Forever Young...

[The_Nice_Guy]

From the Times Online

This idyll is more than realistic, given reasonably expected breakthroughs and extensions of our knowledge of human, plant and animal biology, as well as mastery of the manipulation of these biologies to meet our needs and desires.

Although you would think most people would devoutly wish for this vision, an extraordinary coalition of left-wing and right-wing bioconservatives is resisting the biotechnological progress that could make it real. Forget Osama bin Laden and the so-called clash of civilisations. The defining political conflict of the 21st century will literally be the battle over life and death.

On one side stand the partisans of mortality. From the Left, the bioethicist Daniel Callahan declares: “There is no known social good coming from the conquest of death.” On the Right, stands Leon Kass, former head of George Bush’s Council on Bioethics, who insists: “The finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual, whether he knows it or not.”

I've always thought that the best part of technology and science is about increasing our freedoms, the number of choices we can have, the power we have over our lives.

The car and the airplane enabled us to travel if we so wanted.

The TV and the PC gave us entertainment on demand.

The light bulb allowed us to see when we so wished.

Those who oppose longevity research seek to limit our freedom to choose our very own lifespans. Who are they to tell us what to do?

What a bunch of fuckers.

TWG
PS. And yeah, I'm scared of death and old age. Other than religious folks who believe in an afterlife yet to be proven, who isn't?

[Captain tycho]

Personally, I've long accepted my own mortality. It would be crazy to want to die, but I'm at peace with the eventuality of it.

But yes, living for a few hundred extra years would be fantastic. And the fuckers who oppose this disgust me.

[BloodAngel]

One thing to consider, I guess, would be the fact that if people started living "indefinitely" (by that meaning much, much longer than our current lifespan), we'd run into a serious overpopulation problem. We only live on one planet, and we haven't yet expanded to the Moon or the rest of the Solar System.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Finititude is a blessing? No social good?

What?

The social good, Danny, is thet you'll save billions. To make a massive advance human civilization. Thats greater than almost any other medical advance in history, if it can be done it'd be criminally stupid not to.

And as for the finitude of life being a blessing, Leon, fuck you. If finitude is such a blessing, go hurl yourself into traffic and make your life even more finite, do us all some good. Of course what do i suspect from a gun with Head of Bioethics under George Bush on his record.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

From the Times Online

Those who oppose longevity research seek to limit our freedom to choose our very own lifespans. Who are they to tell us what to do?

What a bunch of fuckers.

TWG
PS. And yeah, I'm scared of death and old age. Other than religious folks who believe in an afterlife yet to be proven, who isn't?

Arguably, giving people immortality wouldn't be as good a thing as its propopnents suggest. The average person has much to lose if immortality were invented, or the capability to give some extremely long lifespans. The best thing for the average person would be curing the diseases that make growing old so unpleasant. That alone would increase life expectancy to around 80-90 years for the typical person, and allow many more people to dodder on to the human lifespan of around 120-130 years. Start mucking around with the way the body copes with age, and lifespans of 120-150 years become possible, with every one of those years being lived in good health with a minimum of infirmity. Clone organs, introduce cybernetic electronics to help the brain cope with increased age, even modify the way cells themselves age, and a lifespan of between two to five centuries becomes possible. (People would still die from unfortunate accidents, malicious intent on the part of their fellow men, and developing random blood clots which kill them via strokes and heart attacks. They could also catch virulent forms of influenza or pneumonia and die that way. The low-end figure accounts for cancers which people may develop and not catch soon enough for them to be curable.) Allow people to relentlessly clone themselves (the brain of the cloned body being replaced with either their own, or an electronic simulcrum with a cybernetic interface,) or assume an endless series of mechanical forms while living in a durable electronic brain, or a nearly impossible-to-destroy distributed processing network, and they become immortal.

The problem comes from the fact that such schemes will have an inherent inequity. It may be inexpensive to keep a person alive for 120 years in good health, but it won't be cheap, not at first, to make it possible for him to live for centuries, and only the richest and most-motivated will opt for such treatments at first. The ability to persist for centuries may form the new divide between the haves and have-nots. Get an effectively immortal person into power, and he may persist by virtue of having outlived several generations of his constituents, with each successive generation having been born under his rule, and raised to be used to his rule. Besides that, governments may not have much of an interest in granting too many people such lifespans. Imagine someone able to collect welfare checks for ten decades or more. Unless carefully managed and implemented, the technology to grant people incredibly long lifespans stands to possibly harm a lot of people and deprive them of the benefits afforded to a rich and influential few.

[Darth Tanner]

The ability to persist for centuries may form the new divide between the haves and have-nots. Get an effectively immortal person into power, and he may persist by virtue of having outlived several generations

Yes, we have something like this already, its called a monarchy
However age usually equals experience which is one of the key skills most look for in a leader so wouldn't this be a good thing?

Imagine someone able to collect welfare checks for ten decades or more

I'd imagine if people live longer to the degree your talking about pensions are going to have to be scrapped to some extent. And people who are unemployed for a hundred years... well screw them! you are right in that most western countries welfare states systems are going to need massive reform if this sort of technology became common.

I incidentally would love to be immortal (or atleast living a few millenia), im only 20 but the thought that 1/5th (hey i'm optimistic about this) of my life is gone is freaking scary!

[Molyneux]

I could definitely stand to live about 500 years or so.
There are problems that need to be addressed, but by and large the extension of the human lifespan has been a social good so far, so why would we want to stop that progression?

Ah, hell, who am I fooling? I wouldn't mind having the option of living 'indefinitely'. I want to see what we accomplish in the next thousand years or so - I don't want to miss all the awesome stuff.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The ability to persist for centuries may form the new divide between the haves and have-nots. Get an effectively immortal person into power, and he may persist by virtue of having outlived several generations

Yes, we have something like this already, its called a monarchy
However age usually equals experience which is one of the key skills most look for in a leader so wouldn't this be a good thing?

Perhaps. But then again, for every good monarch, you'll have more than a few Fidel Castros, Saddam Husseins, and Josef Stalins. The only blessing would be that someone like a King George the Shrub would decry such technolgy as being "against God" and wouldn't take advantage of it. But that's a comparatively small mercy.

Imagine someone able to collect welfare checks for ten decades or more

I'd imagine if people live longer to the degree your talking about pensions are going to have to be scrapped to some extent. And people who are unemployed for a hundred years... well screw them! you are right in that most western countries welfare states systems are going to need massive reform if this sort of technology became common.

Yes. And the prospect of the massive social upheavals needed for such technologies to become common will tend to exert pressure towards keeping them from becoming widespread or effective enough to generate such upheaval.

I incidentally would love to be immortal (or atleast living a few millenia), im only 20 but the thought that 1/5th (hey i'm optimistic about this) of my life is gone is freaking scary!

Of course. I've found that those who tend to worry the most about death are those who haven't yet been alive long enough for it to have seriously affected them. To have a few pets die, or maybe the odd friend suffer a fatal accident, or to have a grandparent pass on from being really old is a different experience from having witnessed one's own parents or other close relatives grow old and infirm and eventually pass on, or finding one's self growing old and infirm in turn, while watching the obituaries for the names of old classmates, family friends, and acquaintences. The young person goes "life is great, it'd be awesome if I could live forever!" A sufficiently old person might go "everything aches, it sucks getting old . . . but it's been a good life, my affairs are in order and it's gonna happen sometime in the relatively near future, so why waste time worrying about it?"

[Captain tycho]

When I was twelve, I was fucking terrified to the point of having panic attacks of getting older and dying. After struggling with it throughout my teenage years, I've come to accept it, and I feel very little apprehension about it nowadays. Its pretty pointless to get all upset about it, I've learned.

[Joe]

To be honest, I'm not too keen on this idea myself. Not for any of the particular reasons cited by the objectors here referenced; I'm not really familiar with any of them, so I won't comment.

But really, I can't imagine that in the long run, this would be a good thing for society. Society progresses, bluntly, because the older people with the older, outdated ideas croak, or lose influence. If you look at statistics on things like gay marriage, you'll find that support for it is much stronger amongst younger generations, while older generations are heavily opposed to it. It's not any particular legislation or court ruling that is going to make gay marriage acceptable, it's demographic shifts that will (hopefully) lead to a more socially tolerant electorate. The same can be said of the civil rights movement; ultimately, it happened because of young, idealistic leaders like martin Luther King Jr and because of the fact that as time went on, there were less and less racist old farts to oppose it (though sadly many of them are still with us). And look at the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; I don't think it would be unfair to say that they are two of the most influential political documents of the last 500 years, if not the most influential, and both of their authors were under 40 when they were written.

I don't think this applies only to social progress, either; I would imagine it applies to the sciences, as well. Darwin was formulating the theory of natural selection before he was 30, Einstein was 40 when he came up with the theory of relativity. Furthermore, the former's work was rejected with derision by older naturalists, while younger naturalists embraced it. The tendency of the older generation is to embrace the status quo and to defend it; the younger generation challenges it and eventually changes it.

I'm not saying that all older people are incapable of progressive thought, or that scientists lose their competence once they reach age X, or that life extension technologies shouldn't even be developed, but I do think that ultimately, society needs to have youth and the dynamicism associated with it to advance. Life extension technologies would keep people older for longer, but it would also extend the life of their power and influence, and that influence will inevitably be opposed to new ideas and change simply because of the nature of old age. I imagine that progress in all fields of human life would slow and possibly stagnate.

[Joe]

Also, no, you can't live forever. The statistics are against you; even if we could overcome all sickness and reanimate dead brains, chances are a long-lived person will still eventually end up in some sort of accident (perhaps a fire or a severe car crash) that would destroy the brain.

[Pick]

I hate to pop in and be a bitch, but what does the average person contribute that is worth handing them five centuries or so to do it in? The foremost scientists, yes. The greatest minds, the most exceptional, sure. But Billy Bob Cumberbum in Hokeypokey, Nebraska could probably step aside after a century and let a new life take his place. Just saying.

[Losonti Tokash]

I hate to pop in and be a bitch, but what does the average person contribute that is worth handing them five centuries or so to do it in? The foremost scientists, yes. The greatest minds, the most exceptional, sure. But Billy Bob Cumberbum in Hokeypokey, Nebraska could probably step aside after a century and let a new life take his place. Just saying.

I am inclined to say that they deserve such a thing for the same reason they deserve to continue living after retirement, even if all they do is enjoy said retirement. They are not contributing anything of value beyond their company and whatever money they have saved up, but this hardly means they don't deserve to live to a ripe old age.

And I'll have you know that most Nebraskans don't live out in the boonies.

[Plushie]

I know it's not entirely appropriate for SLAM, but I should mention that I know of at least two sci-fi universes that face this problem and do it in an interesting way. One, being my own (and I swear I came up with this on my own, only reading about it later, something that has happened to me more than a few times. For instance, one race in my 'verse resembles the Moties from "A Mote in God's Eye" and yet I hadn't even ever heard of that book at all let alone any details on the Moties when I came up with the concept), the other being the Culture.

People can, effectivily, live as long as they want in either universe, but at some point down the line, they tend to just chose to end it, because after 500 years of life, it just sort of seems like nothing is really worth staying around for any more. Of course, there's also the character shift that occurs in my universe that the Culture lacks: past a certain age, usually the 90's or 100's, people become very adventurous and big risk-takers because, for a lot of people, the idea of having to chose when to die is just so unattractive that they'd rather die in an accident doing something fun.

I imagine it'd be the same way IRL, were we to get some kind of immortality going. People would eventually say "You know? I've really seen and gotten all I've ever wanted out of life, what the hell am I still doing around?".

[Guardsman Bass]

Also, no, you can't live forever. The statistics are against you; even if we could overcome all sickness and reanimate dead brains, chances are a long-lived person will still eventually end up in some sort of accident (perhaps a fire or a severe car crash) that would destroy the brain.

That's only the common accidents. Over a thousand years, you could encounter just about every one of those 'extremely bizarre' accidents (getting hit by lightning, plane crash, getting attacked by a pig) if you weren't careful.


In contrast to what's being said, though, I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think it would be harmful without some regulation. In particular, we would need to require that the immortals take some kind of birth control, to slow down the population. Or we would need to expand into space.

[Mark S]

I think Joe hit the nail on the head. We progress because of fresh ideas and changing ways of thinking. There comes a time when the old simply must get the fuck out of the way and give the young a chance. I've seen this even now, in my own life span, where people don't want to try new ideas because 'it's always been done' this way or that way. Even if the new idea is obviously better. You get enough old farts together and they'll shoot down anything. Without clearing the forest of dead wood, you can't let the new grow.

And it's not only heady things like cultural progress that will slow. Even finding a job will be more of a pain. It's hard enough for new, young, inexperienced people to get hired now. How is anyone going to get their first chance when grandpa is showing no sign of retiring or even slowing and he's got two hundred years of experience on you?

Everything dies. As cheesy as it sounds, that's the way of things. Why is that such a bad thing? Why is that so scarey? To answer the PS of the OP, I'm not religious and I am not afraid of death. What's there to be afraid of? Pain yes, death no.

I suppose if the treatments were available it might be interesting to see what the future turns into but I expect immortality would get boring quickly. Eventually you'd see the same thing happen again and again and people go through the same problems thinking they're new. Thing don't change that much. New scenery, but same shit going on in it.

[Aeolus]

I hate to pop in and be a bitch, but what does the average person contribute that is worth handing them five centuries or so to do it in? The foremost scientists, yes. The greatest minds, the most exceptional, sure. But Billy Bob Cumberbum in Hokeypokey, Nebraska could probably step aside after a century and let a new life take his place. Just saying.

Maybe but who are you decide that for them? Who has the right to decide that for you?

[Spartan]

BloodAngel wrote:

One thing to consider, I guess, would be the fact that if people started living "indefinitely" (by that meaning much, much longer than our current lifespan), we'd run into a serious overpopulation problem. We only live on one planet, and we haven't yet expanded to the Moon or the rest of the Solar System.

That assumes that we'd be to stupid to limit our numbers to some sustainable level. If you live for centuries there is no reason to plan reproduction at a rate that merely replaces those that eventually do die.

[Lord Zentei]

But really, I can't imagine that in the long run, this would be a good thing for society. Society progresses, bluntly, because the older people with the older, outdated ideas croak, or lose influence. If you look at statistics on things like gay marriage, you'll find that support for it is much stronger amongst younger generations, while older generations are heavily opposed to it.

I don't think this applies only to social progress, either; I would imagine it applies to the sciences, as well. Darwin was formulating the theory of natural selection before he was 30, Einstein was 40 when he came up with the theory of relativity. Furthermore, the former's work was rejected with derision by older naturalists, while younger naturalists embraced it. The tendency of the older generation is to embrace the status quo and to defend it; the younger generation challenges it and eventually changes it.

This sounds like Thomas Kuhn's horse-shit. What do we base the assumption that older thinkers and scientists cannot change their minds on? Science does not progress by older scientists dying off, nor does the history of science suggest any such thing.

Socially, I do not see any proof that society would stagnate. In fact a case can be made that it won't stagnate: people in western societies are far older on average than in the third world, yet are more liberal and progressive. QED.

I'm not saying that all older people are incapable of progressive thought, or that scientists lose their competence once they reach age X, or that life extension technologies shouldn't even be developed, but I do think that ultimately, society needs to have youth and the dynamicism associated with it to advance. Life extension technologies would keep people older for longer, but it would also extend the life of their power and influence, and that influence will inevitably be opposed to new ideas and change simply because of the nature of old age. I imagine that progress in all fields of human life would slow and possibly stagnate.

Why? And the "nature of old age" is what is being changed, yes? And by this argument the medical advances of the past are without merit as well, since the population used to be skewed heavily in favour of younger people.

Also, no, you can't live forever. The statistics are against you; even if we could overcome all sickness and reanimate dead brains, chances are a long-lived person will still eventually end up in some sort of accident (perhaps a fire or a severe car crash) that would destroy the brain.

Who the hell expects to? Like all medicine, this is about increasing the duration and quality of human life.

[Lord Zentei]

And it's not only heady things like cultural progress that will slow. Even finding a job will be more of a pain. It's hard enough for new, young, inexperienced people to get hired now. How is anyone going to get their first chance when grandpa is showing no sign of retiring or even slowing and he's got two hundred years of experience on you?

This strikes me as a particularly selfish argument.

Everything dies. As cheesy as it sounds, that's the way of things. Why is that such a bad thing? Why is that so scarey? To answer the PS of the OP, I'm not religious and I am not afraid of death. What's there to be afraid of? Pain yes, death no.

Yea, it is cheesy. And more importantly, this could be used to argue against any lifesaving treatments. Where do you plan on drawing the line?

[Cao Cao]

Everything dies. As cheesy as it sounds, that's the way of things. Why is that such a bad thing? Why is that so scarey? To answer the PS of the OP, I'm not religious and I am not afraid of death. What's there to be afraid of? Pain yes, death no.

I think the complete end of my existance is pretty damn scary.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Everything dies. As cheesy as it sounds, that's the way of things. Why is that such a bad thing? Why is that so scarey? To answer the PS of the OP, I'm not religious and I am not afraid of death. What's there to be afraid of? Pain yes, death no.

I think the complete end of my existance is pretty damn scary.

Indeed. Even though i'm religious i still can only forsee my life passing quietly into oblivion, and to be blunt recent events have caused this to haunt me regularly for the last few days and nights. Its not just scary its fucking terrifying.

I tend to think people who say they dont fear death have yet to fully consider it, i can imagine coming to grips with the inevitability but not completely loosing fear of death. I know i used to not think about it, and the second i did i've been sorry i have ever since and its weighed heavily on me since i started considering the idea.

Which is a long-winded way of saying all you guys who dont want immortality pills, step aside so the rest of us can cut in line. I'll be sure to tell your grandkids great grandkids two centuries down the road the swell dudes you were to let a brother have a break.

[Broomstick]

I've always thought that the best part of technology and science is about increasing our freedoms, the number of choices we can have, the power we have over our lives.

The car and the airplane enabled us to travel if we so wanted.

And yet, there are people who wish to control, regulate, and limit our use of those vehicles.

The TV and the PC gave us entertainment on demand.

And there are those who wish to dictate what can and can not appear on those items.

Those who oppose longevity research seek to limit our freedom to choose our very own lifespans. Who are they to tell us what to do?

It's a control issue. There are always a certain group of people who want to control others, either because of a simple lust for power, or because they honestly think they know what's best for you better than you do.

What is more controlling than the power of life vs. death?

One thing to consider, I guess, would be the fact that if people started living "indefinitely" (by that meaning much, much longer than our current lifespan), we'd run into a serious overpopulation problem.

You mean we don't have that right now?

My thoughts on some of this:

* Getting older isn't bad. In fact, the older I get the more I've been enjoying life. The problem is getting feeble - THAT's the sucky part of old age. If you're old but you're healthy and active it's not bad. People don't want immortality - they want eternal youth.

* Not all people fossilize their thought processes as they age. I also suspect that by remaining physically youthful people will tend to remain more mentally flexible as well. I suspect, from observation, that much of the conservatism (thought not all) of older adults comes from fear due to physical inability to keep pace with the young. Eliminate that, and the fears brought on by feebleness, and you might find older folks retaining a more youthful outlook.

* There will be massive social changes - but we've already seen some of these. The average lifespan in Western society has doubled in the past century, and might even be triple that of the Middle Ages. Until fairly recently, almost no one lived long enought to retire in the sense we understand the concept, and you lucky if you lived long enough to see all your children grown up (those that survived childhood disease and other problems) and maybe one or two grandkids born. Along with the concept of retirement as something most people expect to enjoy, we're seeing more and more people changing careers. That means grandpa might be 200, but he's on his fourth career and perhaps less experienced in his current field than the 30 year old sitting next to him. This would also require that employers overcome their age bias in hiring older people, a problem as pernicious as resistance to hiring the young.

* No one is going to live forever - sooner or later Something Bad will happen to you.

* A lot depends on how much all this costs. And what the individual is required to do. Let's face it - folks now have some considerable control over their health. We all know that eating right and getting more exercise makes you healthier and improves your chances of living a maximum lifespan, and these goals can be achieved by anyone, even those of modest means. Yet how may fat, out of shape people are there in the world? I doubt very much this is going to take the form of a magic potion, it will probably involve a multitude of things like diet, exercise, regular medical exams (to catch cancer and other disease processes early), medication, and possibly something else I haven't thought of. Even if the components are cheap, how many are going to want to put the required effort into doing the program?

[Joe]

This sounds like Thomas Kuhn's horse-shit. What do we base the assumption that older thinkers and scientists cannot change their minds on? Science does not progress by older scientists dying off, nor does the history of science suggest any such thing.

No, science progresses by the introduction of new ideas, which older minds tend to resist simply by virtue of being set in their ways. It's not a knock on older scientists, it's a knock on the way the human mind works in general. I pointed out an example, specifically Darwin's natural selection, which you ignored.

And I only brought up science as sort of an extension of my main idea; that the old attempt to preserve the status quo, while the young(er) tend to challenge it with new ideas. I didn't mean to single out science specifically.

Socially, I do not see any proof that society would stagnate. In fact a case can be made that it won't stagnate: people in western societies are far older on average than in the third world, yet are more liberal and progressive.

I don't think you can possibly make the case that third world countries are in a bad spot because of their younger populations. The difference between Iran's older, religious ruling class and its relatively secular younger population is like night and day, for example. Do you think that let's say Cuba, North Korea, and Iran will be better off in 30 years if Castro, lil' Kim, and Khamenei are still in charge? No, if those countries progress, it will be because younger leaders with new ideas take over as the older ones die off and aren't able to challenge their ideas.

QED.

See, there's no better way than to end an argument with QED. Nobody knows what it means, so the user can look smarter.

Why? And the "nature of old age" is what is being changed, yes? And by this argument the medical advances of the past are without merit as well, since the population used to be skewed heavily in favour of younger people.

I am not against life-saving medical advances. What I am uncomfortable with is medical advances effectively eliminating the natural cycle of life and death to the point where the old die at a far slower rate and the young are unable to displace them with their new ideas.

[Pick]

I hate to pop in and be a bitch, but what does the average person contribute that is worth handing them five centuries or so to do it in? The foremost scientists, yes. The greatest minds, the most exceptional, sure. But Billy Bob Cumberbum in Hokeypokey, Nebraska could probably step aside after a century and let a new life take his place. Just saying.

Maybe but who are you decide that for them? Who has the right to decide that for you?

My pocketbook. It's the American Way!

More seriously, I'm sure that the value that one contributes to society could be set to a value for such determinations. "No one can put a value on a human life" my butt. Financiers do it all the time. The Department of Transportation, for instance, has a number for each life lost in a train-related intersection accident to see if it's worth it to put a sign there. I'm sure we'd adapt a system for the process. And I'm not saying that we don't help them live longer (and more importantly, healthier) lives, but I also think there comes a point for every person to move over and let something new come from his or her absence.