Live to be a 1,000? BBC reports....

[wacki]

Holy cow, this year there has been transparent aluminum, cyborg eye implants for the blind, artificial spider silk, HIV vaccine, paralysis cure, now this.....

What next?

"Life expectancy is increasing in the developed world. But Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey believes it will soon extend dramatically to 1,000. Here, he explains why."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm

I wonder what something like this will do to my stocks and mutual funds.

[Sponger15SB]

Live to be 1,000? That would be horrible, oh god just kill me now.

[wacki]

The thing is that you never get old. You will be youthfull until you die. Even if I only lived 70 years, I would still take the treatment right now.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that you never get old. You will be youthfull until you die. Even if I only lived 70 years, I would still take the treatment right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. I do however, think that our world is already overpopulated and that having everyone live to 1000 is rediculous. I hope they make this treatment VERY expensive.

[wacki]

They could do that, or make the right to procreate very expensive.

I guess they would give you a choice, procreation or anti-aging. That would solve the problem.

[chabibi]

nature will find a way to make sure we die in apropriate numbers. when a population gets out of control more people die, hence aids is spreading in areas where the population is booming out of control and is rather stable where the population growth is stable

[Blarg]

Yup. Even the difference between 20 and 40 can be very significant. Why slow down when you don't have to?

I do think that when new technologies come along, they tend to be furiously over-hyped, because even if you are, without hype, able to do something great, that doesn't mean everyone can have it. Like color t.v.'s, etc., things start out in short supply, and that short supply helps maintain a high price either for the sake of profit potential or because it's hard to get enough profit since so few people are buying at first. Anyway, there's a pretty big gulf between something's invention and its common availability at a reasonably affordable price.

Imagine the social security costs of something like this going through? It definitely would cause chaos.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the social security costs of something like this going through? It definitely would cause chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it reverses cellular damage you might end up getting younger. Then would we even need social security? Retirements may go out the window as well.

[Blarg]

If retirement vanished, the suicide rate would skyrocket. Imagine having a 1000 year lifespan, of which 985 years of it were spent at minimum wage, or shuffling nameless papers around some nameless desk, or being some Pakistani warlord's sex slave, or some coal miner in China?

Whatever politics would make of this eventually, I bet it there would be violent, catastrophic outcomes all over the world.

[chabibi]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever politics would make of this eventually, I bet it there would be violent, catastrophic outcomes all over the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

nature's way of controlling the population

[BrettK]

[ QUOTE ]
If retirement vanished, the suicide rate would skyrocket. Imagine having a 1000 year lifespan, of which 985 years of it were spent at minimum wage, or shuffling nameless papers around some nameless desk, or being some Pakistani warlord's sex slave, or some coal miner in China?

[/ QUOTE ]

So these people are living to die? In other words, if someone thinks living is -EV, why does it matter whether he's around for 60 more years or 600 more years? Fold.

Brett

[Matty]

I don't like it. If we had technology like this a couple hundred years ago, slavery would still be popular.

[Blarg]

Easier said than done.

It's against a lot of people's religion to commit suicide. Heck, even against the law in some countries. Besides, how do you commit suicide when you're raising children? And...blowing your own brains out is probably a lot harder than it sounds.

I can picture extended lifespan not even being voluntary. If you could charge people for the process and then force them to undergo it, you could have someone in debt for a thousand years; there would be plenty of private backing for that. If you had slaves or employees, how much more value out of your "investment" would you get by forcing them to live forever? If you ran a political hellhole, both your cronies and your captive population could for their parts triumph and suffer forever.

And genocide and ruthless political slaughter wouldn't necessarily ever come back into balance. If you eliminate the people you don't want and who don't support you, and all the people who do support you live for a thousand years -- the imbalance is set in stone. What a deal!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Easier said than done.

It's against a lot of people's religion to commit suicide. Heck, even against the law in some countries. Besides, how do you commit suicide when you're raising children? And...blowing your own brains out is probably a lot harder than it sounds.

I can picture extended lifespan not even being voluntary. If you could charge people for the process and then force them to undergo it, you could have someone in debt for a thousand years; there would be plenty of private backing for that. If you had slaves or employees, how much more value out of your "investment" would you get by forcing them to live forever? If you ran a political hellhole, both your cronies and your captive population could for their parts triumph and suffer forever.

And genocide and ruthless political slaughter wouldn't necessarily ever come back into balance. If you eliminate the people you don't want and who don't support you, and all the people who do support you live for a thousand years -- the imbalance is set in stone. What a deal!

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a very bleak outlook on life. Seriously, did you have a bad childhood or something? I respect you and all, but you are one hell of a pessimist.

[tolbiny]

We will immediately need term limits on everyone in power- supreme court justices... everyone.

Wonder what it will do to marrige? How many people could be married untill they are 500? especially how many people with the body of a 24 year old could be faithfull for hundreds of years? Divorce rates would have to aproach 100%.

Say they couldn't reverse ageing, only postpone it- at what age would you now be willing to recieve teh treatment? be 60 for 1000 years? 70? a healthy and somewhat spry 80 year old?

[Stu Pidasso]

We would still need 19 year olds to fight our wars.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess they would give you a choice, procreation or anti-aging. That would solve the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would suck for me, I've already procreated quite a bit.

Stu

[natedogg]

The Luddites and Christians will join forces on this, as they do with all major biotech innovations.

OH how horrible! A treatement that gives people longer, healthier lives!

natedogg

[slavic]

Even if we didn't die of natural causes our life expectancy would only be around 250years if I remember right.

[Blarg]

Yeah, I can be incredibly bleak and pessimistic. I think of it more as realism, though. And we're talking about politicians and ruthless dictators here. Not exactly a subject with a lot of wiggle room for optimism.

The purpose of power is always to gain more power. I can't see how the basic dynamics of human nature would diverge from that if people could potentially live to 1,000 years -- people in power would be trying to take some sort of unfair and even ruthless advantage, just like they do now, without question. But the stakes would be much, much higher, since once you got into power, you could hold onto it or increase it for what would seem like virtually forever, and if you were born poor or once you got stuck in a bad situation, you wouldn't just have a standard four score and ten of years to live out; your misery would seem to last virtually forever. And wealth can vastly concentrate into a single person's hands in just one lifetime, and so can the societal distribution of wealth; imagine how concentrated the wealth and power would be if people were living for hundreds of years. The majority of people would probably wind up paying the rest of them for oxygen and the right to defecate.

I imagine the crime rate would skyrocket, since nobody would want to be at the bottom of the ladder for a thousand years. Almost anything would be better than that, easily including murder for many people.

All of these potential consequences make me think there would be a very rocky road to implementing this technology. The consequences would be too severe for it to go out to the masses uncontrolled. I'm sure all the wealthy will get it as soon as possible, though, along with their lackeys and enforcers. If not in this country, then the next; if not legally, then on the black market. The poor and middle class would likely still be dying in all the regular ways for a very long time after this technology has long been proven and available. Its influence over the lives of ordinary people might be huge, but because of the way it influences their world, not because they're getting a piece of the action themselves.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The Luddites and Christians will join forces on this, as they do with all major biotech innovations.

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me how hard people are on religion. There are religous nutbags. That much is obvious, but most of them aren't. To say otherwise would be racist. Besides, Noah lived to be 950 years old. And so did many other people back in the day according to the Bible.

Ge 9:29 - the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

So I could see many Jews, Catholics, Christians, and maybe even Muslims being ok with this. You will always have people who don't like the idea of immortality, hell there are plenty of athiests in this thread that don't like it.

[EliteNinja]

1000 years and you can still be killed by being hit by a bus?!
I want to be immortal!

Seriously, this would be awesome.

[lu_hawk]

[ QUOTE ]
nature will find a way to make sure we die in apropriate numbers. when a population gets out of control more people die, hence aids is spreading in areas where the population is booming out of control and is rather stable where the population growth is stable

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a retarded post. How does nature know?

[wacki]

Ya that's my thought too. If life starts to suck I'm just going to go do something very dangerous like skydiving or move someplace dangerous like LA. If your not going to die naturally you might as well have fun killing yourself.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
nature will find a way to make sure we die in apropriate numbers. when a population gets out of control more people die, hence aids is spreading in areas where the population is booming out of control and is rather stable where the population growth is stable

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a retarded post. How does nature know?

[/ QUOTE ]


actually i agree with both of you. i do believe that nature has mechanisms whereby populations that are out of control will be put in check.

but the part about aids as an example was just stupid. i'm pretty sure the spread of aids has to do with unprotected sex, drug use, and maybe a few other things. it's out of control in africa for clear and logical reasons, not because nature made it so.

[Arm187r]

[ QUOTE ]
If your not going to die naturally you might as well have fun killing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats funny /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
actually i agree with both of you. i do believe that nature has mechanisms whereby populations that are out of control will be put in check.


[/ QUOTE ]

We're beyond nature having control over our existence. Nature itself provides limits, but the normal population control mechanisms completely fail in this age because of terrific medical advances, great ability to maximize space/materials, and so on. Yeah, we're pretty wasteful, but nowhere near as wasteful as nature. Nature just kinda lets things die, stop working, then 1000 years later something springs from the remains. We move all that stuff to a hole and keep sucking everything there is out of the rest of the world.

I don't think nature can keep us in check anymore - if it weren't for, oh, the Catholic church and some other fine groups that I wish never existed, we'd be much closer to having the capacity to expand beyond this planet and keep growing our population.

The problem I forsee isn't nature finding ways to control our population, but for our population to expand to the point that we just fresh run out of resources to support it, and all die a mass death.

It's 5 AM so I'll summarize in case my point isn't clear. Nature can't control our population, but our population can "use up" enough of nature to screw ourselves over at some point in the future. We're not like the rest of the animals. We don't die because we are genetically inferior to the rest of humanity - we live and reproduce regardless. Even ugly people. Especially stupid people.

~D

[codewarrior]

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=79

My name is codewarrior, and I approved this public service announcement. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[codewarrior]

http://www.dnafiles.org/about/pgm13/topic2c.html

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
We're not like the rest of the animals. We don't die because we are genetically inferior to the rest of humanity - we live and reproduce regardless. Even ugly people. Especially stupid people.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

China and North Korea may take care of this problem. GATTACCA style gene selection technology is already here and even being used in the western world. However, in the west it is being used for preventing/curing disease. In asia, they are not afraid to push the boundaries of morals and ethics. It will only be a matter of time before the west ends up afraid of being left behind. It won't be anytime soon because simply don't know that much about DNA to implement this kind of selection, yet.

[NotMitch]

I don't trust science from beardos.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I guess they would give you a choice, procreation or anti-aging.

"They" have precisely zero right to do either.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess they would give you a choice, procreation or anti-aging.

"They" have precisely zero right to do either.

[/ QUOTE ]

If immortality becomes a reality, something will have to be done. We simply cannot go on reproducing while living to 1,000 years.

[ricdaman]

It's interesting to read the counter-article mentioned alongside this one.

That said, the only example I know of where people consistently lived past 100 is in the Bible (Genesis 5 - Adam: 930, Seth: 912, Kenan: 910, Mahalalel: 895, Jared: 962, Enoch: 365, Methuselah: 969, Lamech: 777).

Surely if someone can live past 100, God can make it happen. And in fact, it is prophesied that people will be living past 100 (perhaps to 1000) again:

"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. ... Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."
Isaiah 65:17,20

[Non_Comformist]

whether or not the poker boom will live right along with me. Otherwise why bother? Not only would I have to get a job but then work at it for like 800 years. Sounds like hell to me.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting to read the counter-article mentioned alongside this one.

That said, the only example I know of where people consistently lived past 100 is in the Bible (Genesis 5 - Adam: 930, Seth: 912, Kenan: 910, Mahalalel: 895, Jared: 962, Enoch: 365, Methuselah: 969, Lamech: 777).

Surely if someone can live past 100, God can make it happen. And in fact, it is prophesied that people will be living past 100 (perhaps to 1000) again:

"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. ... Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."
Isaiah 65:17,20

[/ QUOTE ]

good grief. How pathetic.

natedogg

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting to read the counter-article mentioned alongside this one.

That said, the only example I know of where people consistently lived past 100 is in the Bible (Genesis 5 - Adam: 930, Seth: 912, Kenan: 910, Mahalalel: 895, Jared: 962, Enoch: 365, Methuselah: 969, Lamech: 777).

Surely if someone can live past 100, God can make it happen. And in fact, it is prophesied that people will be living past 100 (perhaps to 1000) again:

"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. ... Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."
Isaiah 65:17,20

[/ QUOTE ]

good grief. How pathetic.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, yes you are.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
actually i agree with both of you. i do believe that nature has mechanisms whereby populations that are out of control will be put in check.


[/ QUOTE ]

We're beyond nature having control over our existence. Nature itself provides limits, but the normal population control mechanisms completely fail in this age because of terrific medical advances, great ability to maximize space/materials, and so on. Yeah, we're pretty wasteful, but nowhere near as wasteful as nature. Nature just kinda lets things die, stop working, then 1000 years later something springs from the remains. We move all that stuff to a hole and keep sucking everything there is out of the rest of the world.

I don't think nature can keep us in check anymore - if it weren't for, oh, the Catholic church and some other fine groups that I wish never existed, we'd be much closer to having the capacity to expand beyond this planet and keep growing our population.

The problem I forsee isn't nature finding ways to control our population, but for our population to expand to the point that we just fresh run out of resources to support it, and all die a mass death.

It's 5 AM so I'll summarize in case my point isn't clear. Nature can't control our population, but our population can "use up" enough of nature to screw ourselves over at some point in the future. We're not like the rest of the animals. We don't die because we are genetically inferior to the rest of humanity - we live and reproduce regardless. Even ugly people. Especially stupid people.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]



duke, can't a guy dream?

[nicky g]

Especially that Beardo...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40586000/jpg/_40586145_adg203_300.jpg

He must already have lived 1000 years to grow that thing. What's he hiding in there, a badger?

To all the procreation/immortality trade-off people: haven't you heard of living on the moon? It'll be fine.