4 ms·

Sorry but no... We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer. You can't fulfill your potential i

Sorry but no... We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer. You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? Why would that change if you had 150 years? Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... We don't need drugs, technology and genetic engineering to live longer. We need less poverty (better/fairer distribution of wealth), less disease, and less war for a better quality of life. Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barley habitable world.

slfnflctd 11y ago
> You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? I would argue that no one can, if that is your 'control' group and your experimental group gets 750 years. > We need [...] a better quality of life. Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. > I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world. Well, neither of us can tell the future. However, I can imagine lots of scenarios where this isn't a problem, from a decline in birth rate (very likely, given well established trends), to exponentially better resource management (totally possible), to orbital habitats (less likely but not impossible). > Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... [...] Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. It's fine to agree to disagree, but when you start with "Sorry but no..." I can't help but be a tad annoyed.
- 01Michael10 11y ago
  >Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. > I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. Really? You ever been treated for depression? Maybe you should ask your Doctor about it... Sorry, if I am being harsh but your original comment and followup comment are very troubling to me. Life extension is BS. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first, then we can talk about living longer for individuals.
  - orangecat 11y ago
    The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. People often go through negative experiences; they generally don't kill themselves in response. I'd like to be around in 2200 even if there's another war and depression between now and then. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first We have been: http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report/report-card/twin-goals/ending-extreme-poverty http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-re... . And curing aging would tremendously reduce health care expenses, which benefits everyone. then we can talk about living longer for individuals Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone.
    - 01Michael10 11y ago
      > Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone. Huh? That is a response to me? What I am talking about is --> Hey, we treated your cancer so now you can go back to your .50 an hour job.
  - Retra 11y ago
    >Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. Really? Then why are we so adamant on building hospitals and stopping wars? Not dying is necessary prerequisite of having a quality life. What you're wanting is a quality death.
    - 01Michael10 11y ago
      Ummmm No... Sorry, you are confused.
  - slfnflctd 11y ago
    > Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first I agree with this in principle. Still, people are going to work on what their unique histories and interests lead them to, and I think it's far more likely that some of those people will discover life extension procedures than that we'll be able to convince everyone who isn't already working on building a beter, self-sustaining world for all to drop what they're doing and work only on that. Also, whether or not I'm depressed, there are plenty of people who hate death that aren't (aging scientists who know they won't be able to fully pass along their expertise, for example). Actually, I'm pretty sure this is why religion was invented, and why the majority of people still cling to it with a white-knuckled grip.
saiya-jin 11y ago
these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite. otherwise, this cash would be dedicated to matters you mention (and I fully agree with what you write). Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. Living till 120 just for the sake of living sounds more like a nightmare - that tells me they are terrified of death, meaning all are godless in their heart no matter how often they practice their religion. I welcome it (hopefully at proper age) - I will make room for another generation, just like the previous one did for me. I have my time here, and that's enough.
- orangecat 11y ago
  these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite Just like cell phones cost thousands of dollars and will only ever be toys for the rich. Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. That's exactly what we're saying: aging is awful, and we should fix it. I have my time here, and that's enough. And that's why you'll refuse all medical treatment after you turn 60, right? (The expected lifespan for 20 year old people in 1850, before our godless and unnatural medicine started working: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)
- skarap 11y ago
  > these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite This is probably what concerns me the most. And in fact this is already reality. E.g. in my country if an average person discovers they have cancer, their chances are pretty grim in contrast with e.g. Switzerland. And there are countries which are really poor where a infection which is curable for $20 can kill people. An interesting movie to watch on topic: In Time (2011) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ . This South Park episode is also exactly on point: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ .
derrickdirge 11y ago
You're assuming steady resource requirements and birthrate. Both of those things can change. You're also assuming we're eternally bound to this planet.
xlm1717 11y ago
People used to say the same 30 years ago of our current situation. "Who wants to be here in 30 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 7 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world." Apocalyptic predictions have a very poor record of being right, even those purportedly based in science. Why would that change if you had 150 years? It wouldn't necessarily change but you would have more time to fulfill your potential, giving you a better chance of doing so. Yeah, we need all the things you listed for a better quality of life. Being able to live without ageing would help a lot to improve quality of life too. It would definitely help with having less disease, since we would have less age-related diseases, which are the biggest burden on society today.

slfnflctd 11y ago

> You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? I would argue that no one can, if that is your 'control' group and your experimental group gets 750 years. > We need [...] a better quality of life. Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. > I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world. Well, neither of us can tell the future. However, I can imagine lots of scenarios where this isn't a problem, from a decline in birth rate (very likely, given well established trends), to exponentially better resource management (totally possible), to orbital habitats (less likely but not impossible). > Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... [...] Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. It's fine to agree to disagree, but when you start with "Sorry but no..." I can't help but be a tad annoyed.

01Michael10 11y ago
>Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. > I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. Really? You ever been treated for depression? Maybe you should ask your Doctor about it... Sorry, if I am being harsh but your original comment and followup comment are very troubling to me. Life extension is BS. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first, then we can talk about living longer for individuals.
- orangecat 11y ago
  The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. People often go through negative experiences; they generally don't kill themselves in response. I'd like to be around in 2200 even if there's another war and depression between now and then. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first We have been: http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report/report-card/twin-goals/ending-extreme-poverty http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-re... . And curing aging would tremendously reduce health care expenses, which benefits everyone. then we can talk about living longer for individuals Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone.
  - 01Michael10 11y ago
    > Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone. Huh? That is a response to me? What I am talking about is --> Hey, we treated your cancer so now you can go back to your .50 an hour job.
- Retra 11y ago
  >Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. Really? Then why are we so adamant on building hospitals and stopping wars? Not dying is necessary prerequisite of having a quality life. What you're wanting is a quality death.
  - 01Michael10 11y ago
    Ummmm No... Sorry, you are confused.
- slfnflctd 11y ago
  > Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first I agree with this in principle. Still, people are going to work on what their unique histories and interests lead them to, and I think it's far more likely that some of those people will discover life extension procedures than that we'll be able to convince everyone who isn't already working on building a beter, self-sustaining world for all to drop what they're doing and work only on that. Also, whether or not I'm depressed, there are plenty of people who hate death that aren't (aging scientists who know they won't be able to fully pass along their expertise, for example). Actually, I'm pretty sure this is why religion was invented, and why the majority of people still cling to it with a white-knuckled grip.

saiya-jin 11y ago

these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite. otherwise, this cash would be dedicated to matters you mention (and I fully agree with what you write). Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. Living till 120 just for the sake of living sounds more like a nightmare - that tells me they are terrified of death, meaning all are godless in their heart no matter how often they practice their religion. I welcome it (hopefully at proper age) - I will make room for another generation, just like the previous one did for me. I have my time here, and that's enough.

orangecat 11y ago
these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite Just like cell phones cost thousands of dollars and will only ever be toys for the rich. Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. That's exactly what we're saying: aging is awful, and we should fix it. I have my time here, and that's enough. And that's why you'll refuse all medical treatment after you turn 60, right? (The expected lifespan for 20 year old people in 1850, before our godless and unnatural medicine started working: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)
skarap 11y ago
> these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite This is probably what concerns me the most. And in fact this is already reality. E.g. in my country if an average person discovers they have cancer, their chances are pretty grim in contrast with e.g. Switzerland. And there are countries which are really poor where a infection which is curable for $20 can kill people. An interesting movie to watch on topic: In Time (2011) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ . This South Park episode is also exactly on point: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ .

derrickdirge 11y ago

You're assuming steady resource requirements and birthrate. Both of those things can change. You're also assuming we're eternally bound to this planet.

xlm1717 11y ago

People used to say the same 30 years ago of our current situation. "Who wants to be here in 30 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 7 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world." Apocalyptic predictions have a very poor record of being right, even those purportedly based in science. Why would that change if you had 150 years? It wouldn't necessarily change but you would have more time to fulfill your potential, giving you a better chance of doing so. Yeah, we need all the things you listed for a better quality of life. Being able to live without ageing would help a lot to improve quality of life too. It would definitely help with having less disease, since we would have less age-related diseases, which are the biggest burden on society today.