|
Post by bdole on Aug 7, 2008 22:29:46 GMT -5
ok, i believe that within the next 50 years we will develop technologies and therapies that will lead to old age becoming non-existent. anyone who wants to debate or talk about it i suggest going to the methuselah foundation website, thats a scientific organization devoted to researching the chemical therapies to reverse aging. now why do i think anti aging therapies should be researched? well instead of thinking about it as cheating nature think about it this way. cancer is natural, it sucks but its natural. and yes carcinogenics like tobacco accelerates it, but im not talking about cancer from like smoking, just the normal kind. now suppose an 8 year old gets cancer (unlikely but for the sake of the argument), should you try to save the kid? well yes i dont think most people would just watch while a kid dies a painful death. now think about it this way. when you save an 8 year old kid, lets say he lives to be 88. so you add 80 years onto that kids lifespan. now by the same logic if you develop a drug that increases lifespan by 20 years, you have added 20 years onto the lifespan of anyone who takes that drug, and thus saved them from dieing (for the time being). feel free to offer a rebutle.
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Aug 8, 2008 5:35:59 GMT -5
Well, to be honest, Medieval alchemists thought they were pretty close to immortality as well. It's always been a human obsession, and I don't think we'll reach it any time soon, science or not.
OK, I'm going to sound cruel now, but it's much better this way. We are overpopulating the planet already; just imagine what would happen if everyone lives forever/very long? Yeah. Exactly. We'd die out, purely out of food shortages/ not enough room on this pretty blue floating ball. It's not practical. Even if it were possible, I'd be against it, very much so. It would be unbelievably selfish to want to life forever.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Aug 8, 2008 12:40:36 GMT -5
My views on immortality are conflicted. After all, with immortality and the inability to age, I now have time to do numerous things, to study the things I've always wanted to learn, to read all the books I've always wanted to read. But at the price of seeing friends go away and die while I remain alive will become intolerable after a while. And I agree with Aerlinn, I don't think research for anti-aging therapies should be researched. We're constantly growing and if we lived longer than we do now, it's going to end in a disaster for the Earth. I think that people have their times to live out the potential of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by Ammy Fae on Aug 8, 2008 20:58:27 GMT -5
I can't remember where I heard it, but this quote pretty much sums up my views on immortality:
"We have enough youth; how about a fountain of smart?"
True, having immortality gives you more time to learn and study, but it also gives you far more time to sit on your ass and do nothing for all eternity. And, believe me, the couch potatoes very much out-number the scholars.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Aug 9, 2008 18:03:02 GMT -5
Interesting thought process. I do believe that if immortality through drug therapy or any other process is possible, it will eventually be found. And I don't believe that immortality in and of itself would be immoral or wrong. Personally, I don't think there is any such thing as "cheating" nature. As to over population issues, food shortages, etc. being the disastrous result of such a breakthrough, I don't think it'll happen. Aside from aging, there are plenty of ways humans die, from war to disease, to natural disasters, and plenty in between. Not to mention that the theory of over-population disasters depends on a static environment, just as the theories involving global warming, socialist economies, and many other ideas propagated but never proved. The simple fact is our world is ever changing. And science is ever expanding. As research on anti-aging drugs continues, so does research into improved food production, recycling, and space exploration. One of the largest obstacles to space exploration beyond our solar systems is the limited life span of human beings. Humans, by nature are explorers, and there will always be those who chose to move outward, given the opportunity.
Now, as to the fountain of smarts, yeah, that is probably a more worthwhile cause. Longer life would definitely allow for a lot more ignorance. It would also require a major shift in the cradle to grave mentality that many social programs across the world are governed by. But humans by nature are also creative and adaptable. If and when unlimited life comes to pass, we will find ways to adjust and keep it all in balance.
BTW, bdole, by your definition, we are already well on the road to immortality. Over the last century drugs and therapies have already been developed that have extended the average lifespan by more than 10 years, go back further than that, and the lifespan has been extended at least 20 years on average.
Good thoughts all of you. I look forward to more!
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Aug 10, 2008 17:16:16 GMT -5
OK, I'm going to sound cruel now, but it's much better this way. We are overpopulating the planet already; just imagine what would happen if everyone lives forever/very long? Yeah. Exactly. We'd die out, purely out of food shortages/ not enough room on this pretty blue floating ball. It's not practical. Even if it were possible, I'd be against it, very much so. It would be unbelievably selfish to want to life forever. Indeed. Natural selection's already screwed. Immortality's not healthy for the population as a whole. I also agree with what you guys have said about people sitting on their asses. Think about it this way. You pop out of the womb, and the doctor tells you "Congrats. You have the rest of eternity to do whatever the hell you want to do." What would your life philosophy be? Procrastination? "It's okay... I have forever to live my dreams anyway so I'll sit on the couch today and go to college tomorrow." There would be no passion for this gift that is life. Only the constant threat of death keeps us on our toes, living life to the fullest. Progress as a civilization is a direct result of fear of death. Engineers and scientists want to get as much done as they can before they die. Sure, there might be some workaholics who'll keep at it even if they're immortal, but like you guys have mentioned... most of us are lazy. Another thing. If the technology for overly extended lifespans is developed, who would have access to it? Rich people? Are we going to give all the CEOs in the world enough time to monopolize our economies? What if someone like Hitler shows up, only this time without the mercy to blow his friggin brains out? Just my opinion on the matter.
|
|
chiefgibson
Apprentice
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
Posts: 84
|
Post by chiefgibson on Nov 6, 2008 16:47:34 GMT -5
Immortality is currently scientifically impossible. In theory everything is always decaying, some things faster than others. Being carbon based lifeforms with many and many of squishy organs, which most of us abuse on a daily basis, we decay faster than most of the things around us. It is currently impossible to stop that constant decay. You can, however, slow it through many medical procedures, and as medical science progresses we will have a longer average life expectancy.
|
|