It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

do YOU want to live forever? What would you choose?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:
sty

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Google Video Link


I am (still) watching this Google video - so I wanted to see what you guys think about it! If we would have the medical means to extend our life up to living thousands of years (thousands would mean we have enough time to discover how to increase that limit too ) , what would you choose?

Also as another interesting question - would extended life help the economy ?
I hope you enjoy the video!

STY




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


Very interesting vid Sty. Though I would adamantly chose "Not too live for thousands of years" as a realistic answer.
It would lead to even more a "Trial of existence", even more so than of today. Over population, extreme contrasts to global skirmishes, lack of food for the actual people of earth and the manifestations of "Deity" thoughts and control freak factors as well.
This event being possible would be the exact demise of us as a species, there just wouldn't be no real reason for such thing's to be access able and practiced.
Though, I do believe it would be very much welcomed under the discretion of the people are currently, or will eventually, be in an absolute control factor. "Yes!" I am speaking of governments and individuals that would find it necessary to keep higher intellectual people alive long enough to create their (PTB's) ideologies to become realities.

Scary scenario actually.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I think that thousands of years is a little too much. I would say that living to 200 or 300 would be great , but anything too long would be weird and creepy.

You might not want to work for 200 years and the economy might get worse because of this reason , that's just my opinion looking forward to hearing others.


sty

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Interesting, the video talks about so called "Mprize" ( link here




The Methuselah Mouse Prize (Mprize) competition encourages and rewards scientific research that accelerates the development of life extension therapies. Cash prizes are awarded to the research team that breaks successive lifespan records for the world’s oldest-ever mouse by whatever means, and for extending lifespan in mice that are already in late middle age when anti-aging treatments begin.


Maybe this will be the next BIG thing for us , after the invention of computers some 60 years ago ..



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


I agree it going to be the next big thing sooner or later. I predict we will be able to double our lifespan within the next century using nano technology. Eventually we shall print organs (manufacture) and if you injure yourself the hospital will be automatically notified due to microchips. So much exiting stuff to look forward to.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nasacarl
 


My mother is a Liver transplant survivor.
During her procedure, on the first trans plant any way, it was found that her original liver had allowed for the arterial artery to expand to twice the size of it's original size, thus creating an episode of internal bleeding and allowed the liver to essentially die, even after another emergency surgery to cap or cauterize the existing hemorrhage. They then had to conduct a secondary transplant and it eventually allowed for the organ to take over the bodies excercises of the particular necessity of what the liver is supposed to do. But, getting to my point, the transplant has saved her life, but at great expense and undeniably the lives of two "Acknowledged" organ donors to do so.
During this time, I had privilege's of speaking to top authorities of the transplant procedures and options, one that came up was "Organ Culturing" which is an on going practice of the Johns Hopkins Medical Research Organization. Quite amazing stuff.
The ethical implications are somewhat "indifferent" for different individuals perceptions of such procedures taking place, but I would have to agree it would be categorized as a "Unethical Science" for people of the religious or humanitarian sect of our population.
And this is possibly why:

January 20, 2009
The Bioethics Drive to Kill for Organs Grows
The agitation to increase the pool of potential organ donors by allowing people who are unquestionably not dead, but who have profound cognitive disabilities, to be killed for their organs continues. An article in the American Medical News, primarily concerned with organ procurement after “heart death,” is the latest example. From the story:

Other critics said the concept of transplanting a heart after cardiac death isn’t logical. “If someone is pronounced dead on the basis of irreversible loss of heart function, after all, it would not be possible for heart function to be restored in another body,” wrote Robert M. Veatch, PhD, a Georgetown University medical ethics professor, in an Aug. 14, 2008, NEJM essay. “One cannot say a heart is irreversibly stopped if, in fact, it will be
restarted.”

This is to sow intentional confusion. The heart can beat outside the body because it has its own nerve clusters, and no one would say that the body from which it came was not dead. The issue is whether the heart could spontaneously restart beating, not whether the heart itself is so degraded it can no longer function.

Here’s the advocacy part:

Veatch said the dead-donor rule should be changed to allow patients or their families to opt for a standard that takes a loss of functioning consciousness (short of brain death) as another kind of death. Physicians could then procure hearts “in the absence of irreversible heart stoppage.”

Robert D. Truog, MD, said the Denver cases illustrate the underlying problem in how death is defined to facilitate organ donation and transplantation. He said it is time to reconsider the dead-donor rule. “The existing paradigm, built around the dead-donor rule, has increasingly pushed us into more and more implausible definitions of death, until eventually we end up with such a tortured definition that nobody’s going to believe it,” said Dr. Truog, professor of medical ethics and anesthesia at Harvard Medical School in Massachusetts.

This is known in the trade as “redefining death,” and if it ever comes to pass–people like Terri Schiavo could be called dead instead of unconscious and harvested to death. Moreover, we are not being “pushed” into this. Some want to choose it. It is our job to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Posted by Wesley J. Smith
Posted in Clinical / Medical, Organ Donation / Transplantation
Permalink


bioethics.com...

And though this procedure of transplant ability has saved my mothers life, she is rendered with the undeniable fact that someone had to die, not just one but two people, in order for her to live, and with this kind of unwanted mental impression left on the recipient of such transplant receivers, it opens a feeling of both "Gratification" and at moments "Unfolding" guilt issues.

I believe it was "Galen 200AD" that had stated that "The only true mortal enemy of mankind is their life giving organs, once they cease to exist under their forwarding reasons, man will surely come to his death."

Not an exact quote, but rather insightful for a man of that particular era.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
An 'immortal' jellyfish is swarming through the world's oceans,
according to scientists. LINK: /bfznto

I think those who want to live forever should be able to
do so, but only as a jellyfish. Hey, that would make a
good sci-fi movie, or perhaps not (you tell me).



[edit on 20-2-2009 by wasaka]


sty

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Allred5923
 


very interesting story - and yes, it is very hard to define what would be ethic or not. From my point of view - it is better to have one survivor with 2 dead donors than 3 dead people. The idea is to maximize the potential saving of human life . However I have to admit it is very difficult to decide who would be the one out of 3 to survive as we could not implement a criteria or algorithm that would be just for all ..
My hope is that the limitations we have in our days will be diminished in the near future with the help of the new artificial organs (on one side) and the new emerging stem cell technology. Both fields are at the beginning and I see decades of development ahead!
And as a last point - I find it moral (even from the religious point of view) that if we have the technology to save a life we should make use of that technology - including stem cells. Knowing or having the technology to save a life while blocking it , it is equivalent with crime. I am glad your mom made it!!!! I wish her a happy and joyful life!


sty

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by wasaka
 


how do you know those jelly-fish are not actually immortal people?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


Good point.

Here is the plot line:

Rich man becomes a jellyfish in order to live forever.

The twist in the story comes when "the-brain-in-a-salt
water-tank" gets depressed and attempts to end his life.
Because suicide is illegal, the government steps in and
places him in an institutional tank for the criminally insane.

Basically, it's a love story (a man in love with himself).
I'd add a female Jellyfish to the mix, but hate those
kind of sappy love stories =)



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I would.

I would love to have the time to learn everything I could possibly learn and teach the most I could possibly teach, love as much as I could possibly love..

but I would only want to be able to live forever if it meant that I was in great physical and mental health.

living forever having constant pain or mental problems associated with chemical problems in the body.. would really suck.

i mean that would be like.. the worst punishment ever.


I'd also take that gift... and dedicate my life to improving the world so that eventually it would be a complete balanced utopia where anyone could spend their time doing anything they wanted.

elimination of all suffering ..

I'll check out the vid and post again once I've seen it.

great topic.. s+F!

-



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I'm curious to know if any of the people who would choose to live forever believe in life after death?

And if so, why you would give up the opportunity to experience that?

 


My answer is that I would not want to live forever, even though I do not believe that consciousness extends beyond physical death. There are the obvious reasons, like how overpopulated the world would become, and the issues surrounding what would be necessary to support a mind and body that were only designed for a century or so of life through millenia (how many knee and hip replacements would that require, for instance?)

But I also think that dying is really a part of living, even if it's the last part of living. And I think the focus that we have in our culture on avoiding it at all costs causes us to lose sight of its meaning.

And for the record, I would definitely go see a movie about a millionaire in love with himself who became a jellyfish to gain eternal life but ended up suicidal in a prison mental ward.


sty

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The nature always rewarded the capacity to reproduce not the capacity to live longer life. The sooner reproduction, the better. However things are now changing - thanks to modern medicine, 60% of the people to ever exceed 80 years of age (along the history of humans) are estimated to be living NOW .
And about the pressure on the planet : in my country (Eastern Europe) we have kind of the opposite problem as the population is decreasing with smaller and smaller number of children .

I remember - when I was a kid, there were like 300 kids my age in my class. Now they have to go to 2 different schools in order to collect 25 kids necessary to run a class.. so, we have no overpopulation problem.

Even before the petrol age, Romania used to have 18.5 million people. Now we are 21.5 , so no problem.

regarding the trouble to replace body parts : well, your body is already doing that all the time. But as we age , this is gradual replacement is less and less efficient. The idea in the video is to create the means needed to keep the regeneration process active and "on-going" in such way that no aging would occur. Sort of being 25 forever, so no body parts would be needed.
Also we have to bear in mind the advent of bio-machines, that could bind together the machine and the biological part to enhance who we are..

So exciting times ahead . I would definitely choose to live as long as technology allows..



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
I'm curious to know if any of the people who would choose to live forever believe in life after death?

And if so, why you would give up the opportunity to experience that?

 


My answer is that I would not want to live forever, even though I do not believe that consciousness extends beyond physical death. There are the obvious reasons, like how overpopulated the world would become, and the issues surrounding what would be necessary to support a mind and body that were only designed for a century or so of life through millenia (how many knee and hip replacements would that require, for instance?)

But I also think that dying is really a part of living, even if it's the last part of living. And I think the focus that we have in our culture on avoiding it at all costs causes us to lose sight of its meaning.

And for the record, I would definitely go see a movie about a millionaire in love with himself who became a jellyfish to gain eternal life but ended up suicidal in a prison mental ward.

'
'one would think.. that with the advent of immortality available for anybody..
then paired with it would come all of the issues bring up.. and thus their forecasted solutions.
you don't think that top scientists work for decades on immortality .. generation after generation.. finally accomplishing it.. and out of all of those nobel prize winning scinetists.. not ONE of them.. or their contemporaries thoght of the issues you just brought up?

i think that's a bit dull minded to think that.

of course they thoght of overpopulation.. and thats where responsible reproduction come in.. not rampant, un planned, irresponsible animalistic "rutting"..
it's just that simple.. if you have people that live forever.. then you use an iron fist to prevent more people from coming into the world.. whatever it takes.. if you can't accomplish that.. then you dont let people be immortal.

on the idea of "death" ...

i think we're talking abotu two different things here..

OP do you mean immortality or invulnerability

biological immortality is the quality that describes a biological organism that does not age .. does not readily acquire disease etc... but if the person is shot..
they're dead.
or if they fall from a cliff..
they're dead.

invulnerability is something akin to superman.. where he just never gets hurt and nothing can harm him except kryptonite but whatever.. you get the point.
no disease .. no death.. falling off of cliffs and bullets have no effect.


i know biological immortality is possible.. sometime..
but i know that you'd be able to die if you wanted...
you just would have the "Exact" amount of time desirable in life..
with no slowly ramped down end-time where your body decays while living in it.

-



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The Jellyfish Immortality thing-

That would be like us growing to be 95, then losing age and going back to infancy, and then getting old again, etc. That would be even worse!

And you could still DIE of other things, just not old age. You could still get diseases and die.

If there was a way around that, I would still say no.


sty

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


immortality in this context would simply mean the stopping of the aging process. But I understand your point



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
People have trouble just living one hundred years. Not just physically, but our brain wouldn't really be able to handle it.
I don't want to live forever. Ask me at the last minute and I'd probably change my mind, of course. But, forever, or even a thousand years is a long time. Maybe a hundred, or a little over, but that's it.

To grab a bit from one of my favorite songs:



Louis Armstrong What a Wonderful World
I hear babies cryin', I watch them grow
They'll learn much more than I'll ever know
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world



[edit on 21-2-2009 by RuneSpider]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge
'
'one would think.. that with the advent of immortality available for anybody..
then paired with it would come all of the issues bring up.. and thus their forecasted solutions.


I should say that I have not watched the video in the OP, so all my comments were and are based on what I've read in this thread.


you don't think that top scientists work for decades on immortality .. generation after generation.. finally accomplishing it.. and out of all of those nobel prize winning scinetists.. not ONE of them.. or their contemporaries thoght of the issues you just brought up?

i think that's a bit dull minded to think that.


That they thought of the issues? Of course. That they solved the issues? I don't taking it for granted.

After all, we currently hook people up to all sorts of machines to keep their physical bodies going for just a little longer – what if the trade-off for living "forever" was that you had to be hooked up to life support? I'm sure a lot of people would take it, but probably a lot of people who would want eternal healthy life would not want eternal helplessness.


of course they thoght of overpopulation.. and thats where responsible reproduction come in.. not rampant, un planned, irresponsible animalistic "rutting"..
it's just that simple.. if you have people that live forever.. then you use an iron fist to prevent more people from coming into the world.. whatever it takes.. if you can't accomplish that.. then you dont let people be immortal.


Now there's another good question – would you want to live in a world where there is a "they" in charge who will "use an iron fist … whatever it takes" to prevent reproduction? Even if you could live for a thousand years in that kind of world, isn't it better to live for 80 years in this kind of world?


on the idea of "death" ...

i know biological immortality is possible.. sometime..
but i know that you'd be able to die if you wanted...
you just would have the "Exact" amount of time desirable in life..
with no slowly ramped down end-time where your body decays while living in it.

-


Doesn't that raise all sorts of ethical and moral questions about suicide? If you live until you choose to die, how is that different from killing yourself? And how do you rationalize choosing to die when you think it's the right time if you have loved ones who don't want you to die?

And what if the dying process is part of the living process and we would be less human without it?

I'm still wondering what people think about life after death, too.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
To answer your question simply, Yes i would love to live forever for many reasons. Provided it was live forever in good condition not grow older or weaker or be a brain in a jar. Id settle for brain in a jar though.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
The meek shall inherit the Earth.
For those of you who wish to die. More power to you.
For those who wish to live. The stars will be your home.

The problem we have on this planet is that we destroy everything we touch. We do so in haste because we know the limits of our own mortality. Time is of the essence. When time is no longer a factor in the course of our lives, our actions would be much better thought out.
We, as a being, will see the things differently. All that which we have been taking for granted will be treated much differently.

The real question remains.

Who would be allowed to become immortal?
I can think of a few that should have shorter lives.
Who would decide such a thing?
I hope it's not the Church or any politicians. We'd have a world of 2 faced, lying child molesters running around.

One thing is for certain. Life as we know it will end on that day when the first human becomes immortal.







 
2

log in

join