[Snail]

If this goes to the UK Gordon Brown will start forcing it on people, then somehow we'll find out it dumbs down people's brains, and Britain will become a country of retards, just like its leaders.

[Kosh]

New technologies are one thing, pissing in the gene pool is another altogether.

People would still have children, maybe not as many as now but it will still happen.

I'm not saying it should never happen, what I'm saying is that we have enough problems to deal with, let's sort those out before making more.

We'll always have "problems" of some kind or another. At the turn of the 20th century the top causes of death were TB and pnuemonia. Now it's heart disease, cancer, and for an increasing number of people old age.

But people will, quite literally, see it as fighting for their lives, there will be a rich section of society who are benefitting from the Holy Grail of human existence. Those who go without will see it as being deliberately withheld to 'keep the little guy down'.

Which is a political and economics problem.

As for the resources issue you mentioned, I think in such a situation that this would more than anything justify further expansion and exploitation of space.

Health benefits become a stranglehold.

Not if healthcare is socialized, like in every other developed nation.

Suddenly a DUI doesn't mean you're restricted from working for 40 years - it dictates your life for the next 300. Do people really deserve that?

I'm going to assume you meant driving and not working. 40 years is still a long time to go without driving, and no doubt it would have a major influence on someone's habits

Think high school is vicious now? Think again. People talk about how it shapes the person you'll be for the rest of your life. Imagine when centuries are at stake - parents, kids, and teachers all fighting to get out alive and make the best of those early years of life.

For the most part my high school wasn't vicious at all, in fact it might be less so because you would have a lot more time in your life to learn the same stuff.

Countries' governments hardly change except for assassinations and wars. The outgoing generation is no longer concerned with the up-and-coming generation, but with the people still with 150 years to go

The outgoing generation in many countries (especially the US) already doesn't care about future generations. If the current generation in the US really cared about us, the up and coming generation then why spend $1 trillion a year on a bloated military while at the same time running up massive debts and cutting back on education? By the end of next year the debt is expected to be $10 trillion, and I've heard estimates of $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities for future medicare and social security. Guess who is expected to foot the bill? That's right, our generation. Do our leaders offer any real solutions to this? Not really. Why should they? It won't affect them too much since when the ****storm really hits they'll be dead and dying.

I think that a much longer lifespan would force us to finally take a longer view on things since our choices would affect US, not someone else at some point in the future.

Really what this article was about was that they held back aging for a relatively long while on a rat organ, and while that isn't biological immortality by a long shot, it's a good step in the right direction.


Although honestly, if I had to choose my path to immortality, I would probably choose the Deus Exian way: merging with our technology. Cookie to anyone who understands what I'm talking about. 

[Flipside]

People would still have children, maybe not as many as now but it will still happen.

Can you be certain of that? Do we have room for that? There are already countries in the world that have far more people than they can feed, and they haven't stopped having children yet. Humans aren't sensible.

We'll always have "problems" of some kind or another. At the turn of the 20th century the top causes of death were TB and pnuemonia. Now it's heart disease, cancer, and for an increasing number of people old age.

Than ask yourself why there is an increasing number of people dying of old age, could it possibly be because there are an increasing number of old people to do so?

As for resources etc, that's my entire point, I'm not quite sure how many times I have to say that I don't think it's impossible or even immoral, just a really bad idea at this moment in time before people actually read it, we need to grow, mature and expand first.

[Kosh]

As for resources etc, that's my entire point, I'm not quite sure how many times I have to say that I don't think it's impossible or even immoral, just a really bad idea at this moment in time before people actually read it, we need to grow, mature and expand first.

Children who are always sheltered seldom become mature.

Than ask yourself why there is an increasing number of people dying of old age, could it possibly be because there are an increasing number of old people to do so?

It's just another problem, people are still dying but just a little later than before.

Can you be certain of that? Do we have room for that? There are already countries in the world that have far more people than they can feed, and they haven't stopped having children yet. Humans aren't sensible.

If they were limited either by the treatment or by regulation then it wouldn't be a problem. But either way, we really will need to push into space big time in order for this to be practical. Space has plenty of space and resources.

[Flipside]

Children who are always sheltered seldom become mature.

And letting them go off and do anything that looks like a good idea at the time reduces the chance of them becoming adults.

In essence I agree with you, we need space, we need resources, and until we have those, this is adding to the very problem of people dying later than before, it takes a problem and makes it into a catastrophe.

[Daeron]

I think the problem with resources doesn't have to do with the number of people, just that they are divided unevenly. In the western world, the amount of resources that gets wasted on a yearly basis would easily fill what's missing in third world countries.

Some of those resources, perhaps a lot, come from those same third world countries. Rather a result of weak local governing than too many people on this world.

Another example are plantations that focus on resources like cotton, which can not feed the hungry. The fact that such fertile ground is used for such is a result of commercial interest and again bad governments.

Consider the discrepancy in the relationship between population density and lack of resources to feed the population. The problem is not the amount of people, but how the resources are allocated.

[Flipside]

Indeed, there is a high level of imbalance in the spread of the worlds resources, always has been, even back when the UK were stripping India of anything they wanted.

It's things like that which need to be resolved first, we have countries where people are lucky if they make it to 25, to me, that's more important than people hitting 500.

[Daeron]

Indeed, there is a high level of imbalance in the spread of the worlds resources, always has been, even back when the UK were stripping India of anything they wanted.

It's things like that which need to be resolved first, we have countries where people are lucky if they make it to 25, to me, that's more important than people hitting 500.

100% 

[Colonol Dekker]

If people live longer then obviously they'll accumulate more financially, the mortgage market will suffer in the longterm as more and more people who would normally die and free up space in the property market, don't. And we're forced into concrete and steel "habitation cubes".

[WMCoolmon]

Health benefits become a stranglehold.

Not if healthcare is socialized, like in every other developed nation.

Then healthcare would become a stranglehold, which has equally potent ramifications. With the ability to provide a treatment to prolong life, the government has regulatory ability over how long people live.

Suddenly a DUI doesn't mean you're restricted from working for 40 years - it dictates your life for the next 300. Do people really deserve that?

I'm going to assume you meant driving and not working. 40 years is still a long time to go without driving, and no doubt it would have a major influence on someone's habits

No, working. If you get a DUI it will influence your ability to get hired for jobs. The same holds true for other things - you could be excluded from certain careers for centuries just because a job's requirements are written so that if you ever did one thing, you can never have that job. For instance, suppose one job states you have to be a natural-born citizen of that country. What if you've lived in that country for 180 years? Does that still mean you can't take the job? With current regulations today, probably. But that makes less sense when there's much greater time for people to change and develop, and also to form new emotional connections.

Here's a fun question - what if a 40-year-old living in jail got a 160-year sentence (without parole, etc), and now he can outlive that sentence if he's provided treatment to extend his lifetime? Since the sentence he got was effectively a death sentence, does he have a right to that treatment or must the original intent of the ruling be respected? Can he be retried or his case reviewed in some manner?

On the plus side, copyright laws would be a bit more reasonable.

[Kosh]

Children who are always sheltered seldom become mature.

And letting them go off and do anything that looks like a good idea at the time reduces the chance of them becoming adults.

In essence I agree with you, we need space, we need resources, and until we have those, this is adding to the very problem of people dying later than before, it takes a problem and makes it into a catastrophe.

We do, but we dont have the will power to get to it. There's plenty of room and resources on the moon, mars, and the asteroid belt.

Then healthcare would become a stranglehold, which has equally potent ramifications. With the ability to provide a treatment to prolong life, the government has regulatory ability over how long people live.

At least in government we have a voice, and if they fail to provide good care the officials either get voted out of office or face a revolution. The best healthcare systems in the world are socialized, particularly western european.

Would you rather have this treatment be distributed by a private, for profit corperation that answers to no one? That would no doubt charge outragous prices for it that only the elite can afford? Looks like even less of a solution to me.

[Bobboau]

well then it would seem the new world would favor people who think in the long term, people have there whole lives organized around making enough money to retire, what if they organized there lives around making enough money to afford a life extension allowing them to continue there productive lives.

and the world is overpopulated, with what are quite frankly stupid and thus poor people. the parts of the world who would be receiving this in any great quantity would be the parts of the world wich are currently experiencing population decline. the rich smart people already plan ahead, don't have many kids cause they are a financial burden. this only becomes a world wide recource problem if you insist on giveing it away to anyone who didn't earn it.

human evolution has come to a standstill, if we are going to advance we must do it ourselves, this halfway bull**** is going to get us killed.