[Mars]

More people means faster and greater advancing. And if the tech is distributed only to allied/friendly countries, it could give a big enough advantage to beat the terrorist nations and etc.

Eitherway, I see only gain. Except from those whiners who are afraid of new technologies.

Alright. One vision, one purpose. Peace through power, kids. I'm off to sleep.

Whiners? Afraid of new technologies? More people means more advancement?

We're not feeding all the people we have now. And the most advanced countries have smaller populations (see Sweden).

I think you all are sick, you'd be willing to risk all of humanity just so you can go on living your little lives. I love life, but I don't want to live forever, because it would really suck.

Part of what makes life great, is that there's a time limit on it, you age, you gain experience, and eventually you die.

[MP-Ryan]

I disagree. Your hardwired "inflexible lifespan" is most likely the result of natural selection, based on it lowering the chance of cancerous growth. Theoretically it could be possible to change the human Hayflick limit at the stage where the egg gets impregnated. We're dealing with a single cell, not a full grown human.

If you can prevent organ failure through aging and find the cure for all sorts of cancer, can you point me to another way one can die a truly natural death that doesn't involve unhealthy lifestyle? Even then.. you can still die of countless bacteria's and viral infections I'm sure.

But then you completely misunderstand the concept of biological immortality. I'm not going Duncan McLeod on you.

The DNA aging in itself is due to telomere sections shortening slightly by every cell division, eventually causing the functionality and structure of the cells decline and bring forward some of the symptoms associated with old age - metabolism slows down, resistance to infections is lowered, things like that. It's kinda like what happens to a file when you repeatedly save it with a lossy compression format. Random mutations obviously add to the whole degradation, kinda like if you applied a slight noise filter to the image in between of the saves too... (exaggereted example, not an analogy - there are similarities but not equivalencies here).

Some species, however, have mechanisms that repair the damage to their DNA, be it caused by cell division, radiation or other mutagens. If such feature could be embedded to human DNA, well, let's just say that it would definitely need to come with a fenotypical modification that gives the carrier of the gene pointy ears, slender body structure, fair facial features, ability to see in infra-red wavelengths and high resistance to magic.

Two responses in one, because its easier.

Telomere length is the often-cited Holy Grail of aging but the fact of the matter is that telomeres are merely one relatively minor cause.  Organ failure doesn't occur as a result of simply telomeric length or protein-buildup but as a result of a complex series of multiple factors to which it is exposed over time.  organs do not, as a rule, contain completely totipotent cells.  All their cells thus degrade over time.  This process begins even before birth.  Now, if you can conceive of a way to build an infallible DNA repair system (and I assure you nature hasn't, not even with the several hundred protein and enzyme components the human one uses) then perhaps we're a tiny step closer.  DNA aging is not all due to telomere length, and telomeres aren't nearly as important as some individuals like Oprah's favorite Dr. Oz will tell you.  Organ failure is also caused by many things other than DNA degradation, which I won't even begin to delve into because its an enormous area and some distance outside my area of expertise.

You also say find a cure for all the various types of cancer - this is patently impossible.  Cancer is a natural condition of multicellular organisms, particularly those in phylum Chordata and more specifically, mammals.  Cancer is merely our word for cellular decay; every cell will have it occur eventually provided something else doesn't kill it first.  We can temporarily cure it in specific areas and we can certainly prolong the impact of its effects, but if nothing else kills you your own body eventually will.  Curing cancer means finding a way to kill every cell that becomes cancerous (prevention is a useful means of delaying cancer but it will never be 100% effective).  There are two practical ways of doing this:  (1) immunocompetency boosting which allows the body's immune system to target and attack cancer in all areas of the body (difficult, as there are a few areas in which the immune system does not and cannot operate, such as the eyes), or (2) viral or chemical destruction of cancer cells.  Both ways are plausible.  Neither will cure cancer because it can always emerge - again - at a different site, in a different way, and eventually overwhelm the rest of the body.  In point of fact, cancer only results when something has already gone seriously wrong within the cell - it's not the cause of aging, it's the effect.

I spent five years studying genetics and immunology and in that time drew one basic inescapable conclusion:  if something else doesn't get you first, your biology will in the end.  We can prolong life and forestall death, and eventually we may see human lifespans reaching several hundred years, but we will never lose the ability to die a natural death - the way our genetic systems work makes cancer an inescapable result.  Whether or not it will be the direct cause of your death depends on a great many other factors too.

EDIT:  And I understand the idea behind biological immortality quite well I just think that, frankly, it's horsehit.  It presupposes we can address all the causes of natural death which combine to form the plateau at which the rate of mortality stops increasing.  As I've already stated, that is essentially an impossible task unto itself.

[Flipside]

The thing is, such treatment would have one immediate effect, it would transfer the Class-gap into an vast chasm. You would have a long-living 'Elite' of those who can afford the treatment, and the short-lived 'Poor' who cannot, and that will, almost certainly lead to another World War

Edit: And considering how most Pharmaceutical companies behave, I doubt most of the people in this Forum would fall into the 'Elite' segment of that situation.

[TrashMan]

Or even worse, assuming anyone could get the "super-longevity-cure"..


With would that do to the population growth? Old people would stop dying till they reach 500 years, but babies would continue to get born. You'd have a population explosion the likes of which the world has never seen.

Have you any idea what that would do to the economy? To the power, water and food requirements? To the enviroment?

[Ghostavo]

So if someone discovered the cure for the common cold, cancer and aids would you withdraw treatment from those who are afflicted by it? After all, "you'd have a population explosion the likes of which the world has never seen".

I'm afraid I cannot see why discovering a way to prolong life is unethical. If it turns out to be expensive, so be it. It's not like it's existence will shorten the lives of those without it. Of course, if there is one thing history has shown us, is that new inventions will get cheaper as the years go by.

The potential problems with biological immortality are not to be solved by eliminating it. Otherwise you run into a slippery slope line of thought until you reach genocide so others have the resources to live.

[Flipside]

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.

Sure, we'd all love to live for 500 years, I know I would, but right now, that would do more damage than good. If I was viewing this from a personal perspective only then my response would be 'Hell, Yes!', but I'm trying not to, even though I want to, half the problems on this planet come from humanities habit of thinking that the 'needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many'.

Right now we have more important things to worry about, it may not seem that way from the point of view of an individual human, but from the point of view of humanity as a whole, this is really something that needs to be dealt with after we've dealt with Food/Water/Fuel and a host of other crisis, otherwise we are only making the problem worse.

I'm afraid I cannot see why discovering a way to prolong life is unethical. If it turns out to be expensive, so be it. It's not like it's existence will shorten the lives of those without it.

Do you think those with 'normal' lives will view it that way?

[Ghostavo]

I'm afraid I cannot see why discovering a way to prolong life is unethical. If it turns out to be expensive, so be it. It's not like it's existence will shorten the lives of those without it.

Do you think those with shorter lives will view it that way?

They'll view it in the same way every person with a disease will see a medicine that will cure their condition being discovered. It's the same thing with everything new. Every product when first discovered will be ridiculously expensive. It's a consequence of it being discovered. It's far better than the alternative of the medication never being discovered in the first place.

[Flipside]

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'.

Just as the people on here wouldn't have patience to let the next generation be  long-lived if they themselves had short lives, they want it now, for themselves, after all, if anyone is going to live 500 years, it should be 'me'. Those who are unable to afford treatment will feel exactly the same way, and it would, in my opinion, create a disaster of unprecedented proportions.

[Ghostavo]

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'.

Just as the people on here wouldn't have patience to let the next generation be  long-lived if they themselves had short lives, they want it now, for themselves, after all, if anyone is going to live 500 years, it should be 'me'. Those who are unable to afford treatment will feel exactly the same way, and it would, in my opinion, create a disaster of unprecedented proportions.

And how does that differ from what happens in the same situation that I just described in my last post besides it involving more people?

People will think what they will, there are nutjobs who see a conspiracy in every part of human knowledge, so it's not adding more fuel to the fire than any other invention or discovery ever made.

[Flipside]

I disagree, this is above and beyond anything we have done before, and far far closer to the core of human fear.

Look at the posts on here, most of them are supported not by a wish for the best for humanity, but by the wish for the best for the individual. We fear death, all of us, yes, we fear illness etc as well, and the seperation between rich and poor countries in that respect has already caused much strife, and that is nothing more than 'a bit disgruntled' compared to what the reaction would be to this. I'm not talking about 'nutjobs', I'm talking about entire countries of frightened people who think they are being consigned to death while the Fat Cats grab the money from them to keep on living.

It touches the very core of what is important to mankind, of what scares us, and of what we want for ourselves, and for it to exist, but be out of peoples' reach would cause nothing but suffering, panic and death.

[Ghostavo]

If such a treatment appears, it will become commonplace in time.

But still, for people to wish for something that can prolong life not to exist... that is what is truly unethical. It's not the medicines fault that it "cures" such a very long standing "desease" that it has become a sure way for people to die in everybody's mind. If such a medicine is found, "natural death" will become just another fatal desease in the eyes of everybody. So no fear mongering.

It will bring just as much panic, suffering and death as discovering aliens, perpectual energy sources and the ability to land a toast butter side's up.

[Flipside]

Personally, I've never heard of a frightened mob being logical about things, alas.

Better, at this moment in time, for it not to exist at all than for it to exist for a chosen few. That's more a matter of psychology than medicine.

I'd love to see it done one day, but right now, to quote Kosh's Babylon 5 namesake, 'You are not ready for immortality.'. This generation and probably the next several have a lot of work to do before we can really start considering ourselves ready.

Edit: Just wanted to add, I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation, it's not often we start exploring humanities darkest fears, or comparing Personal ID with the species as a whole, and I find the subject fascinating, not only does it teach us about ourselves, but it teaches us about each other as well

[Flipside]

It will bring just as much panic, suffering and death as discovering aliens, perpectual energy sources and the ability to land a toast butter side's up.

Wanted to add, I disagree again. Discovering Aliens, I suspect, will have far less impact than people think, even the Churches have been gently preparing themselves for the fact that God didn't just make Humanity for the last few decades. Perpetual energy is not going to cause as much strife as the lack of it, and toast landing butter side up would signal the end of the universe anyway.

[Rick James]

Why is the genetic code and the aging process held to be sacred or taboo? Both are chemical processes and nothing more. Physically speaking, we are for that matter chemical processes and nothing more. If altering the process of aging or some other part of the human genome can be done, odds are it will be done. And why not? Those advances could easily lead to to other discoveries leading to the cure for cancer, or Alzheimers, or Parkinson's.

I do believe in ethics with regard to altering genes--but not to recognize the value of some possible advances is an exercise in blind stupidity.

[Snail]

Why is the genetic code and the aging process held to be sacred or taboo?

Because the pope said so, I expect.

[Flipside]

I do believe in ethics with regard to altering genes--but not to recognize the value of some possible advances is an exercise in blind stupidity.

Agreed, as is not recognising the dangers.

It's not about religion, or race, or colour, or creed, it's about being 'you' looking out from inside your head, and realising that everyone is a 'you' looking out from inside theirs.

Theoretically, the idea is a great one, in practice, it is a Pandoras box right now, and one I think we are not prepared to open, not through ethics, but through the much cleaner practices of Mathematics, and the not so much cleaner practice of Psychology.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

If people want to live forever, that's their business.

I, however, want to die a happy person. No point living forever and getting bored.

[Snail]

I, however, want to die a happy person. No point living forever and getting bored.

When you get bored, commit suicide. Simple as that.

[Flipside]

And if not enough people commit suicide? If there are too many people for our resources to support, should we start culling?

A tyrant who taxes and mistreats his people is a rich man, and as long as he remains a tyrant, he can afford the treatment, as long as he can afford the treatment he remains a tyrant.

We don't have the resources, the space or the ethical capability to start making judgements on who lives longer and who doesn't.

[WMCoolmon]

It's certainly interesting to think about the effect it would have on our laws, our social life, and everything in general.

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.

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?

Term limits become ridiculous. You can't serve for more than eight years as a US President, but you can serve for hundreds of years as a senator.

Job security and being laid off suddenly becomes a high-stakes issue, with people with 140 years at a company finding themselves out of work or disagreeing with a company's moral stance on an issue. Health benefits become a stranglehold.

Car accidents become terrifying. People begin to avoid the roads to protect their lives, having valued them like never before.

War becomes atrocious for civilian casualties, but perhaps ever more justifiable to some, because the men and women they're sending to battle have only had a few short years to live. To others, the practice is abhorrent for their lack of concern for the tragic loss these people are having, even more than ever before.

Great things can be accomplished in life. With digital storage, people have perfect records of all of the events in their life, the historic events that they've witnessed, but have no way of remembering it all save videos.

Loss becomes ever more profound as people can live with and live past irreplaceable people in their lives to a degree unimaginable today.

Astronomical and geological events seem more apparent, as people live long enough to witness such changes. Evolution and acceptance gain greater acceptance as people can watch for themselves what happens over centuries.

Sports begin to lose their turnover rate as massively experienced players can outcompete younger but no more fit players.

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.

I can't imagine what kind of impact it would have on the art and entertainment industries. Would people flock to their favorite directors' movies long after they had lost their novelty out of habit, or would it be possible to remain fresh and creative for so long?

It's fun thinking what would happen if it were to happen. But at the same time, I have the feeling that humanity would grow to adapt after the initial growing pains. You'd have people griping about the young, inexperienced 75-year-old upstarts. You'd have people *****ing about a degree taking 20 years to complete, rather than 4 to 7 years, with total ignorance of the fact of how inconceivable that would seem to someone today.

In some ways, living longer may be a critical factor for technological development, as things become more complex and take more time to master.