Eternal Life?

Vargon · Post by **Vargon** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:17 pm

http://www.infoniac.com/science/scienti ... years.html

The Magic Bum · Post by **The Magic Bum** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:32 pm

i'm content with living my 90-or-so years.

humans aren't supposed to live for thousands of years. messing with the natural laws won't do any good.

Kahn · Post by **Kahn** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:59 pm

I don't like it,but maybe,it should be administered by governments to people who have a special ability,like a scientist can make a lot of discoveries with an extra 900years or an inventor might be able to make more inventions.Or maybe even a great Polictal figure who could keep peace.

Just my 2cents

Dark Lord Cam · Post by **Dark Lord Cam** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:41 pm

wouldn't it get boring after a while?
it would take people time to get used to be being nearly immortal.
and how would marriage work?

Zetal · Post by **Zetal** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:45 pm

Interesting concept.

Oathbreaker · Post by **Oathbreaker** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:20 pm

You change the genes, you change the species. I'm surprised the scientists didn't rename the yeast fungus or whatever after they did that to it.

There's a reason for that genetically programmed lifespan. If you look back through human history, a long fruitful life used to be more around 35-50 years (50 being if you were lucky). In thousands of years that upper limit has only doubled because we made life easier for ourselves. We adapted to live for longer periods of time. We evolved into our lifespans, we didn't immediately alter it.

Honestly, I'd already heard of a few rare instances where people have lived to around 120 years before that discovery was made. It isn't going to change our "upper limit" of lifespan, it's just going to help it become more common. But, if the inference that humans can live up to 800-1000 years is taken into consideration, it would be mentally unsafe to do so without centuries of adaptation to it. The human brain DOES have a breaking point. The genetic alteration may increase the lifespan, but there was nothing about it that even so much as hinted at a change in mental and emotional tolerance. Imagine having 10 lifetimes worth of information and emotional baggage... most people are VERY content with just one lifetime's worth, not just because they only want that, but sometimes what they have is already very stressing.

And all this is still ignoring the fact that we would have to rename the human species. We would literally cease to be what we are if our genes are changed. And Vargon, from that article it didn't sound like it was a drug effect, it sounded like what they did was literally remove genes from the cell, meaning if that cell were to divide (or in other words, reproduce) and create a second cell, that second cell would also lack those genes. That means if the genetic alteration was made in humans, we too would no longer pass on those genes.

Dark, I don't even think the human mind could tolerate living that long. A person probably wouldn't think of it as boring so much as torture. Everything would probably happen at the same rate as it already does. Just multiply the age you would be by 10. That means the legal smoking age would be 180 in the US.

Really though... whether the aging rate itself was changed (which I doubt, because Vargon... I didn't see anything about the gene removal SLOWING the aging process, just increasing the maximum life span) or not, after 180 years if you were only a "teenager"... you'd begin to question why the rest of the world goes by so quickly. If humans were still attuned to nature like other animals are, I could see this working... but we aren't, and it won't.

To be honest... if humans ever could tolerate this kind of drastic change in life-span... the only good thing I can see coming from it is if we ever encountered other sentient beings such as ourselves in the universe, we might not be outlived by them.

One bad thing that could come from it is completely out of control birth rates. If humans continued their petty affairs and scandals then the human population would grow out of control. Instinctively, our species is not monogamous, no matter how much some people wish we were... we would HAVE to become monogamous to even hope to manage the birth rates so our planet isn't overrun with so many people that it can't support us all anymore.

Dark Lord Cam · Post by **Dark Lord Cam** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:37 pm

I would not mind living for an extra 200 but 1000 is just too much.....

every human on the planet would go insane...........

think of a billion man march in DC instead of million.

we would all die of starvation.......

marriage would be pointless because people would get bored of each other after some time.

china would literally sink into the ocean because of all the weight.....

parents would go insane if they had to take care of teenagers for a century......

suicide would most assuredly increase.......

crime would sky rocket.......

wars would be massive......

after three centuries we would have super geniuses that know everything which is actually a positive thing.......

Relax and Play · Post by **Relax and Play** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:51 pm

That article is a complete, media watered joke, if you're to ask me about it. Look at how we age now; we look almost like a different person when we reach the age of 60, compared to when we were 18. I don't think the body would suddenly be able to adapt to a lifespan of an additional 710 years or so; not if we remain, for the most part, the species we are now. Also; to ask; how would that become a reality? Taking some pill that removes those genes?

Farson · Post by **Farson** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:53 pm

A thousand years you say? Sounds good to me, although the previously mentioned population problems would be tricky, maybe limiting the number of children someone can have or something like that? Although that's a bi of a shady road to go down.

If given the option I would take it.

The Dog Whisperer · Post by **The Dog Whisperer** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:19 pm

I doubt in the long run it would make any difference, once we had been living to 1000 years old for a while people would think "Oh, imagine if we could live to be 100,000 years old!", 1000 would basically become the next 100.

Time will not make much of a difference, either the human mind will expand/evolve to make it capable of surviving 1000 years or time will just seem to go by faster for humans.

Just my beliefs on the matter...

Alien · Post by **Alien** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:42 pm

Oathbreaker wrote:But, if the inference that humans can live up to 800-1000 years is taken into consideration, it would be mentally unsafe to do so without centuries of adaptation to it. The human brain DOES have a breaking point.

Then we would have a real life Bioshock on our hands! Somebody hand me a vial of red fluid and a shotgun!

Fiar · Post by **Fiar** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 2:00 am

Some movies have kinda covered this.

Let's say that you and a select few in the world were to have taken this drug or medicine. Your whole life would be full of sorrow and death, every best friend you've had and every loved one, you will out live and will see them all die. It would be too much for one person to take.

Forget over population, the emotional damage you'd endure from seeing everyone you've ever known and love would eat you from the inside, and would drive you insane or detached. And that's a death of yourself, so while the thing would be developed with good intentions. The downside easily outweighs what it would do.

Yes, I know that last part is kinda what some of you have said, but I felt kinda repeating it again stresses it's importance.

Oathbreaker · Post by **Oathbreaker** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:25 am

Honestly, if this gene alteration was ever implemented in human beings to the degree of increasing lifespan by 700-900 years... it wouldn't be used until enough people could use it that it WOULDN'T cause those kinds of problems. The article itself said that it could only achieve a very limited increase in humans at this point. It could only go from the rare case of someone living to 120 to making it a much more common occurance.

And... *points back at my text-wall*... I'll do that instead of repeating myself.

But here's a thought... if you had a complete life with your friends and loved ones... then wouldn't you be able to feel happy you knew them at all? If more people were capable of feeling happiness that they knew the person instead of only grieving at the person's passing then that wouldn't be such a big thing. It's sort of like a "better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all" thing.

The Dog Whisperer · Post by **The Dog Whisperer** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:06 am

Lots of people are like that Oathbreaker (to my knowledge), I think the only reason the grieving (I can't find the words to express this part of my post

) is more "prominent" in people's eyes is because it is a much more noticeable emotion, happiness isn't really a visible thing, apart from a smile that can easily be faked, while grievance is obvious to see.
People grieve at first, it's near impossible to do otherwise, but afterwards they (most people) can feel content at the fact that they knew the person.

Err... that was kind of off-topic...

Oathbreaker · Post by **Oathbreaker** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 1:18 pm

Yeah well... me and my elitist self think people should have that content feeling sooner. I know a lot of people have it eventually... but a lot don't; and they're the ones that would either object to this sort of thing, or completely go insane once things like that started happening (though I would still think that the entire species would be put through this, otherwise it's just a really really really bad idea).

Cactus · Post by **Cactus** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:49 pm

Assuming it was 100% reliable, having worked in every previous instance perfectly, I'd consider it. I wouldn't be worried about adjusting, I think I could do that. It'd definitely give me the opportunity to do a lot more in my life, see a lot more. And, while it's true that, assuming I was the only one who took it among my friends/family, I'd outlive everyone, there's also that continued joy of meeting new people, making new friends. I'm not sure if the shadow of knowing they'd die long before me would affect me much or not. Also, assuming the age progression is a tenth of normal, that'd still mean you'd be "old" for about two-hundred years or more. That'd, well, pretty much suck.

Dark Lord Cam · Post by **Dark Lord Cam** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:45 pm

If I was offered I would accept but only because of the knowledge I could gain from it.

Alien · Post by **Alien** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:08 pm

Dark Lord wrote:If I was offered I would accept but only because of the knowledge I could gain from it.

Yeah, right. *Points at signature /\*

Dark Lord Cam · Post by **Dark Lord Cam** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:15 pm

and thats coming from an orange pine tree.

The Raven · Post by **The Raven** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:22 pm

I wouldnt really mind living for another 100-200years or so, but 1000?
Too much in my opinion.
As Alien said, you would get more and more depressed of your friends/family dying, take drugs, drink too much etc. etc.

BTW! Im back from my holiday in Sweden.

Vesna · Post by **Vesna** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:57 pm

That would suck... have a sleeping medicine drug addiction for 400+ years? And once they stop manufacturing it?

But I'll say this: we have no idea how happy we will be 500 years later if we take the drugs, because the brain uses how you are feeling now as the reference. An example as to how this works is depressed people. When someone offers them to go to the pool or play a game, the depressed subject usually concludes on the basis of the current feelings that doing something else won't make them feel any better than they are at the moment. And if they do do it, they look back and wonder "Why in the world did I think otherwise?"

This is likely why we slave for the future (get a new house, or work to get higher in a career), but when we get there and look back we're amazed at some of the seemingly "stupid" decisions.

One nearly foolproof way to figure out feelings in the future is to ask the people who've been there. However, this being a new frontier and all, that isn't possible.

So I'll say that we have no way to realize how we'll feel down the road.

Zetal · Post by **Zetal** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:52 am

I have things I want to do that cannot be attained in a regular lifetime, so I would accept this treatment in the blink of an eye.

Dogmantra · Post by **Dogmantra** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:48 am

Though I agree it would be quite fun to paint yourself bluey-grey and pretend to be Divayth Fyr, I can't imagine living for 800 years... wouldn't it just get really boring? Although, if I was the only one, it would be quite interesting to see the progression of society and technology, but hey... maybe on my deathbed I'll just start believing in reincarnation

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:25 pm

well i have a firm belief that man should not mess with nature, not that much anyway.

that being said, i also believe that people would not endure the downs that come with life. (i seem to remember tolkien saying about his elves that they either died in battle, i.e. wounds, or of grief... just seems to fit here...)

sure there would be good sides to living long, but i hardly think WE (humans of today) are up to it. maybe humans will evolve so that they have other abilities... then again, maybe there won't be any humans left to get that far (having killed themselves some way or another) who knows

i normally don't bother to think that far...

Sublymonal · Post by **Sublymonal** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:55 am

Caz wrote:i seem to remember tolkien saying about his elves that they either died in battle, i.e. wounds, or of grief... just seems to fit here

[well, he said that's the only two ways they can die, not that they were destined to die in one of those ways]

Anyway, another thing Tolkien mentioned was men. He said that they had an inner fire that eventually consumed them. And frankly, I don't think a pill would douse that fire.

If you have read, and believe the Bible, you would know that it says that in the beginning humans lived for extremely long periods of time [the oldest person having been Methusala], and our lifespans gradually decreased [much like tolkien's men from Westernese]. Therefore, we may have the ability to tolerate the long periods of time that said pill would grant. Then again, times have certainly changed since then. If you believe in that.

Finally, as other people have mentioned, if we were to live that long, we would eventually eat ourselves into extinction [along with the rest of the planet]. The elves in Tolkien's tales very rarely gave birth, and I don't think today's couples would be able to pull such a feat off.