New Drugs May Extend Our Lifespan to 150 Years
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
The shriveling is part of the aging process which would be a lot slower with this stuff. You'd still be a demented drooling old fool at the end, but your healthy life would also be longer. And i suppose you could always stop taking the stuff, or jump (well maybe not jump) in front of a train when you want it to end.Ruwrak said:
FUCK nature. We havent gotten to where we are by living in pact with nature. And even if we could certainly do more to not pollute everywhere I am ALL for science kicking the hell out of nature.Ruwrak said:
I'd GLADLY live to 1000 years of age or more if I could. Death is too final and dull.
See my problem is we have about 3-5 billion too many. Many of which who would not exist except for the law forbids you from killing them. So with the economic strain it creates, the drain on resources we want to make people live even longer and keep pushing that number higher. Who in their right minds is that selfish to think that would be a good idea.
Its bad enough that we have no natural predators and we coddle people so much trying to keep them from dying from their own stupidity, but no that wasnt good enough, we have to go and further extend a lifespan well beyond the point of the average person being able to do anything practical with that extra time.
Its bad enough that we have no natural predators and we coddle people so much trying to keep them from dying from their own stupidity, but no that wasnt good enough, we have to go and further extend a lifespan well beyond the point of the average person being able to do anything practical with that extra time.
Okay, people stop working and get a pension at 65 (67 or 68 is also possible in certain countries).
Am I the only one seeing huge problems here?
If this new drug hits the market will we need to alter the age at which you get your pension to 100?
And if so, people that don't that that drug or don't have enough money for it, will they still be allowed to stop working at 65?
So let's do the math.
An average person starts working at 18.
He stops at 65.
that means up until he hit 65 he has worked 47 years of his life.
And then he still has 85 years of pension to look forward to!
Okay.. that's nuts!
Am I the only one seeing huge problems here?
If this new drug hits the market will we need to alter the age at which you get your pension to 100?
And if so, people that don't that that drug or don't have enough money for it, will they still be allowed to stop working at 65?
So let's do the math.
An average person starts working at 18.
He stops at 65.
that means up until he hit 65 he has worked 47 years of his life.
And then he still has 85 years of pension to look forward to!
Okay.. that's nuts!
Interesting. It's naive to think that only genes control the rate of aging. The rate of aging has more to do with cellular damage and environmental stressors (a word Chrome doesn't like apparently) than genetics, though that is definitely a component (there is plenty of proof of this, just look at people who go tanning a lot). Though, the bodies ability to repair injury could certainly help. The original source points out the worry of things like Alzheimer Disease and Dementia being a problem though. And I recall reading an article a long while back in Scientific American pointing out that the human body is not structured to live longer than more than a century. Our bone structures, circulatory system, brain chemistry, etc., are not fit to live longer than 100 Years(or so) without significant external help.
Sounds to me that if you could live that long time, it would be a miserable existence. And there is an ever more burgeoning portion of the population that face significant amounts of time in places like nursing homes. This has more to do with the infatuation of a longer (but by no means better quality) life.
You can keep it. I'll take my 80-100 or so years of total health and happiness then die a happy man.
Sounds to me that if you could live that long time, it would be a miserable existence. And there is an ever more burgeoning portion of the population that face significant amounts of time in places like nursing homes. This has more to do with the infatuation of a longer (but by no means better quality) life.
You can keep it. I'll take my 80-100 or so years of total health and happiness then die a happy man.
Even if they were able to halt the physical and mental degeneration process, this prospect terrifies me. We're already killing each other over dwindling resources, people - how exactly would the additional massive surge of overpopulation resulting from such a drug help in that regard?
Adjusting the scale of the average human lifespan would require a complete social overhaul.
Namely, we would have to become not only conscious of the resources we use individually, but also limit our birth rates even further globally.
And that assumes this "Leonization" (think Ponce de Leon) is even affordable for your average schmuck.
Then there's the potential for severe social backlash/controversy as only the very wealthy would be able to afford it.
However, if we overcome those obstacles (doubtful), I imagine the potential for great strides in science could follow as those who were already trained and skilled could theoretically live/work twice as long, and thus have that much more time to develop a more complete understanding of complicated subjects.
Namely, we would have to become not only conscious of the resources we use individually, but also limit our birth rates even further globally.
And that assumes this "Leonization" (think Ponce de Leon) is even affordable for your average schmuck.
Then there's the potential for severe social backlash/controversy as only the very wealthy would be able to afford it.
However, if we overcome those obstacles (doubtful), I imagine the potential for great strides in science could follow as those who were already trained and skilled could theoretically live/work twice as long, and thus have that much more time to develop a more complete understanding of complicated subjects.
we already need to move the social security age up. accounting for this would be a simple matter of moving it up farther. when social security was instituted, average life expectancy at age 65 was 10-15 years. now people draw benefits for twenty or thirty years.
This is good news only if the added decades are those of youth. Like if you feel like 20 for 40 years. No one wants to be old for the better part of their life.
So you don't take any medicine, grow your own food without modern pesticides or agricultural methods, don't drink purified water, consume any product not grown locally, etc.?Ruwrak said:
Because those are also meddling.
The exact thing the article addresses. Their goal is to not have that be the case.keideki said:
If it allows us to have, say, the body of a 40yo at 70, i'm 100% for this drug.
Extending life is pointless if we'd just have to spend more and more on people who couldn't work.
The problem is, IF we have this drug, we NEED a big world war to drop the population by 500mil or so.
In another 50 years, we will be right on the edge of what the planet can comfortably support. 100 years and the population will be at the point where society is deteriorating due to not enough room and resources.
Believe it or not, China has the right idea. The number of children MUST be limited, and the elderly who can no longer work or support themselves with their own money must not be kept alive for another 10-20 years for no reason. They must have their healthcare cut to the absolute bottom of the rung so hopefully they die sooner rather than later.
It sounds brutal, but it must happen or nobody will be happy in 75 years when the planet can no longer support the massive draw everybody is asking of it, and suddenly NO, you CANNOT have that upsize with that meal. You can have a piece of meat today and some bread tomorrow.
Extending life is pointless if we'd just have to spend more and more on people who couldn't work.
The problem is, IF we have this drug, we NEED a big world war to drop the population by 500mil or so.
In another 50 years, we will be right on the edge of what the planet can comfortably support. 100 years and the population will be at the point where society is deteriorating due to not enough room and resources.
Believe it or not, China has the right idea. The number of children MUST be limited, and the elderly who can no longer work or support themselves with their own money must not be kept alive for another 10-20 years for no reason. They must have their healthcare cut to the absolute bottom of the rung so hopefully they die sooner rather than later.
It sounds brutal, but it must happen or nobody will be happy in 75 years when the planet can no longer support the massive draw everybody is asking of it, and suddenly NO, you CANNOT have that upsize with that meal. You can have a piece of meat today and some bread tomorrow.