Experts say humans can live to 1000.. would you want to?

Originally posted by rexpop

Originally posted by Ferengi
reply to post by thefreepatriot

 

So by ridding of this problem in our dna, we would start getting gray hair around 500 years of age?

By ridding this problem in our DNA, we would never get grey hairs.

Doesn't this take away the only hope Ginger people have?

Of course its possible. But unless you are have your own equipment and can test for biological and chemical etc data it is in no way possible to get good results. We have fluoridation in most populated water systems, our food has 'preservatives' which supposedly increase the life of the food their created in and there is huge amounts of 'immunization that occurs in children while their in their early years.

Yes im a pessimistic and glad to be. There has been talk about ages old civilizations that could live for thousand(s) of years and even talk to animals, but with books that have to be rewritten over time, and subject to change there is no definite proof at all.

If people lived for thousand(s) of years, it could be bad? Sure alot of us, just like myself would want to live forever or, just maybe even 200-1000 years at least but how can this help the planet? Im not a greenie, but I think there is an order to things. Most of our 'pets' and critters etc do not even live to 15-20. I honestly believe there is something that comes after you die, maybe not heaven, or hell but something. Who knows you might have just got a top 10 score in this 'game' we may be playing, and when the "Continue" comes on the screen, you select "YES".

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Aoxoa]

If we lived for hundreds of years it would only give us more time to develop better ways to kill eachother.
Having tens of billions of people constantly reproducing would create food shortages and we'd not need to worry about lasting hundreds of years because we'd have increased the chances of being killed in riots and martial law police states.

On the other hand, as with most breakthrough medical technologies, it COULD be kept for only the elite and rich, so that they can live longer to continue to rob us all blind for hundreds of years while us mindless plebs continue to live for 40 years because we can't afford decent healthcare and food.

You know, some days I am optimistic enough to want to live forever and other days I am ready to call it quits, like, immediately.

The following response is based solely on my own selfish preferences and does not take into consideration "oughts" but only "wants":

There is so much I want to do, I think maybe three lifetimes might be enough to do them all. However, I might discover other interests during that time which I'd like to pursue, and so I guess 1000 years would be good.

There is a problem, however. I have friends I love and I enjoy serving (like volunteer work) and attending social gatherings. I sometimes like so spend a week or two with close friends or family. I enjoy living with others for short spans of time (3 - 5 years). But I have discovered something about myself. I generally don't like people. That is to say, most people I meet are totally self-centered and unwilling to compromise, they never consider the other person's viewpoint, they are lazy and try to skate by while someone else does the lion's share of the work, etc. This is especially true in intimate personal relationships. So the problem, for me, becomes more of how to handle the long-term social/marital/familial aspects of longevity.

My Christian beliefs tell me I should marry one man and stay with him permanently. However, I have found that in a practical reality, after a few years I can't stand a guy any more. I work hard at being the right person, giving more than 100%, considering the other person's views during a disagreement (because sometimes I am the one who's wrong), etc. But I have never met a man who was willing to entertain the thought that HE might be wrong, or who was truly willing to sacrifice much of his own convenience for the sake of the marriage.

So, for a 1000 year lifespan, the moral rules would have to change for me, because I'd prefer to live alone about half the time. A few years married, a few years single, then back to marriage again. Not because I'm an immoral person but because I'd prefer not lo live out my 1000 years in a murderous rage at my husband.

You know, my mom had it right. She told me when I first got married the best advice she could think of for married couples. She said, "Get separate apartments." Rule #1 for the 1000 year lifespan.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by OuttaHere]

Originally posted by nrky
If we lived for hundreds of years it would only give us more time to develop better ways to kill eachother.

i thought the same thing just didnt want to volcalise my pesamism

(it was a rough day i was feeling a bit down, but now im happy but its still a valid point unfortunatley)

I guess it would really depend on how or what is going on. If the world turns for the better then yea living for 1000 years wouldnt be too bad. It would let people peruse things other then wealthy and power. I know of many old people who would give anything to stay alive for a bit longer to continue their pursuit of spiritual goals.

Okay, if we are expecting New World Order why the hell would we want to? Maybe the Heads of the New World Order would love to live this long. After all our taxes and hard earned monies are going to this plan to destroy us. The only way the goverment would let us live to be 1000 years old is if it was beneficial to them.

Who would want to pay taxes for 1000 years?

2nd line

Originally posted by Dermo

Experts say humans can live to 1000.. would you want to?

And have to deal with the constantly extended deadline for the NWO take over, Aliens landing and the End of Days?

No thanks, I'll cash my chips in while there worth the "paper it's printed on".


Then again, 120 doesn't sound so bad.. but 130? Ughh!

In my experience, when I began to reach my 40+ age, everything seemed to drop south. So being able to live until I was 1,000 might mean dragging myself around in a cart



[edit on 14/11/08 by Waitingsolong]

Better yet, why don't we just try brain transplants into our stem-celled generated clones every 999 years

We can barely sustain 6.5 billion people at present. How can we sustain 20billion plus when no one dies for 1000 years or so? (Minus accidental, murder, suicide, strvation, disease etc etc deaths).

Originally posted by Dermo


Actually TBH, i wouldn't want to live for too long, things would get very very boring.

I dont think it would get boring. Think of all the various sciences you could master if you knew you had that long in which to perfect your understanding. And, since they march along, rather than sit stagnant, you would always have something new to do or think about. Physics, medicine, etc.

My only question would be how would my container, my body, weather the 1000 years? If they were able to keep it functioning well, without excess pain or maintenance requirements such as being on tons of drugs and constantly in the hospital, I think it would be worth it.

If all it was was 1000 years of constantly struggling for the next day of biological life at the expense of quality of life, I would pass without any reservations. I am friends with several elderly people in my neighborhood, and have been for over a decade. They spend far too much time contemplating disease and death. Large portions of their days are spent worrying about what will kill them and when.

In my mind, I would rather live a shorter life unconcerned with death, enjoying the life fully, than live a longer one consumed with death.



[edit on 14-11-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

if i lived for 1000 yrs i would become a second moon because i would be so fat... also think of all the things you could learn and see...

Yes. I want to see the world and our universe. I feel a lifespan of 100 is too short. It makes me feel cheated.

reply to post by OuttaHere


Just thinking about the legal implications of divorce and marriage throughout such a long life is making me dizzy. Why would two consenting individuals agree to collectivize their wealth, through marriage or civil union, knowing full well that they will only have to split it after a certain while? Perhaps there would be new laws stating that ones wealth and property are not shared when married? But then what good would marriage be for, other than an expression of naive love? Maybe it would become merely a cultural tradition, or a religious rite, which only few actually practice. Otherwise, it would be simply a business contract, if anything. Marriage itself might become obsolete, or perhaps remain a luxury only for the exceedingly wealthy. People would become reluctant to marry if when going through with it they know the probability of a divorce is not just a chance, but an inevitable certainty. I don't think it would be socially acceptable then to restrict your partner from sexual encounters with individuals other than yourself. What's interesting about this topic is that when you think about marriage and these other social institutions as if you had to deal with them for a thousand years or more, you tend to uncover some personal values and tendencies that you would have otherwise not admitted to. Kind of fascinating actually.

reply to post by Saf85


Economics. Demand for technology to alleviate the issue of overpopulation would rise in magnitudes far beyond any other industry existing when such a problem actually becomes a problem, when it is actually realized. Overpopulation today is only a problem because of the scarcity, which we ourselves induce into our systems of resource allocation and money distribution. The great quality of life that most North American and European populations experience today is only made possible through the efficient generation of productivity (use of all available resources), and allocating those resources efficiently (the monetary system we are so familiar with). We have enough resources on this planet to supply many more people than we could today possibly imagine, however, that would require a form egalitarian society, one which we know has constantly failed to get anywhere since the several attempts by Communism in the early twentieth century. Also, highly advanced robotic, cybernetic (like a world internet Fedex hooked to the robots through satellites) and automation technologies would be required in order to maximize productive efficiency.

Basically, science tends to solve any apparently catastrophic problems that appear imminent. Industries and governments demand investment in these new technologies when their existence is threatened to a great degree.

en.wikipedia.org...

Check out Julian Simon's famous wagers with Paul Erhlich about this very subject.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by cognoscente]

I would be up for it! I would just explore every corner of the earth! Not to mention how much you would learn about the universe and the world!

I don't know if it has been commented on yet as I had to skip ahead to comment (been gone all week and this topic is now very long), but this is bringing my mind back to a couple other threads here lately. In particular, the thread about the Australian Scientist who developed a drug and while testing it on lab mice, she realized that she had completely halted the aging process in those mice's livers.
She claimed to have figured out the aging process and says it is the buildup of bad protein on the cells of the body over time due to the increasing lack of development of a particular enzyme.
Her drug makes sure the body produces that enzyme indefinately, I guess and she claims to be developing a diet in order to produce this naturally.
I find this work astonishing but my thoughts on it as it pertains to this thread and our lives in general are mixed.
For instance, if our bodies can live forever, what becomes the biological use of producing offspring at all? I mean, we don't have "biological clocks" anymore so... Do we just stop reproducing?
As I read earlier in this thread, I also believe that ambition to worldly matters would stagnate. While it may be argued that our greed, lust, etc. would just vanish and that instead you would be looking at an enlightened society, I still think there would be a very rough transition period.

I don't know. Like I said, I'm mixed on it. But one thing is certain, I darned sure wouldn't want to give a very large number of people a sudden immortality pill (any radically ignorant group of misfits applies) without genetic behavioral modification first. One way or another, big brother will have his fingers in this one. If it becomes a very real possibility, you are going to see a lot of people die off first.

Also, I wonder if this is why ET needs us to breed their hybrids? They live indefinately and therefore, don't really have the evolutionary drive to have functional reproductive organs... hmm... Or maybe it is all a drive to get US to the same level.

A thousand $%$^% years and I still can't beat World of Warcraft.....

Kill me before all I have is my avatar on Secondlife, and have had 2463 internet divorses