Seriously thoughtful Should human life be extended?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tirsales

What make's you so sure of this (both statements)?

My educational background in molecular biology (although it was so long ago I feel like saying - Has thou a need for an alchemist?) Aging is built into the genome. Now how and how to slow it down are still unknown. It'll take a full knowledge of how and when proteins are built, and a knowledge of how to stop adult gene from being eroded away during cell division to get there. We're just starting on the protein study and my guessimate is that it'll take 50 years to complete. That's the postcard short answer.

As to why? Look around you. Power over life and death is the ultimate control of government...

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My educational background in molecular biology (although it was so long ago I feel like saying - Has thou a need for an alchemist?) Aging is built into the genome. Now how and how to slow it down are still unknown. It'll take a full knowledge of how and when proteins are built, and a knowledge of how to stop adult gene from being eroded away during cell division to get there. We're just starting on the protein study and my guessimate is that it'll take 50 years to complete. That's the postcard short answer.

I'm a Bioinformatician specialising on Genetics, nice to meet you
The "erodation" of adult genes or cells is only one factor (we are talking about multiple different steps here - e.g. Cell apostatis caused by 'too many replications error' or apostatis caused by 'read/write error' or simply apostatis caused by 'cell wall leaking error' etc) - and one factor that likely results in quite a number of types of cancer.
Overspecialisation combined with a total collapse of the immune system is another factor - and one we do not even begin to understand. Then there are mechanic problems (e.g. arteriosclerosis, rheumatism, etc) leading to e.g. heart attack or brain strokes.
It might be possible to build a process that leads to 'immortality' (if you can keep s/o young, you can keep them relatively immortal, provided you have the money) - but its most likely nothing any person actually on earth will be treated with..

Oh and yes - I actually need an alchemist. Can you provide me with some Gold?

As to why? Look around you. Power over life and death is the ultimate control of government...

It is - but I dont think it will be under government control - more like an automatic control through pricing issues.

[pdurrant]

Well, if we do come up with treatment(s) that result in an extra (say) 100 years of healthy life, there are lots of things that would have to be changed.

Retirement/Pensions. No-one's going to retire at 60/65. But it might well be that people will take some years off work every few decades, to just relax, or to learn new things, or retrain for a new job.

Copyright: Would have to return to a fixed length from publication, or the public domain (& inspiration for new works) would dry up.

Religion: No doubt there will be groups that object to the life extension, and will refuse it, or take action to prevent others using it. (Pickets at life extension clinics. Murder of doctors.)


But I don't see any possible problems from living longer being worse than the problem of senility and death in your first century. I'd be interested to hear whether you disagree (with an example!).

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I'm talking about the implication(s) upon the ordering of events relating to health care, contractual and legal issues, in addition to ethical and religious concerns.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But I don't see any possible problems from living longer being worse than the problem of senility and death in your first century. I'd be interested to hear whether you disagree (with an example!).

You dont? Well .. for one thing older people tend to get a little set in their ways - it's not a problem of "old age", it begins with childhood and grows steadily stronger.
To my best knowledge this is (mostly) related to habit and not to some bodily problems - so it would be an increasing problem with "older and older" people.
Then could you imagine politics with immortals? Politicians tend to be on the older halve of life - and I really dont want to see Politicians ruling for several centuries.

Then there is a slight problem with the population growing (much) too large, there are social problems (everyone getting this threatment? Just the rich? Just the "deserving" (however defined)?
Can you imagine living forever - but your offspring, relatives and friends not?
Can a love or a friendship survive eternity?
...

It would change the complete social structures. Oh and the statement "But we always did it like this" will get a freaking new meaning ... Most changes occur with a generation shift - but there wouldn't be any more generation shift.

[Sparrow]

Another approach might be to live virtual lives that appear to last several centuries; while our physical bodies retain their current longevity.

You could 'wake up' every few virtual years to have something to eat and visit the loo.

[pdurrant]

I didn't say there wouldn't be problems. There would be problems. But death is not a good solution to these problems. It's just the one we have at the moment.

Not dying and coming up with new solutions would be better.

Of course, if overpopulation is your main worry, you could suggest solutions to it - say kill off 1 in ten people at every decade birthday. Oh dear - that's what we do now - by letting them die!

Admittedly, we weight it slightly now - we only kill off 1 in twenty by their 10th and 20th birthdays, 1 in ten by 30th and 40th birthdays, 1 in five by 50th birthday and 1 in three by 60th birthdays...

Originally Posted by tirsales

You dont? Well .. for one thing older people tend to get a little set in their ways - it's not a problem of "old age", it begins with childhood and grows steadily stronger.
To my best knowledge this is (mostly) related to habit and not to some bodily problems - so it would be an increasing problem with "older and older" people.
Then could you imagine politics with immortals? Politicians tend to be on the older halve of life - and I really dont want to see Politicians ruling for several centuries.

Then there is a slight problem with the population growing (much) too large, there are social problems (everyone getting this threatment? Just the rich? Just the "deserving" (however defined)?
Can you imagine living forever - but your offspring, relatives and friends not?
Can a love or a friendship survive eternity?
...

It would change the complete social structures. Oh and the statement "But we always did it like this" will get a freaking new meaning ... Most changes occur with a generation shift - but there wouldn't be any more generation shift.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I didn't say there wouldn't be problems. There would be problems. But death is not a good solution to these problems. It's just the one we have at the moment.

Not dying and coming up with new solutions would be better.

I can't really see how death is avoidable - ultimately all matter in the Universe will just evaporate (if I understand correctly).

Even if we could theoretically last that long, the chance of dying by accident would probably be a certainty over that sort of time scale.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I didn't say there wouldn't be problems. There would be problems. But death is not a good solution to these problems. It's just the one we have at the moment.

You really dont want to die, do you?

Not dying and coming up with new solutions would be better.

Why?

Of course, if overpopulation is your main worry, you could suggest solutions to it - say kill off 1 in ten people at every decade birthday. Oh dear - that's what we do now - by letting them die!

You understand the difference between "actively killing s/o" (possibly with some prejudiced selection process) and "letting them die"?
Do you want to start the selection? Do you want to be the one "living forever" with all friends and relatives gone?

I love the imagination of living forever, seeing technical progress, etc - but only in dream land. Would you like to live forever with a job you never wanted and hate? Or in a world gone apocalyptic (say a mixture between "I am legend" and "Mad Max")?
You know most dreams are not really this fantastic if you introduce reality. Why would you like to live forever?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tirsales

You really dont want to die, do you?

Strangely enough, no. Do you? I rather enjoy life, and would like to continue to do so for more than just another 40 years or so.

And note that we're not discussing living forever. Just extending healthy human lifespan from 80 years to (say) 200 years.

And yes, there is a difference between actively killing and letting die. But sometimes not much (consider withdrawal of food and drink from PVS patients).

Refusing to develop treatments to extend healthy life is passively killing people.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Would you like to live forever with a job you never wanted and hate?

Well, no. But then I'd have an option - change jobs or commit suicide. Currently I don't have an option - I'm going to die sometime in the next (being optimistic) 50 years. And again, not forever, just a lot longer than now.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Or in a world gone apocalyptic

Now we're just getting silly.

[pdurrant]

I can do no better answer than to quote Dr. Drib:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

And please remember: I'm not talking about immortality, but a lengthening of one's life beyond the "normal" or "typical" lifespan.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I can't really see how death is avoidable - ultimately all matter in the Universe will just evaporate (if I understand correctly).

Even if we could theoretically last that long, the chance of dying by accident would probably be a certainty over that sort of time scale.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Strangely enough, no. Do you? I rather enjoy life, and would like to continue to do so for more than just another 40 years or so.

Me too - still I dont think that immortality or "a further extension of the human timespan" is a really good idea.

And note that we're not discussing living forever. Just extending healthy human lifespan from 80 years to (say) 200 years.

I doubt that a further extension of the human lifespan will be possible without achieving (some kind of) immortality. If you could e.g. repair all damage done "through age" (yeah, its inacurate. Sue me) - you would be immortal.
And yes - you would need to be able to do something like this to be able to live 200 years.
Sure, you would have to repeat this treatment every now and then - but you would never have to die (unless you get killed or are fatally ill). Of course this technique does not need to be perfect - still there would be no definite ending to ones live.
How many people are killed by accidents nowadays? Its a very small percentage - and this will continue to decrease with advantages in medicine, safer cars, etc - no. With a near-perfect threatment you would have some "relative immortals" (possible wont live longer then the sun, but still much longer then we can imagine - and thats so near immortal that there is not much of a difference)

And yes, there is a difference between actively killing and letting die. But sometimes not much (consider withdrawal of food and drink from PVS patients).

Now we are getting into a very serious ethic problem - one we can discuss, but shouldnt do here, dont ye think?

Refusing to develop treatments to extend healthy life is passively killing people.

Just one moment - there is a difference between "extending healthy life" and "extending life". Extending the period where one is in fact healthy is a nice idea - but does not neccessarily imply that you will live longer.

Well, no. But then I'd have an option - change jobs or commit suicide. Currently I don't have an option - I'm going to die sometime in the next (being optimistic) 50 years. And again, not forever, just a lot longer than now.

Why not forever? After all in 50 years you would still want to live, dont you think so?
And here we have another ethic problem - where to draw the line? At 120? At 200? At 500? Whenever you run out of money?

Now we're just getting silly.

Then have a look at the momentary climate debate, politicial development, etc - I dont think an apocalyptic earth is a silly prospect.

[tirsales]

One point not mentioned so far: There is actually no reason to believe that the human memory is unlimited - someday you (in all likelihood) will either forget stuff you have learned and forget your previous life or you will be unable to learn or memorize new stuff. We currently do not know what will happen - and we have no reason to believe that the human memory can be changed (e.g. expanded by technical means).

Would you want to live for a longer time - if the timespan you can actually remember will not grow? Or if you would be unable to learn new stuff, accommodate to new technologies, etc after a given timespan?