Born 50yrs too early...

NeilFawcett said:
That was not the suggestion (or the point) of the OP. The premise is that probably soon after you die, the science will be developed to create far healthier lives, that go on for far longer periods.

It's akin to dying from a disease that they find the cure to the following year.

This, and probably the next generation will die having lead traditional lives with traditional life times. Beyond that people will most likely live two, three or more times longer...

Are you not the slightest big jealous?
Click to expand...

So instead of working for forty years then dying, you get to work for 180 taxable years before dying?

I''ll take the coronary at 70, thanks.
 
"Who waaants to liiiiive, foreeeevvvvveeerrrrr?"

I think 20yrs is a little far fetched, I wouldn't be surprised of one day we had the technology to do this sort of thing, it would be a mistake to implement though, we need population control.
 
Ray Kurzweil is a complete fruitloop. It's a shame because he's come up with some good ideas in the past, but his ideas on health, nutrition and lifestyle would make me ignore anything he says on the subject of mortality.
 
StevenRaith said:
So instead of working for forty years then dying, you get to work for 180 taxable years before dying?

I''ll take the coronary at 70, thanks.
Click to expand...

I'd come to your funeral then... and then the 20yrs after that I'd probably go and live and work in South Asia for a change. The 20yrs after that maybe just take it easy in South America. The 20yrs after that maybe come back to the UK for a change...

You can have and keep your coronary :)

I suspect if people were living for 2 or 3 life spans, and assuming energy and such were cheaper/easier to produce (nuclear fusion) you might find society was less 'work' orientated...
 
oli collett said:
Ray Kurzweil is a complete fruitloop. It's a shame because he's come up with some good ideas in the past, but his ideas on health, nutrition and lifestyle would make me ignore anything he says on the subject of mortality.
Click to expand...

Ray Kurzweil admits that he cared little for his health until age 35, when he was diagnosed with a glucose intolerance, an early form of type II diabetes (a major risk factor for heart disease). Kurzweil then found a doctor that shares his non-conventional beliefs to develop an extreme regimen involving hundreds of pills, chemical i.v. treatments, red wine and various other methods to attempt to live longer.

...

Kurzweil ingests "250 supplements, eight to 10 glasses of alkaline water and 10 cups of green tea" every day and drinks several glasses of red wine a week in an effort to "reprogram" his biochemistry. [46] Lately, he has cut down the number of supplement pills to 150.

...

On weekends, Kurzweil also undergoes intravenous transfusions of chemical cocktails at a clinic which he believes will reprogram his biochemistry. He routinely measures the chemical composition of his own bodily fluids, undergoes preemptive medical tests for many diseases and disorders, and keeps detailed records about the content of all the meals he eats. On that last note, Kurzweil only eats organic foods with low glycemic loads and claims it has been years since he last consumed anything containing sugar.

...

Kurzweil joined the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a cryonics company. In the event of his death, Kurzweil's body will be chemically preserved, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at an Alcor facility in the hope that future medical technology will be able to revive him.
Click to expand...

:eek: :D
 
i doubt we can achieve eternity, we've been able to extend the life of most people, even in the 3rd world people generally have the ability to live longer than the people of 1000, even 500 years ago but we haven't been able to halt bodily degeneration, we get to around the 60 mark and things just begin to shut down, liver, kidneys, lungs, heart, bowels, bones marrow, it all reaches a point where the rigours of an extended life and prolonged damage cause them to cease functioning at a great enough capacity to sustain our lives. not to mention mental function as Stretch mentions, iirc scientists suggest the longer you live the higher the likelihood of developing alzheimer's and there a a host of other mental conditions.

it wouldn't benefit us either, look at the problems we already have with unemployment, over crowding, over populated cities and people literally living on top of each other, we'd need to limit growth to near non-existent (people are still going to get hit by a bus) and then we'd need to control who could give birth. perhaps on the people who can afford to buy the pre-requisite license. not withstanding what you'd do with all those extra (infinite?) years, if you spend your life slobbing you'll continue spending your life slobbing, it's hardly going to be an enriching experience for many people.


i'm happy with my 50-90 year lifespan (even if i am potentially nearly half way through it), i've still got plenty of time ahead of me to enjoy my future, and i've had many good, and bad experiences in my past, a vastly extended lifespan would mean things would have less meaning to me at least.
 
Last edited:
Stange, this is completely at odds with this morning's news that kids are currently doing so little exercise that we are likely to see a fall in life expectancy in the next generation.
 
Is it not possible that we could live to all be 100, or maybe over, if we are here in 20 or 40 years time we could take advantage of some improvements in tech that may allow us to live longer?
 
Great, we can look forward to people with perfectly fit and healthy bodies, who sit spouting nonsense and dribbling into their corn flakes all day. Replacing the brain is a whole lot more than 20 years away.
 
willhub said:
Is it not possible that we could live to all be 100, or maybe over, if we are here in 20 or 40 years time we could take advantage of some improvements in tech that may allow us to live longer?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I expect our generation will not see the benefit the individuals in the second half of the century will get. They will probably live double our life spans, and more healthily too... We just missed the boat on this one...
 
Even if they did manage to do this would they really release this to the public?? the world would just become over populated
 
Mr Kurzweil calls his theory the Law of Accelerating Returns. Writing in The Sun, Mr Kurzweil said: "I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies' stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing.
Click to expand...

Right.
 
D18241 said:
Even if they did manage to do this would they really release this to the public?? the world would just become over populated
Click to expand...

Interesting point... It mught just be for the rich/elite. Could generate a hell of a class/society divide!
 
Stretch said:
Great, we can look forward to people with perfectly fit and healthy bodies, who sit spouting nonsense and dribbling into their corn flakes all day. Replacing the brain is a whole lot more than 20 years away.
Click to expand...

This...and the pensions situation because let's face it just because you are physically capable of working if your brain has gone then you can't work any more.

Not to mention the strain on public resources keeping all these people cared for and let's not get started on overcrowding, the furore caused by the NHS not being prepared to pay for the necessary surgery etc

Technologically and scientifically fascinating of course :)
 
We are not primarily designed to 'live', we are designed to reproduce. We could all have genes that make us keel over a die as soon as we hit 40, and these genes wouldn't be selected against because we have children before we reach that age.

This is the basic reasoning behind why we grow old - it doesn't matter in terms of evolution if we get old and die if we have already reproduced. The evolutionary stable strategy is to focus all efforts on reproduction as soon as it is possible, all things considered.

There are many variations to explaining ageing (the scientific name for ageing is 'Senescence'), and many of these hypothesis are likely to operate in the natural world. One idea is that since we aim to reproduce, we have genes which are good for reproduction, but are ultimately disadvantageous later in life.

There is, credit where credit is due, a very good wikipedia article about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence

If you are fortunate enough to have access to scientific journals, have a browse through Trends in Ecology and Evolution for some fascinating commentary on these issues.

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/

Oh, I almost forgot to add - 'lol' at the article in the OP, absolute nonsense. You can't beat ageing without completely altering ALL of our DNA due to the cumulative effect of millions of genes, by which point we would cease to be human. You can't beat 4.5 billion years of evolution by the flick of a switch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom