4 ms·

Good question, what could go wrong? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

ams6110 15y ago
Human society and psychology is has evolved within the confines of a 50 - 100 year typical lifespan. Keeping your cells alive and functioning longer than that might become possible and even affordable some day, but it seems to me that would only bring many new non-medical problems we would have to confront.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > Human society and psychology is has evolved within the confines of a 50 - 100 year typical lifespan. Wasn't the average life expectancy for a pre-agriculture society under 40? We somehow made it over that huddle, nearly doubling our lifespan.
  - adamtj 15y ago
    Life expectancy might not be what you think it is. Life expectancy is average expected lifetime at a particular age. We usually talk about life expectancy at birth. If a population has a high infant mortality rate, then life expectancy at birth may be 40, but life expectancy at 10 years of age might be 70. I can't name a source off hand, but I believe I've read that infant mortality is a large factor in low life expectancies. In other words, we may not have significantly increased lifespans, and may have simply solved the major infant mortality problems.
ryandvm 15y ago
7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring might put a bit of a strain on our natural resources. Or if you're going to halt all reproduction then you've just ended human evolution. Those seem like good starting points for a discussion on the ramifications of immortality. That said, I'm more of a shoot first, aim later kind of guy so I say go for it...
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > 7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring This assumes that literally the only change will be that we won't die. Society changes to accomodate technology. Or do you have 13 siblings to help you work the family farm?
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  If we continue in recent trends, people are having less and less children. We're heading towards negative population growth. http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_crash_ext2010 http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_cra...
- gte910h 15y ago
  People have vastly curtailed their childbearing world over: http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-rates-in-decline/ http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-rates-... Even with no death from aging/age-related diseases, insurance company actuaries still see you dying around 500-600. These two things together make me think this is all okay 1> Especially if fertility/birth defects no longer get worse with age, people will hold off on having kids. 2> It won't swell the world population as much as many think it will due to the fact that costs still limit people.

Human society and psychology is has evolved within the confines of a 50 - 100 year typical lifespan. Keeping your cells alive and functioning longer than that might become possible and even affordable some day, but it seems to me that would only bring many new non-medical problems we would have to confront.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> Human society and psychology is has evolved within the confines of a 50 - 100 year typical lifespan. Wasn't the average life expectancy for a pre-agriculture society under 40? We somehow made it over that huddle, nearly doubling our lifespan.
- adamtj 15y ago
  Life expectancy might not be what you think it is. Life expectancy is average expected lifetime at a particular age. We usually talk about life expectancy at birth. If a population has a high infant mortality rate, then life expectancy at birth may be 40, but life expectancy at 10 years of age might be 70. I can't name a source off hand, but I believe I've read that infant mortality is a large factor in low life expectancies. In other words, we may not have significantly increased lifespans, and may have simply solved the major infant mortality problems.

ryandvm 15y ago

7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring might put a bit of a strain on our natural resources. Or if you're going to halt all reproduction then you've just ended human evolution. Those seem like good starting points for a discussion on the ramifications of immortality. That said, I'm more of a shoot first, aim later kind of guy so I say go for it...

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> 7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring This assumes that literally the only change will be that we won't die. Society changes to accomodate technology. Or do you have 13 siblings to help you work the family farm?
michaelchisari 15y ago
If we continue in recent trends, people are having less and less children. We're heading towards negative population growth. http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_crash_ext2010 http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_cra...
gte910h 15y ago
People have vastly curtailed their childbearing world over: http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-rates-in-decline/ http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-rates-... Even with no death from aging/age-related diseases, insurance company actuaries still see you dying around 500-600. These two things together make me think this is all okay 1> Especially if fertility/birth defects no longer get worse with age, people will hold off on having kids. 2> It won't swell the world population as much as many think it will due to the fact that costs still limit people.