Build Cabinets at age 220

[JONTHEBOMB]

This is an interesting story.  I caught the tail end of it on TV.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/28/60minutes/main1168852.shtml

I think it's possible I could live 400-500 years with the way technology is advancing.
What do you think?

[M3talhead]

No. Nature wouldn't let it happen.

[paigeoliver]

I could write 1000 page book on the logical social problems that would cause without even trying very hard.

Besides the massive overcrowding (which we could actually engineer around) you are going to end up with a society you wouldn't want to live in.

If you think the rich are rich now and the poor are poor now, then give them essentially unlimited lifetimes and see what happens. The 1000 year number is common in discussions about being ageless because that is about how long you should be able to go statistically without dying in an accident.

No one born after the first 50 years this is introduced will EVER have a job better than minimum wage, and they will be lucky to get that. It doesn't matter how good you are, someone else is better, and has 50 more years of experience, and has had his position 50 years. Not that there would be any jobs to apply for in the first place.

Oh, and I hope you like paying taxes for welfare. Take our current poor population. Make getting any jobs impossible, now make them immortal and fertile the whole time.

Essentially our culture isn't even close to advanced enough for that kind of technology. History has shown time and time again what happens when advanced technology is introduced into cultures that are too primitive for them.

[duffjr]

can anyone access cbsnews.com without firefox closing?

[paigeoliver]

can anyone access cbsnews.com without firefox closing?

I just did.

[Bones]

I read a book some time ago called the "The last mortal generation".

It suggests that our children may be the first generation to live "forever", or the last generation to die of natural causes. It puts forward some healthy scientific discovery on the processes of aging and how our DNA compells us to wear out, but how it can also be youthfully excited. Processes that when understood may offer us long lives while in peak physical condition.

There can be no denying the power of DNA. It consistently proves its flexibility in nature and a powerful ally it is.

I for one would welcome the concept or immortality. As paige points out, there are huge social issues to overcome should this ever be possible but mans entire outlook would change. Perhaps money would not be at the top of the social order or drive the new economy. However, the thought of living forever and pursing the hundreds of things I don't have time for in this lifetime is overwhelmingly attractive. To see mans progress, to experience seeing my great great great grandchildren become parents..... The entire concept would provide quality physical life without limitations.

In reality, this science is only offering what the religious man already believes he has only our extended lives will be lived here on Earth.

Personally I don't feel this "dream" is as close as my book suggests but I do think in as little as 100-150 years we may be able to considerably increase our life expectancy to perhaps many hundreds of years. The dream of immortality has existed throughout all human history and we are closer to it than any generation that went before us.....

[danny_galaga]

I think it's possible I could live 400-500 years with the way technology is advancing.
What do you think?

people in general? maybe. you? no!

[duffjr]

Would we still reproduce if we lived forever?  There would be no reason to, unless there was a good chance we could die by accident.  My main concern is we wouldn't pass on our DNA and evolve to become more intelligent beings.  And what's the point of having someone weak in regard to survival of the fittest living forever and continually passing on their DNA?  Today, survival of the fittest as applied to humans means those who have genes for good health and/or those who live healthy lifestyles and reproduce.  Intelligence isn't so much necessary, and I wonder if it will be more important in the future.

[Stingray]

I plan to live forever regardless of what the rest of you daisies intend to do.

-S

[Thenasty]

I plan to live forever regardless of what the rest of you daisies intend to do.

-S

I guess you beat me. I only plan on staying till 300 


Just in case anyone here does not know how, here's an idea.
Commit MURDER and make sure the judge gives you TRIPPLE LIFE sentence 

[xar256]

Screw those 50 year old whipper-snappers...They can do the work, I'll still retire at age 55...They can pay my way though my pension plan     Ooooo  Yeah...995 years of retirement baby!!!  That's a whole lot of fishing   

Xar256

[More Cowbell]

If the smaller of the species lives longer as they postulate, which makes sense given their examples (small mice live longer than big mice, small dogs live longer than big dogs), then I'm screwed. You twirps out there will rule the earth, dammit!

[Bones]

Would we still reproduce if we lived forever?

[Ed_McCarron]

"Could one conclude that this hormone produced by this gene is the longevity hormone?"

Well, if all thats required is making a hormone...

You do know how to make a hormone, right???

[mpm32]

With Bacon?

[Ed_McCarron]

Sand.  In the vaseline.

[Bones]

Don't pay her.

[paigeoliver]

It is still something we want to do (be parents), and due to the female reproductive system the time to do this would remaine finite.

Would it remain finite?

By the time women become infertile they have significantly aged. If you turn off the decay of aging then you are literally going to be freezing people in their tracks physically sometime in their teenage years.

People stop growing up and start growing OLD sometime in their teen years. If we are turning off that decay then no one is ever going to be any older than that physically.

[Bones]

Yes but a woman is only born with a finite amount of eggs. Unless her regular cycle was controlled I think there would simply not be any remaining at age 110 when the idea of a family sounded like a good idea.

But of course, in such an unnatural world maybe they would be stored until required.

It all pretty hypothetical with endless scenarios.....

[Ed_McCarron]

Yes but a woman is only born with a finite amount of eggs.

Wasn't this disputed recently???

SciAm had an article that was claiming that its not a finite amount of eggs endowed at birth, but in fact they degenerate and are replaced by some stem cell process...

At the time of her first menstrual period, a woman's ovaries contain some 250,000 follicles, each of which has the potential to release an egg. But over her reproductive life, a woman will ovulate no more than 500 times, because her supply of eggs is progressively wiped out in a process called follicular atresia. In her late thirties, a woman's fertility dips sharply because of the declining quality of her remaining eggs and her failure to ovulate during many menstrual cycles. Eventually, by the age of about 50, she has so few follicles left that she can no longer respond to the hormones that stimulate follicular development and ovulation, resulting in the menopause.

The simplest way to extend a woman's reproductive life would be to freeze ovarian tissue or eggs until they are needed. More fundamentally, it might be possible to disrupt the molecular mechanisms behind follicular atresia. Alternatively, the stem cells in a woman's ovaries might be coaxed into replenishing her egg supply.

[Bones]

Interesting!

Hadn't heard about this late breaking news.....

[c64rulez]

I'm lost here

[thebrownshow]

If you could live forever, would you still want to discharge a monitor?

I know if I had the potential to live for another few hundred years instead of another 50 (hopefully), I'd sure think twice before doing a whole lot of things... driving over the speed limit, using a cell phone, even eating a cheesesteak with fries. 

[Bones]

I would probably take more risks due to my confidence that science could fix anything I messed up.

[More Cowbell]

Expense will be the big factor initially, but keep in mind also that not everyone would want to live for extended periods of time. I think you would get a whole other class of citizen (the naturals) that resisted the "unnatural" extension of lives. Who wants to live in a world where Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise are around forever?

[Bones]

I kinda dig Paris though.... She is my kind of skank.

[TOK]

This stuff is going to start coming up constantly because the Baby Boomers, who have never been denied anything, are starting to see the Grim Reaper on the horizon.
They're going to try and convince themselves they're not going to die.