, strip mining, water shortages, you name it. This thread isn't about a 5% increase in population, it's talking exponential population growth, and in many places we're having a hard time supporting the current population. And, once the easy resources are harvested, it gets a lot harder and more expensive. Resources here are not limitless, and even those that are renewable take time to replenish, during which it's unknown the damage this level of gathering would do to ecosystems. Not to mention, where are the resources in this new world? In destabilized military states, with ruling tyrants?

There is one other possibility I didn't think of earlier. We could start to colonize other worlds. That could offset much of the problems, however we better get started on the technology if the science to live forever is coming along.

I guess for now, I'll have to continue to hope every one of you dies! After a reasonably long and fruitful life that is.

 

[devilof76]

It's a false alternative to say they must live for each other, or live for themselves at the expense of each other.

Also, the fact that supply is not limitless will control population growth naturally. It already does. Price increases act to prevent shortages. That's not to say that something couldn't be figured out so as to produce more from less, but the point is that you won't have a population problem if you can't tangibly feed all those people. Nature is self-regulating.

 

[Avenger]

It's a false alternative to say they must live for each other, or live for themselves at the expense of each other.

How else can you live? Capitalism is people wanting to get more goods for less money, and business wanting more money for less cost. Greed is the primary driver of both parties, with actual pricing being set by whoever currently has the buying power. People make choices to "get theirs" based on what they perceive something is worth. That's why there's $900 Batman Toy Fair figures on eBay right now, with people buying them. Imagine your food for your kids being like that. And, we don't need a future full of immortals to see what that's like. Look up hyperinflation. It's happened many times before.

Also, the fact that supply is not limitless will control population growth naturally. It already does. Price increases act to prevent shortages. That's not to say that something couldn't be figured out so as to produce more from less, but the point is that you won't have a population problem if you can't tangibly feed all those people. Nature is self-regulating.

So, instead of old age, people are dying from hunger and disease. That is unless you're rich and can afford food. I'm not seeing this as a better world.

I'm not a fan of socialism. I think it takes a sociological mind set that humans have never had. I earlier mentioned Star Trek, because it's the only truly working socialist idea where life is better, that I've seen. But, it only does so because want and need were eliminated by the replicator. Alas, that's probably make believe for a long time to come.

 

[Darthrazz]

Even if this was or is true, world governments would suppress it. World population by 2050 is going to be about 8-9 billion people. If you think about the 9 billion people, new people being born after them, living for a 1000 years would spell doom for our planet.

Could all the consumables be produced needed to sustain all these folks?

Unless you constitute a population control this can get pretty ugly.

What COULD happen, is that a select few would be able to take advantage of this, others will lead normal life spans....eventually the richer countries will outlive the poorer ones.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing after death , so sign me up!

 

[devilof76]

The other way to live is for yourself and not at the expense of others.

 

[Avenger]

The other way to live is for yourself and not at the expense of others.

sure. Now how do I force my neighbor to do the same? Seeing the catch 22 here?

 

[ProgMatinee]

The concept of living to 120 or 150 is so mindboggling stupid that its hard to fathom it.

People are already living way beyond their mental ability and physical mobility...not to mention their bank accounts.

If we want to protect life, how about figuring out how to prevent diseases that children are affected by. How about figuring out a better system of adoption so that people don't abort. How about trying to prevent youth from dying of drugs or basic stupidity?

Instead of trying to extend life out at the twilight moments for cynical old people who have already contributed their highest utility to society, why not figure out ways to make sure that the brightness that is young life isn't snuffed out too soon.

The whole concept is just sickening.

Even if one doesn't believe in the afterlife, there is the legacy of your descendants to consider. Do you really want to burden the future generations everything that comes from the previous generations living too long.

Natural resources-exponentially depleted
Garbage and waste-exponentially increased
Job competition-exponentially increased
Food supply
Access to healthcare
Living space

Really, I think you'd have mass suicide by the young who realize that they will never financially or socially be able to unhinge themselves from their aging predecessors. Basically the youth would become slaves to the old because the old would hold all the property, all the wealth, all the jobs, everything.

 

[fosing]

pass. i dont want to live forever. eternity is boring. i know i need a LOT to learn as it is at this rate...but, i dont have to learn all of it. Life, the continuous struggle has to end sometime.

 

[work13]

If my friends, and family could afford to live forever, then maybe I'd find a way to muster up the money to also live forever with them; but if they can't live forever, then I don't need to either. Living forever when there is no one with you to share your memories is tough.

 

[xYx]

I don't even want to reach 35, ____ forever!

 

[Shropt]

Living forever without getting sick or old and having limitless money to take care of myself, yes.

If I still get old, sick, and have to work, no thanks.

 

[pixletwin]

So glad a viable technology is going to be made available and affordable for the likes of the Hilton's and some goofy nerdy billionaire guys.

 

[The Monster]

According to longevity research, science might be just close. According to them the first person to live until 150 has already been born and the first person to live to 1000 will be born within 20 years.



Link here: https://news.yahoo.com/wants-live-forever-scientist-sees-aging-cured-131029279.html

Yes, I would love to try to live forever. Think about it, If one day you did not like it or enjoy it anymore you could always walk out into the sun.

Nick