Aging / Life extension/ Future Regenerative Therapies

Ickle Magoo

If current predictions play out, the earth could one day be consumed by the sun. The nearest planet that we think could support human life would take us generations to get to even if we could travel at the speed of light. Life extension technology could save the human race, it's not just about the world as we know it today.

Rev Hellfire

Frei wrote: »

I find the whole life extension business a bit depressing. I know that even now we do extend our lives beyond what Nature intended with medicine, surgical procedures etc but to think of people living into 300, 400 years is just greedy. If such technologies ever came into being, inevitably what would happen is that it would be readily available for Westerners, while the rest of the world get on with dying at the usual age ( or much younger as is the case in a lot of countries).

Thats exactly how it is today, we in west have better life expectancies than many in the other parts of the world. There's nothing wrong with that, there'll always be those that have and those that don't.

The mistake being made is assuming we're aren't in a sense already there, this is just a logical advancement on a path we're already heading down.

Zillah

Rycn wrote: »

No, not at all actually, weve been down this road and you know what i mean, so stop being ignorant.

The problem here is that your position is flawed, but you don't realise why. You seem to think there is a fundamental difference between the level of longevity currently provided by medical technology and the level we suspect may be provided in the future. You seem to think that just because you happen to be used to current life extension technologies that they are some how normal or natural, and that anything you're not used to is somehow bizarre and unnatural.

So you say things like "People's lives should not be extended past what is natural" and someone points out that we're already doing that, and your only response is to get angry and say "That's not what I meant!"

If you want what is natural and normal and as nature intended then women should die in child birth a great deal of the time, the father flips a coin to see if the infant survives the first week, wolves carry off toddlers, an infection is almost certain death for a person of any age, starvation and thirst are part of daily life and the guy who reached the age of fifty is the venerable elder with no teeth.

We either use technology to improve the human condition or we stay natural. Don't try and benefit from vaccines, antibiotics, electricity, farming and surgery while claiming we should do as nature intended. From the point of view of a person a thousand years ago, you are a hyperadvanced freak, a total god-like abomination. Diseases that exterminate entire portions of each of their generations cannot touch you.

If I can avoid it at all, I'll escape death for thousands of years. I have shit to do. You might have such (depressingly) small horizons, but as I understand it I shall only exist once, and a single century in the billions of years of this universe's existence seems petty and preposterously short to me.

liamw

Karl Pilkington has some interesting views on how old we should let people live

Rycn

Zillah wrote: »

The problem here is that your position is flawed, but you don't realise why. You seem to think there is a fundamental difference between the level of longevity currently provided by medical technology and the level we suspect may be provided in the future. You seem to think that just because you happen to be used to current life extension technologies that they are some how normal or natural, and that anything you're not used to is somehow bizarre and unnatural.

So you say things like "People's lives should not be extended past what is natural" and someone points out that we're already doing that, and your only response is to get angry and say "That's not what I meant!"

If you want what is natural and normal and as nature intended then women should die in child birth a great deal of the time, the father flips a coin to see if the infant survives the first week, wolves carry off toddlers, an infection is almost certain death for a person of any age, starvation and thirst are part of daily life and the guy who reached the age of fifty is the venerable elder with no teeth.

We either use technology to improve the human condition or we stay natural. Don't try and benefit from vaccines, antibiotics, electricity, farming and surgery while claiming we should do as nature intended. From the point of view of a person a thousand years ago, you are a hyperadvanced freak, a total god-like abomination. Diseases that exterminate entire portions of each of their generations cannot touch you.

If I can avoid it at all, I'll escape death for thousands of years. I have shit to do. You might have such (depressingly) small horizons, but as I understand it I shall only exist once, and a single century in the billions of years of this universe's existence seems petty and preposterously short to me.

Thanks, thats a good reply compared to the attacks i got from the others.

But im still happy with living for an average lifespan.

Rycn

Frei wrote: »

I find the whole life extension business a bit depressing. I know that even now we do extend our lives beyond what Nature intended with medicine, surgical procedures etc but to think of people living into 300, 400 years is just greedy.

This is EXACTLY what i mean.

Zillah

Rycn wrote: »

Thanks, thats a good reply compared to the attacks i got from the others.

They call me the peace-maker. If only our other regular posters could learn to be as compassionate and understanding as I.

sink

Zillah wrote: »

They call me the peace-maker. If only our other regular posters could learn to be as compassionate and understanding as I.

I will build a shrine to you beside my bed and pray that you forever seek to show compassion to your followers. We who are not truly worthy but can only hope that in your divine wisdom you take pity in our plight. All praise to Zillah the peace-maker!

Rycn

I too submit to the divine wisdom of lord Zillah

:pac:

ColmDawson

Godzillah:pac:

Frei

We either use technology to improve the human condition or we stay natural. Don't try and benefit from vaccines, antibiotics, electricity, farming and surgery while claiming we should do as nature intended. From the point of view of a person a thousand years ago, you are a hyperadvanced freak, a total god-like abomination. Diseases that exterminate entire portions of each of their generations cannot touch you.

That is just going to the other extreme, just because someone thinks living so long is not good doesn't mean that in theory they should disagree with every single advancement in medicine! Everyone has their limits, and that is fine.The funny thing is, though we think we are hyperadanced freaks, we are still surprisingly vulnerable. People still die from cancer, AIDS and even simple infections. I don't think we will ever conquer the microbial world, we do not have as much control over it as we think we do.

I would also be interested in the pyschology of living so long, would one get happier or the opposite? Could you reach unltimate enlightenment (of the non religious kind)? How would you interact with your relatives?

strobe

Frei wrote: »

I find the whole life extension business a bit depressing. I know that even now we do extend our lives beyond what Nature intended with medicine, surgical procedures etc but to think of people living into 300, 400 years is just greedy.

Rycn wrote: »

This is EXACTLY what i mean.

This is where I can't really see the reasoning to either of your views. Someone wanting to live to 300 is greedy? What about someone wanting to live to 200? Still greedy? How about 180? 120? 100? Where do you start deciding someone has had all the life they deserve and any more is just gluttony on their part? Is someone that leads a healthy life and avails of all the medical treatment they can to live old enough to see their great grandchildren born being a life hog? Or are they ok but someone wanting to live to see their great grandchild on their school graduation day is suddenly considered greedy?

Rycn

strobe wrote: »

This is where I can't really see the reasoning to either of your views. Someone wanting to live to 300 is greedy? What about someone wanting to live to 200? Still greedy? How about 180? 120? 100? Where do you start deciding someone has had all the life they deserve and any more is just gluttony on their part? Is someone that leads a healthy life and avails of all the medical treatment they can to live old enough to see their great grandchildren born being a life hog? Or are they ok but someone wanting to live to see their great grandchild on their school graduation day is suddenly considered greedy?

I have a never ending supply of cookies, cookies are nice, just like life, im going to eat a few of them and then ill be content, im not gona keep eating them just because i can, i wouldnt want to, because it takes away from the enjoyment.

ColmDawson

Rycn wrote: »

I have a never ending supply of cookies, cookies are nice, just like life, im going to eat a few of them and then ill be content, im not gona keep eating them just because i can, i wouldnt want to, because it takes away from the enjoyment.

But, as strobe asked, where do you draw the line? Is living to 120 greedy? 200? Etc.

Rycn

ColmDawson wrote: »

But, as strobe asked, where do you draw the line? Is living to 120 greedy? 200? Etc.

Why does there have to be a line? thats just a distraction from the fundamental point, for arguements sake lets just say there are only two choices:

a) live to c. 80 years old.

b) like to c. 1000 years old.

I choose (a) becuase i know if i lived for 1000 years i wouldnt appreciate life for what it is.

strobe

Rycn wrote: »

Why does there have to be a line?

Now that is exactly what I mean.

thats just a distraction from the fundamental point, for arguements sake lets just say there are only two choices:

a) live to c. 80 years old.

b) like to c. 1000 years old.

I choose (a) becuase i know if i lived for 1000 years i wouldnt appreciate life for what it is.

Well that's your prerogative. But I still don't see how someone living to 1000 is greedy for choosing b? If you say that then it makes perfect sense to say you choosing to live to 80 is greedy aswell.


Personally if they were the only two choices on the table I'd be choosing b every time. Quite simply there isn't enough time to do all the things I want to do in the 60 or 70 years I might get. So it would just be common sense to boost that up to a few hundred if I could. You only get one short little life (i'd consider 1000 years short in the grander scheme of things) then cease to exist so you might aswell make it last as long as you possibly can. I think at some stage we will probably make contact with extra terrestrial intelligence for example. The longer I live the greater the chance of me being alive when/if that eventually happens. That's just one example off the top of my head but I can think of dozens more.

Rycn

strobe wrote: »

If you say that then it makes perfect sense to say you choosing to live to 80 is greedy aswell.

But im not choosing to live to 80, thats just the average length of human life at present. If it was possible to make humans live to 1000 then that would be a choice.

So your saying its greedy to live a normal life?

Rycn

strobe wrote: »

Personally if they were the only two choices on the table I'd be choosing b every time. Quite simply there isn't enough time to do all the things I want to do in the 60 or 70 years I might get. So it would just be common sense to boost that up to a few hundred if I could. You only get one short little life (i'd consider 1000 years short in the grander scheme of things) then cease to exist so you might aswell make it last as long as you possibly can. I think at some stage we will probably make contact with extra terrestrial intelligence for example. The longer I live the greater the chance of me being alive when/if that eventually happens. That's just one example off the top of my head but I can think of dozens more.

Now this i understand, and i suppose i wouldnt mind being around in the far future but i just wouldnt appreciate life after living for that long.

strobe

Rycn wrote: »

But im not choosing to live to 80, thats just the average length of human life at present. If it was possible to make humans live to 1000 then that would be a choice.

So your saying its greedy to live a normal life?

No, the opposite. I'm saying it's not greedy to use science and medicine to extend your life to 80 years and I'm saying it wouldn't be greedy to use science and medicine to extend your life to 199 years.




Edit: By the way I'm in the middle of reading a series of novels at the minute that are sort based around this concept if any one is looking for something to read. The first one is called Altered Carbon. I'm not big into sci-fi novels but they are pretty good. They are set in the future and a type of technology that allows humans to attach a kind of computer called a "stack" to their brain at birth has been invented. It records all your memories so that if you die the computer can be plugged into the brain of another body and you wake up as the same person but in another body. They deal with a lot of the themes being discussed in the thread. It touches on things like Catholics refusing to be put into new bodies because they don't think the soul can be contained in a computer and rich people being able to afford an endless supply of clones to be put into so they live forever and become a new kind of elite etc. Really good, check them out.

CerebralCortex

Rycn wrote: »

But im not choosing to live to 80, thats just the average length of human life at present. If it was possible to make humans live to 1000 then that would be a choice.

So your saying its greedy to live a normal life?

Of course you are choosing to live to 80, or do expect to make it there without visiting a hospital or only a doctor if you're lucky? I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but everyday you survive now, statistically speaking, the longer you're going to live anyway because of the advance of all branches of science. Just look at http://www.sciencedaily.com/ there are breakthroughs everyday. Also with in the space of the 20th century life expectancy has gone up 30%. You're already a life extensionist we all are! The question is are prepared to cut your life short, to spite it? I think not!

sonicthebadger*

The key here is choice. If someone wants to live to 80 and die a youngster that's ok. I'll miss you.
I'd like the choice to live to be 10,000 or more. I don't like being told I can't live cause a bunch of children of the corn want to die before they hit triple figures! :mad:

Zillah

Rycn wrote: »

I choose (a) becuase i know if i lived for 1000 years i wouldnt appreciate life for what it is.

How could you possibly speak about how you will feel about life in a thousand years? It doesn't strike you as naive to insist that at 21 years you're sure that all of life's entertainment and satisfaction will be exhausted after a mere century?

Improbable

Rycn wrote: »

Why does there have to be a line? thats just a distraction from the fundamental point, for arguements sake lets just say there are only two choices:

a) live to c. 80 years old.

b) like to c. 1000 years old.

I choose (a) becuase i know if i lived for 1000 years i wouldnt appreciate life for what it is.

Why would you choose option a when you could choose option b and still have the option of ending your life at any point if you possibly got bored with everything that the world has to offer and will have to offer in the future?

L31mr0d

This question comes up frequently and the most fundamental question of all is never answered, "How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?"

It doesn't matter if you live for 20 years of 20 billion, as you watch the last star in the Universe burn out you will still feel alone and helpless in the final moments before you die.

Lets say we realize that we exist in a multiverse, and figure out how to "jump ship" to another burgeoning universe, the question becomes: "what is the point of existence"... Survival alone?

Conditio sine qua non... I believe humanity needs mortality. Without it, I wouldn't consider us human. The futile struggle for survival and existence has shaped us. A being who exists eternally becomes only an observer of life behind a glass window, and no longer a participant in it.

Dades

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If current predictions play out, the earth could one day be consumed by the sun. The nearest planet that we think could support human life would take us generations to get to even if we could travel at the speed of light. Life extension technology could save the human race, it's not just about the world as we know it today.

You're assuming that the people who set out for the new planet must be the same as the people who eventually reach it - and not their ancestors!

Iain M Banks' "Culture" novels deal with a society where people could potentially live eternally. I seem to recall in one book it was said that is was considered 'polite' to not live longer than 300 years, just because you could.

CerebralCortex

L31mr0d wrote: »

This question comes up frequently and the most fundamental question of all is never answered, "How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?"

It doesn't matter if you live for 20 years of 20 billion, as you watch the last star in the Universe burn out you will still feel alone and helpless in the final moments before you die.

Lets say we realize that we exist in a multiverse, and figure out how to "jump ship" to another burgeoning universe, the question becomes: "what is the point of existence"... Survival alone?

Conditio sine qua non... I believe humanity needs mortality. Without it, I wouldn't consider us human. The futile struggle for survival and existence has shaped us. A being who exists eternally becomes only an observer of life behind a glass window, and no longer a participant in it.

So? I can see that you're a fan of Star Trek from your avatar and the shows philosophy is evident in what you say. <facepalm> You've also contradicted yourself, you question whether the point of existence is survival alone and then answer it by saying that's exactly what it is. I'm confused?

Ickle Magoo

Perhaps if people lived for longer, we would be around to hear AC's answer? :pac:

Life extension doesn't necessarily make people immortal - death would likely still be a very real possibility just as all the drugs, medical care and hormones don't guarantee we reach octogenarian-hood today...the human body is frail and complex, I don't think we'll be able to dodge mortality altogether.

If humans lived longer and needed to move planets, the human struggle wouldn't disappear, it would just change.

Improbable

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Perhaps if people lived for longer, we would be around to hear AC's answer? :pac:

Life extension doesn't necessarily make people immortal - death would likely still be a very real possibility just as all the drugs, medical care and hormones don't guarantee we reach octogenarian-hood today...the human body is frail and complex, I don't think we'll be able to dodge mortality altogether.

If humans lived longer and needed to move planets, the human struggle wouldn't disappear, it would just change.

If this is a reference to The Last Question by Asimov as I think it is, I congratulate you on your impeccable taste in reading material.

Ickle Magoo

Dades wrote: »

You're assuming that the people who set out for the new planet must be the same as the people who eventually reach it - and not their ancestors!

Iain M Banks' "Culture" novels deal with a society where people could potentially live eternally. I seem to recall in one book it was said that is was considered 'polite' to not live longer than 300 years, just because you could.

Not assuming anything, even with people breeding on space ships, life extension technology could raise the probability of reaching our destination and successfully setting up a civilisation, it removes the need for certain medical care and the risks posed to foetuses while travelling thru space...especially useful if we can rely on the intelligence and knowledge of those we send, when we get there.

Why 300, can you remember, Dades? Seems a bit arbitrary to settle on a specific number across the board. If there is a choice between me or Stephen Hawkins living forever, it's hardly an equal choice in terms of use or possibility!

Improbable wrote:

If this is a reference to The Last Question by Asimov as I think it is, I congratulate you on your impeccable taste in reading material.

It was in reference to L31mr0ds "How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" which is from TLQ.

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

You're assuming that the people who set out for the new planet must be the same as the people who eventually reach it - and not their ancestors!

Iain M Banks' "Culture" novels deal with a society where people could potentially live eternally. I seem to recall in one book it was said that is was considered 'polite' to not live longer than 300 years, just because you could.

The people or individuals who set out for new planets will probably be orders of magnitude different from us now.

Rycn

Improbable wrote: »

Why would you choose option a when you could choose option b and still have the option of ending your life at any point if you possibly got bored with everything that the world has to offer and will have to offer in the future?

"Hmmm im bored now, think its time to end my life"

Seriously, thats rediculous, id like to die naturally thanks.

Improbable

Rycn wrote: »

"Hmmm im bored now, think its time to end my life"

Seriously, thats rediculous, id like to die naturally thanks.

Don't quite see how its ridiculous to be frank. Suppose the age enhancement was a drug that allowed you to live as long as you kept taking it every so often, all the way up to a thousand years. Would taking it for say 200 years and then stopping count as an "unnatural death" to you?

candy-gal1

Im all up for that, lol, anything to make me live forever is good enough in my book! :)

CerebralCortex

Rycn wrote: »

"Hmmm im bored now, think its time to end my life"

Seriously, thats rediculous, id like to die naturally thanks.

Round and round the merry go round... Dead at 30 so is it? You'd want to start having kids quick man, nature's calling!

Dades

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why 300, can you remember, Dades? Seems a bit arbitrary to settle on a specific number across the board. If there is a choice between me or Stephen Hawkins living forever, it's hardly an equal choice in terms of use or possibility!

Don't recall why 300, tbh!

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The people or individuals who set out for new planets will probably be orders of magnitude different from us now.

I wouldn't be so sure. The way technology has developed is exponentially to the way humans have developed biologically.

Will we really be that different by the time interstellar space flight because plausible in some form?

sink

Rycn wrote: »

"Hmmm im bored now, think its time to end my life"

Seriously, thats rediculous, id like to die naturally thanks.

What's the difference between refusing a life saving treatment and taking your own life? Underneath both are choices to die!

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

Don't recall why 300, tbh!

It's when humans are supposed to die naturally

Dades wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. The way technology has developed is exponentially to the way humans have developed biologically.

Indeed, so what about human augmentation? I believe with exponential growth in technology and if we don't destroy the planet in the process, that's impossible not to begin augmenting ourselves. There are many possibilities ending aging itself will probably require maintenance, why not have that in the form of nano medicine, which could easily lead into things like accelerated healing etc.

Dades wrote: »

Will we really be that different by the time interstellar space flight because plausible in some form?

I think so, but we may not even want to, considering the virtual worlds we could create, although I'd prefer to explore the vastness of space.

liamw

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The people or individuals who set out for new planets will probably be orders of magnitude different from us now.

Do you mean biologically? How? Under what selection pressures?

CerebralCortex

liamw wrote: »

Do you mean biologically? How? Under what selection pressures?

I don't mean biologically certainly not. Augmentation will take the place of evolution hopefully again assuming we don't wipe ourselves out in the process. We age because it makes evolutionary(biological) sense to invest in reproduction over longevity or more specifically repair mechanisms that don't serve reproduction, especially for an organism as complex as a human being.

20goto10

All sounds like a Peter F. Hamilton novel. He makes it all sound possible and worthwhile but only when it comes hand in hand with intergalactic travel and memory implants.

Fanny Cradock

People mighty be interesting in reading this book. I bought it a couple of weeks back but it's at the bottom of pile of older purchases that I haven't yet got around to tackling.

CerebralCortex

Try Eric Drexler, Robert Freitas, and Ralph Merkle for all things nano related. Nanotech has immense potential for both good and bad. With it we'll be either gods or grey goo!

Rycn

sink wrote: »

What's the difference between refusing a life saving treatment and taking your own life? Underneath both are choices to die!

Your saying theres no difference between suicide and refusing a treatment you may be skeptical of?

Seriously?

Rycn

The amount of walter mitty characters in this thread

CerebralCortex

Rycn wrote: »

Your saying theres no difference between suicide and refusing a treatment you may be skeptical of?

Seriously?

No he's saying there's no difference between suicide and refusing a treatment you're not skeptical of.

sink

Rycn wrote: »

Your saying theres no difference between suicide and refusing a treatment you may be skeptical of?

Seriously?

No, I'm saying there is little difference between taking ones own life refusing a life saving treatment. I never mentioned being sceptical.

Say you were on your deathbed and the doctors offered you a cell regeneration treatment that would save your life and restore you to full health.

Choosing not to take the treatment under those circumstances and choosing to take your own life result in the same outcome. In both cases you are choosing to die when the alternative is to keep on living. Beneath any rationalisation lies the same logical choice. The only difference is in how you perceive it.

Improbable

Rycn wrote: »

Your saying theres no difference between suicide and refusing a treatment you may be skeptical of?

Seriously?

Skepticism about the efficacy of the treatment wasn't the issue being discussed. The issue is what is the difference in death by old age and death by suicide after a longer life than is normal today. And you never answered my other question. What if it was a drug that you took to stay alive that could keep you alive for a thousand years. You could stop taking it and die if you felt like it. Would you count that as suicide?

Rycn

Improbable wrote: »

What if it was a drug that you took to stay alive that could keep you alive for a thousand years. You could stop taking it and die if you felt like it. Would you count that as suicide?

Yeah because it is suicide? You know the drug is keeping you alive and if you stop taking it you will die.

Improbable

Rycn wrote: »

Yeah because it is suicide? You know the drug is keeping you alive and if you stop taking it you will die.

So couldn't NOT taking such a drug at all be considered suicide? Because you know that if you don't take it you'll die sooner than you would if you did take it.

Rycn

Improbable wrote: »

So couldn't NOT taking such a drug at all be considered suicide? Because you know that if you don't take it you'll die sooner than you would if you did take it.

Only if you know for FACT that the drug will keep you alive, and that not taking it is guaranteed to result in death then yes, thats suicide obviously.