New Drugs May Extend Our Lifespan to 150 Years

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
Man quite a few posters here should probably get on a depression drug.

Talk about woefully unrealistic understanding of world population, pollution, and life length.

"Herp derp, we all shud die at 18 cuz we r livin' 2 lawng en hurtin' dee environemant."

The amount of people in the world and the length people live are not problems.

Likewise it would take a LOT more people for them to be problems.

We already have the technology to harmoniously live with quite large amounts of humans on the face of the earth, the problem is we choose not to.

Pollution is a biproduct of ignorance and apathy, not of populations.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
If I can live a long life without drugs then it would be a blessing. Other than that, I plan NOT to use drugs to extend my life because I don't like taking medication of any kind (seriously, even cough syrup and migraine pills are things I don't enjoy taking). Why? Simply put, if I need a drug cocktail to keep me moving, rather than my own will, health, and strength, I'm not really living; I'm only prolonging my own end without any real reason or purpose.

Why should the number of years matter and not how well one has lived them? Seriously, longevity is not a race and whether you're 80 or 150, you will still be limited to what you can do as an old person.
 

Darkenwrath

New member
Apr 12, 2010
230
0
0
Ruwrak said:
Question number 1
Do I really wanna live to 150 years?
Question number 2
-HOW- exactly will I be living till 150 years? I can't imagine me looking all shrivled up and still living like I should be right?

And then of course, why do we keep meddeling with nature's course?
Everything is supposed to die sometime right?
This is true, everything dies, however looking at how the human lifespan was at one point a mere 30 years, is increasing our lifespan further really meddling with nature? With modern drugs, vaccines, healthcare, nutritional knowledge and the availability of gyms and other places of leisure our lifespan of about 77 years would be considered unprecedented by past humans. It's not an immortality drug, its just an extension, look at it as getting a new kidney, or being vaccinated against a disease, both extend your lifespan but they are seemingly ok and not considered unnatural.

If we live to 150 but just shrivel up bags of skin and bone with no point and no life then this is bad. However the scientists probably realize this won't sell in fact they even say:

"The aim is not just to eke out extra existence, but to facilitate a longer healthy life," he said. "People aren't going to want to retire at 65 and spend many, many decades sitting at home."

Meaning they're probably looking at that problem too.
 

Seventh Actuality

New member
Apr 23, 2010
551
0
0
The average lifespan used to be about fifty if you were lucky. Medicine and modern comforts have been prolonging our lives well beyond their "natural" course for centuries. If you don't want to meddle with nature's course, there's a nice little cave with your name on it. There may even be a hole for you to shit in.

Prolonging life =/= immortality, by the way. Getting an extra fifty years with your loved ones is a big thing to a living person, but not much by the standards of an eternity of the unknown. You might as well stick around as long as you can, because whatever comes after death, there's no going back.
 

RastaBadger

New member
Jun 5, 2010
317
0
0
Good more time for them to work out how to transfer my brain into a computer and then into an improved android body so that I can live forever.
 

Electric Alpaca

What's on the menu?
May 2, 2011
388
0
0
Ethical dilemmas can kick in massively here - can it be construed as suicide if one chooses not to take this medicine if and when it hits the mainstream?

Then, assuming scale is applied, the extra breeding window that everyone will have - coupled with the increase of robotics replacing more and more low level jobs; call me a cynic, but this isn't good news - and I've only skimmed the aspects of this that I believe to cause problems.

Even something as simple as human nature to define yourself by an end being visible will have massive repercussions if the end is so far away. How many times have you witnessed people 'growing up' because it's 'time'?
 

MixedWithMadness

New member
Oct 16, 2011
13
0
0
you even if you manage to make it so your body can sustain yourself for 150 years there will still be a chance that:
some drunk fuck drives home/
some thug dicides to mug you/some bastard dicides to blow himself up next to you/
a rock slide happends just above you/
a volcano erupts next to your town and a stone hits you/
you ride a plain and the lightning hits it and it crashes
a person shove you into the street and a truck comes along
a gangster war happends right att the market you are in and a bullet flies in to you/
some moron dicides to put som LSD in yout coffie and you go out to drive and that nearest streetlight looks like a candybar and you drive towards it
and you will die.

I could go on but id rather state my point. there will be MILLIONS of chances that you could die before you turn 150, even people that are 90 are lucky.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
After this drug became available to everyone (and everyone was taking it), people would retire at like 90 or something. Considering we usually last until about 80 and retire at 65, it might be better if they retire at around 100.

If people were to still retire at 65 while living more than twice that long, the economy wouldn't be able to take it. Soylent Green, anyone?

And who says those with degenerative brain diseases get the drug? Not me. Both of my mom's parents died of degenerative brain diseases, so I know how it affects the one who has it and those around them. It isn't pretty, and prolonging that would be terrible.
 

MrRetroSpectacles

New member
Mar 6, 2011
123
0
0
If I end up as part of "that" generation, the one that immortal Human beings will look back on saying "damn, I feel sorry for them, how unlucky", I'll do nothing because I'll be dead. Be sure to understand however that given enough life to tell you my feelings, I would be supremely pissed off!

I have no intention of ever resting in peace, life owes me dosen't it?
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Depending on your point of view, this is either really exciting news or absolutely terrifying. If you have spent any time in nursing homes or with elderly relatives who have neurological disorders, you know that prolonging their existence may not be a blessing. The goal for these drugs is of course, to provide a longer healthy life, but I worry about the complications, not just morally but economically.

You think social security is broken now? Just wait until people can claim checks for 70 years after they retire.
Well, longer living people with regenerating cells... that means they'll heal quickly and their bodies can combat cancer and other issues more effectivly, right? Only thing you've gotta worry about is the stuff not working, then.
 

sinterklaas

New member
Dec 6, 2010
210
0
0
If we were to live up to 150 years, we certainly wouldn't retire at 65. In fact, unless I'm completely mistaken, you'll be working far longer and as such providing far more of your own pension so I don't see how money would be a problem.

If the anti-aging drugs also delay diseases like Alzheimer I don't see a problem in that either.

I wouldn't mind living for 150 years at all, but one real problem would be overpopulation.

Ethical dilemmas can kick in massively here - can it be construed as suicide if one chooses not to take this medicine if and when it hits the mainstream?
Can it be considered suicide not to have the healthiest lifestyle possible? No. Not taking this drug can't either.
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
how are you going to prevent overpopulation?
the earth HAS the capabilities to support waaaaaay more people then there are now but eventually space is going to run out.
 

TheBelgianGuy

New member
Aug 29, 2010
365
0
0
sinterklaas said:
I wouldn't mind living for 150 years at all, but one real problem would be overpopulation.
Considering the way things usually go on this planet, only rich western countries will be able to have this medicine - the countries who's birth rate is too low and who's population starts getting too old, the kind of countries that'd actually need this if they'd want to survive.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Jan 19, 2011
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Oh sweet Jesus, does humanity's narcissism have no limit?

The reasons why this is a bad, stupid fucking idea should be obvious to anyone who sits and thinks about it for more than a minute. There are so many things wrong with this idea that I would hope any right-thinking individual would conclude that it's a catastro-fuck waiting to happen.

Point number 1: There are already too many people. Our planet is already overpopulated to the tune of about 3 billion people. Our resources are already failing to keep up with the large number, meaning we're already seeing huge numbers of people suffering from famine and disease. Increasing the average lifespan by around 70 years is only going to make things far far worse. Pensions won't be the least of it. Food will become an even more limited resource. Oil will be consumed at a faster rate. More perfectly natural wilderness and countryside will have to be concreted over in order to create more living space. In short- we're already strip mining the planet for every possible resource it can give us. The rainforests are going. The North Sea is empty. There's a pile of rubbish the size of Texas floating in the Pacific. Allowing rich westerners (be honest, you know you're average African or Indian ain't going to see this drug) to live to a 150 will only hasten our turning this planet into a barren wasteland.

Point number 2: It doesn't matter if they find a compound that might allow people to live to 150. It's a natural fact that the older you get, the more prone your body becomes to things like cancer, parkinson's disease, heart failure, strokes, etc. Pumping your body full of resveratol may hypothetically let you live longer, but I highly doubt it will reduce your likelihood of dying of a heart attack, or pancreatic cancer. The body cannot operate for over 80 years without becoming susceptible to these sort of things. It's simple wear and tear. A nation of people forcing their bodies to 150 will become a nation of walking cancer targets. Good luck footing the medical bill for that.

Point number 3: Once again, I'll use the word I used a the start of the article: narcissism. That's what this comes down to. We're so arrogant as a species, we can't comprehend the idea that the planet might continue without us. Indeed, the planet would probably be better off without us, considering all that we've done to fuck it up. Through medical means, we've already managed to increase our life expectancies by over double. Why is that not enough? Are we so arrogant as a species that we think one day death itself won't apply to us? We're part of a natural cycle: we're born, we live, and then we die and make room for the next generation.

This new drug is yet another example of the older generation trying to hoard everything they can, and fucking things over for the next generation. It's not enough that you guys fucked the environment already for us, and we'll probably be living in a global greenhouse because of you. Nope, now you've decided you won't even have the common courtesy to shuffle off this mortal coil and at least leave us to our fucked future alone. You guys have fucked things up enough. Stop trying to fuck them up further!
Amen!

I was thinking more of arrogance than narcissism, but close enough. I don't see this ending well at all if/when this drug is around, and nature might get pissed and take us out.
 

sinterklaas

New member
Dec 6, 2010
210
0
0
Point number 3: Once again, I'll use the word I used a the start of the article: narcissism. That's what this comes down to. We're so arrogant as a species, we can't comprehend the idea that the planet might continue without us. Indeed, the planet would probably be better off without us, considering all that we've done to fuck it up. Through medical means, we've already managed to increase our life expectancies by over double. Why is that not enough? Are we so arrogant as a species that we think one day death itself won't apply to us? We're part of a natural cycle: we're born, we live, and then we die and make room for the next generation.
I don't see the problem. Why is wishing to improve one's life arrogant?

Point number 2: It doesn't matter if they find a compound that might allow people to live to 150. It's a natural fact that the older you get, the more prone your body becomes to things like cancer, parkinson's disease, heart failure, strokes, etc. Pumping your body full of resveratol may hypothetically let you live longer, but I highly doubt it will reduce your likelihood of dying of a heart attack, or pancreatic cancer. The body cannot operate for over 80 years without becoming susceptible to these sort of things. It's simple wear and tear. A nation of people forcing their bodies to 150 will become a nation of walking cancer targets. Good luck footing the medical bill for that.
I'm sure medical advances will take care of these problems as well.

A drug like this wouldn't inherently be bad, it's all about how we deal with overpopulation.
 
Dec 27, 2010
814
0
0
EHKOS said:
I'm not taking it. We should be dying at 35. We keep fucking things up and the planet gets worse and worse because of it.
You do it first, we'll go after you.

OT: This could be great, but if this drug tells the body to stop aging, couldn't that result in an increased risk of cancer? I'm not a doctor, nor all that clever, but I thought I had heard something about that being the reason the body slowly kills cells. Probably wrong though.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
I'm a scientist by trade. I work in nanotechnology. Old scientists never die, they just fade away. This technology will enable me to continue pressing science forward for an additional 70 years-- I think it is a fantastic and I look forward to my invigorating second century-- with vat grown kidney transplants and a new heart.

I however, understand the sentiment of many posters-- retirees who live on social support simply shouldn't get drastic life extension. If you are supporting your own way-- through savings and wealth, great, but we don't want to live in a society that pays us to leech.
 

Jaime_Wolf

New member
Jul 17, 2009
1,194
0
0
The spice must flow!

OT: I feel similar to de Gray in this. People who act as though a longer life would be some kind of curse are compensating for the fact that they don't think they can have one. No one sane wants to get old, develop impaired function, or die.