[Styxx]

I'm not locking this. In fact, I fervently hope that people will not act as children and will forget the religious argument past this post. If they don't, they're asking for whatever happens to their accounts.

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by Styxx


Now don't start to ****ing whine when people bash you for your religious statements. This subject has nothing to do whatsoever with religion, and still you have to bring something religious up. I'm getting real tired of this.

Styxx, he didn't do it purely for the sake of bringing up religion. What he quoted was, I think, while a religious quote, a pretty fair guess at the upper limit for a natural human lifespan, so it is relevant, and nobody's bashed him for it yet. If he went off on one about how this is going against God and whatever, then that'd be fine. But he didn't. I think that's a bit harsh.

WeatherOp and Aldo: That's a very good point. The problem is trhat currently people are living into their 80s, but they're in a dreadful state by the time they die - all kinds of conditions and diseases that mean they're basically sitting around waiting to die. I think that the most important application of this technology is raising the quality of life of old people, so that they're not simply decaying slowly.

[WeatherOp]

We'll this is that kind of thread. The person who made this thread knew this would probly happen. See, here is how we avoid the flameup. Lib put in his view, now if someone else wanted to put in his view and explaned his point of view was different and wouldn't get angry or start calling each other names, than it would not flameup. But, Styxx if you keep posting things like that it will flame, and flame hot.

[Flipside]

Hmmmm.... but wording is everything

[Styxx]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Styxx, he didn't do it purely for the sake of bringing up religion. What he quoted was, I think, while a religious quote, a pretty fair guess at the upper limit for a natural human lifespan, so it is relevant, and nobody's bashed him for it yet. If he went off on one about how this is going against God and whatever, then that'd be fine. But he didn't. I think that's a bit harsh.

Yes, he did. His post did nothing but state "what the bible says", adding nothing whatsoever to the argument. And it was just a matter of time before someone bashed him for it, and he knew it when he posted it.

Originally posted by WeatherOp
We'll this is that kind of thread. The person who made this thread knew this would probly happen. See, here is how we avoid the flameup. Lib put in his view, now if someone else wanted to put in his view and explaned his point of view was different and wouldn't get angry or start calling each other names, than it would not flameup. But, Styxx if you keep posting things like that it will flame, and flame hot.

No, this is a thread about a possible breakthrough on anti-aging treatments. The fact that he has to post his religious view, instead of his view on anti-aging treatments, shows it all. And it would turn into flames as soon as one of his "traditional" oppositors decided to post.

Now stop this. I'll delete any further post regarding this discussion.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Yeah, but if you got in a car wreak and got paralized when your 28, and can live to be a 1000, what would be the point in living 972 more years, don't get me wrong that it happens nowadays, but you won't have to live with that problem that long and it would drive most people insane.

*cough* stem cells *cough, cough*

[Flipside]

If we managed to re-arrange DNA to the point where it could replace dead or dying cells with new ones etc for 1000 years, I suspect we would be at such a stage where spinal injuries etc could be treated effectively. Personally, I think this guy is pretty far ahead of himself, looking at that beard, he likes a bit of attention though

[pyro-manic]

I think that's a good point. Younger people with problems/injuries should take priority over the OAPs for treatment. Stem cells would, I assume, play a major role in this tech...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by pyro-manic

WeatherOp and Aldo: That's a very good point. The problem is trhat currently people are living into their 80s, but they're in a dreadful state by the time they die - all kinds of conditions and diseases that mean they're basically sitting around waiting to die. I think that the most important application of this technology is raising the quality of life of old people, so that they're not simply decaying slowly.

Well, i think the point is delaying or even stopping the aging process... otherwise, I think it'd be pretty much a living hell to spend 900 extra years as an 80-year old.

I'd be happy to spend another 20 years being the 'age' I am today, to be honest.  We don't get long at our peak years.......

[Flipside]

One thought that occurs to me is 'What about brain cells themselves?'. Theres no mechanism in DNA for replacing brain cells, they die constantly as time goes by. So unless they somehow find a way of stimulating growth mechanisms that only occur something like 3 months into pregnancy, a 1000 year-old man may well be extremely stupid or even fail to function entirely.

[Kazan]

living to 1000 would be cool

[Unknown Target]

Yea, well, it wasn't in our "design" to fly, it wasn't in our "design" to travel 2000 feet underwater, it wasn't in our "design" to defeat smallpox.

The greatness of humanity is its ability to reach past its "design" to accomplish our goals.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Liberator
but we will never be able to extend past 120 years.

Eh? Since when did you become omniscient?

[Make]

Think about criminals who would get a life term sentence! Poor bastards...

[pyro-manic]

Bloody good deterrent, if you ask me. The thought of a few centuries of man-love from Big Dave in the showers would put anyone off.

[Unknown Target]

Isn't the life sentence for "the rest of your natural lives"?

[Flipside]

I say re-introduce hard labour, make criminals work to make the lives of us goody goodies nicer

[Sandwich]

Regardless of the overt religous context of Liberator's post, it does bring up an interesting example of pretty much the only historical account (if you believe it, that is) of what happens to people when they live for such long periods of time.

Having over 10 children seemed not to be unusual, for one.

[Flipside]

Actually, having over ten children wasn't all that uncommon 2-3 generations ago, my Grandad was one of 12.

That was why I suggested something like sterilisation for those that undergo the treatment, for two reasons, one, because of the millions of kids syndrome and two, because if we are screwing around with peoples DNA to such an enormous extent, I think we have a responsibility to not allow that DNA to reproduce, since we don't know what the long term effects might be.

[ionia23]

You know, there's a pretty simple way to handle it.

The problem with us having 1000 year lifespans is we breed so damned fast.  Offer up a trade.  Extended life in exchange for sterility .  Feasable?