Would you like to live to be 1000? Should everyone have the right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm
Should we Cure Aging?
- Thread starter Norsemaiden
- Start date
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
I think a cure for aging would be great if we were a critically endangered species, but that is clearly not the case. If such a technology becomes common practice and widely available, we would increase the population at an even more unsustainable rate. First of all, we would no longer have a death rate to counter the birth rate (not that they're even equal now), and secondly, as these technologies can theoretically repair damages already in progress, or that have already occurred, we would have to find a way to compensate for the massive influx of geriatrics re-reaching their reproductive peak, as well as the fact that modern young people may never grow out of their fertility.
Honestly, if given the opportunity to live longer, I would probably take it. However, considering that everyone else also wants to live so much longer, I don't think there's any fair way to determine who is eligible to receive the benefits of this technology and we have too many other problems to fix (such as overpopulation) before such a breakthrough could ever be put to use responsibly.
Honestly, if given the opportunity to live longer, I would probably take it. However, considering that everyone else also wants to live so much longer, I don't think there's any fair way to determine who is eligible to receive the benefits of this technology and we have too many other problems to fix (such as overpopulation) before such a breakthrough could ever be put to use responsibly.
Einherjar86
Active Member
A 'disease' is just a specific set of conditions that humans have decided to call a disease, and a 'cure' is just a removal of those conditions and consequences relating to the conditions. Seems pretty easy to be able to understand what 'curing' aging entails to me...
re whiteguy's post - I agree that it would cause massive issues in a society lacking the other technology and social structures needed to cope with it.
re whiteguy's post - I agree that it would cause massive issues in a society lacking the other technology and social structures needed to cope with it.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I understand what Norsemaiden means by "cure aging." However, it's incorrect to imply that aging is a "disease" that needs to be "cured." A disease implies some infection by an antigen or some genetic disorder that causes a certain ailness in the human body. Aging, however, is not caused by antigens or genetic disorders. Aging is the natural process of the body's degeneration. For some reason, modern thought has given rise to the idea that aging is a negative attribute; but plenty of old people have contributed to society and live full, pleasant lives. It's incorrect and ignorant to call aging a disease.
I agree that aging shouldn't be called a disease, but the more preventable it becomes, the more people argue that it is.
Here's a site that says aging is a disease
http://www.drlam.com/opinion/whatisaging.cfm
And also, when someone dies of old age, the coroner report still has to specify a cause such as heart failure and not merely "old age" as cause of death.
Here's a site that says aging is a disease
http://www.drlam.com/opinion/whatisaging.cfm
And also, when someone dies of old age, the coroner report still has to specify a cause such as heart failure and not merely "old age" as cause of death.
Yes but there comes a time in every machines life when it is just plain wore out. Humans cant really go to the parts department and buy new parts. Though modern science and medicine have made some of this possible, in the end the bodys just had enough and something is going to shut down. If only cars had the endurance of a human knee, hip or elbow... for example. I couldnt imagine walking on the same knees for 700 years.
SouthernTrendkill
Super Normie
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
It would be really interesting to live in an age where the cure for aging is only available to the super-wealthy, and therefore most of us would live to be 70 or so, while there would be some people (provided that this period lasts long enough) that are 1,000 years old. That would be quite amazing. Imagine a writer who has a 900 year career, or imagine if on a news program they had someone come on who was in the civil war. It would be interesting.
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
Machines don't last because general use and even neglect cause wear to occur while there is no factor to counterbalance these forces. Organisms on the other hand, have limited self maintenance and repair capabilities that function best during the organism's youth and deteriorate with age as cell death and mutations in replicating cells interfer with the body's ability to properly maintain itself. Machines have no comparable systems and therefore begin to suffer damages from general activity much earlier in their life. A human knee however, will generate its own lubrication and repain its own shock absorbing tissue for as long as the cells responsible for these activities are healthy and present. It's when mutations in reproducing cells occur that more cells lose their ability to properly serve their intended purpose, and even death of the remaining healthy cells causes degeneration to occur. This happens all over the body and is one of the primary causes of aging. However, there are also genetic components that regulate the life span and reproductive cycles of different types of cells, so if you can modify this to your own liking, as well as repain damages that have previously been sustained, it's not far fetched to believe that an organism could reach a homeostatic "age" and continue to maintain itself indefinitely.
Resonator
Member
- Apr 16, 2007
- 1,078
- 0
- 36
Am I alone when I say that time should be destroyed? Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical question.
Let's say that in nature, there is nothing. Nothing (As in no single quantity of mass) exists, making it perfect. When structure is given to a dimension (Be it first, second, third or fourth scientifically) it clashes with the natural order of things. This is how we conceive the concepts of good an evil, as far as I can see, because of the natural clash of forces (Literally, Creation VS. Destruction). For example, outside this planet there are stars, planets, space crap, and most importantly the abyss. Hell, the abyss surrounds us at this very moment, and has since structure was given to the rest of the dimensions (Big Bang, creation, whichever you prefer).
In terms of aging, destroying the structure of time would effectively stop aging, as well as the motion of everything else. Motion proves time, coincidence proves logic, blah blah blah <insert random fact here>, I'm done.
Let's say that in nature, there is nothing. Nothing (As in no single quantity of mass) exists, making it perfect. When structure is given to a dimension (Be it first, second, third or fourth scientifically) it clashes with the natural order of things. This is how we conceive the concepts of good an evil, as far as I can see, because of the natural clash of forces (Literally, Creation VS. Destruction). For example, outside this planet there are stars, planets, space crap, and most importantly the abyss. Hell, the abyss surrounds us at this very moment, and has since structure was given to the rest of the dimensions (Big Bang, creation, whichever you prefer).
In terms of aging, destroying the structure of time would effectively stop aging, as well as the motion of everything else. Motion proves time, coincidence proves logic, blah blah blah <insert random fact here>, I'm done.
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
Resonator
Member
- Apr 16, 2007
- 1,078
- 0
- 36
Yeah, looking back on this I feel I made a rush to convey alot of shit into one post...Apologies, but at least it's humorous 
In any case, I feel justified in saying the things I did. If you put the sentences into point form, it would probably make more sense as a big clusterfuck of my idealism rather than an imitiation of a few paragraphs.
In any case, I feel justified in saying the things I did. If you put the sentences into point form, it would probably make more sense as a big clusterfuck of my idealism rather than an imitiation of a few paragraphs.
I believe that the general enthusiasm of human beings and their willing to live would drop. What the hell am I on about you wonder? Ever heard the saying we live like we'll never die, and die like we never lived. People don't make the most of their lives because their ignorant of death. Knowing that you could live for that much longer, for 1000 whole bloody years, their general enthusiasm for life could really plummet.
I would really like to live for longer. Maybe not 1000 years, but for an extra century at most. I'd love to see the changes in the world, and be able to contribute the most I could in changing the world to be a better place. Imagine being alive to see the first manned trip to Pluto or something. It probably isn't possible with our current technologies, but we could achieve so much in the next 100 years that I'd just love to see. Then again, we might all die in the next 100 years. That'd be nasty.
I agree with the statement that the death count would no longer meet the birth count. It would be so unbalanced. I couldn't begin to contemplate the ethical nightmare and debates that would start if life span extensions were to become technologically viable. There is already enough debate around stem-cell research. Fat chance that life span extensions will be possible as the expensive research may never be permitted.
As someone already said, who earns that sort of status of indefinite life? Rich people? High class people? Intelligent people? Goodie-goodies? Religion icons? Metalheads? Hippies? Hot chicks?
I would really like to live for longer. Maybe not 1000 years, but for an extra century at most. I'd love to see the changes in the world, and be able to contribute the most I could in changing the world to be a better place. Imagine being alive to see the first manned trip to Pluto or something. It probably isn't possible with our current technologies, but we could achieve so much in the next 100 years that I'd just love to see. Then again, we might all die in the next 100 years. That'd be nasty.
I agree with the statement that the death count would no longer meet the birth count. It would be so unbalanced. I couldn't begin to contemplate the ethical nightmare and debates that would start if life span extensions were to become technologically viable. There is already enough debate around stem-cell research. Fat chance that life span extensions will be possible as the expensive research may never be permitted.
As someone already said, who earns that sort of status of indefinite life? Rich people? High class people? Intelligent people? Goodie-goodies? Religion icons? Metalheads? Hippies? Hot chicks?
At 50, I can say it would be nice if my knees, hips, elbows and shoulders were what they once were... I wont say anything about the mind... lol. The biggest loss for me with aging has been loosing my vitality, that superman power to over come any obstacle, to abuse my body all day and get up and be excited about doing it again the next day, still the body always felt the effects, always sore. That said, in doing the kind of work I have I also held up far better than most my age, I see some that sit around having easier jobs and they look like crap, fat, grey old men with double chins. Still I cant imagine the body being able to sustain, everything changes, use of calorie intake, ability to build muscle not burn it, the hands, tendons, joints take such abuse. Bone become work hardened. I've seen programs where old skeletons have been examined and they can determine that a man or woman was a hard laborer due to old damage, injuries and the signs of repaired bone structure. The signs of repetitive work. Myself I cant phantom living that long and also do not believe the stories in the old testament about Moses being whatever 700+ years old. Maybe the highly protected or sheltered, never stressing them selves could do this but then its also proven that more activity and exposure builds higher thresholds and immunities. I'm thankful for my health (lucky) because I've really done little to protect it, it will all catch up one day... BAM!
Iron Bug
mad bass and vocal
the only thing that bothers me about aging - I have too little time to finish too many things I would like to do. so, I would accept the 1000-year life to dedicate it to music and science. but I would perhaps pick some very distand and abandoned place, far from the society's mess, to settle there.
though, actually if one fine day they invent the anti-aging cure or something like anti-gravity, that will mean the end of human civilization. politics, militarists and religious fanatics are greedy. if in one country they get such powerful thing, the others will want to get it too and there's no way they come to some peaceful decision in this case. that will inevitably cause terror and the total war then.
though, actually if one fine day they invent the anti-aging cure or something like anti-gravity, that will mean the end of human civilization. politics, militarists and religious fanatics are greedy. if in one country they get such powerful thing, the others will want to get it too and there's no way they come to some peaceful decision in this case. that will inevitably cause terror and the total war then.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
Similar threads
