3 ms·

Yes I mean ethically the idea of a single treatment extending life so dramatically doesn't sit well with me. I appreciate the need to improve quality of life i

Yes I mean ethically the idea of a single treatment extending life so dramatically doesn't sit well with me. I appreciate the need to improve quality of life in old age.

tolmasky 14y ago
So is your concern that the quality of life would degrade as the rate it does now (so in other words, you don't want really miserable 110 year olds). Or, are you saying, even if we extended life and kept you feeling healthy for the same proportion as now, just longer (so things were now fine and dandy until, let's say, you're 80 and then slowly degrade to 110), you would still have a problem with it?
- andrewfelix 14y ago
  What the researchers seem to be suggesting is extending life for no specific reason, other than preventing the complications that are associated with aging that can and do eventually lead to death. So my issue is; there is no great societal benefit to just extending life for the sake of it, as opposed to say, making people more comfortable in their old age. IMO the world would not benefit from millions of people living until they're 130 years old.
  - xiaoma 14y ago
    At what age then, do you feel people's lives should be terminated?
  - Nursie 14y ago
    So? Screw society and 'the world', the question is have you got a damn good reason why I, as an individual, should not be allowed to extend my life if I can afford both the treatment and to support myself?
nicholassmith 14y ago
People are downvoting you because they disagree with you, and not on the quality of your argument. Which I disagree with, but it's valid. The way I'm taking it is that you think humans should live a natural life span, rather than an unnatural one boosted by a treatment, as the risk could be upheaval to our already tenuous social situation due to rising old age and supporting that. However, if a life span is extended using this treatment by a factor of, lets say conservatively 15%, and helps offset some of the illness related to ageing (heart disease etc) then that's partially resolved the situation. There's two ways it'd go, it'd be cheap enough for many people to afford, or pricy enough for the top 10% to afford. Either way society as a whole would adapt to the change, if it's cheap and everyone can afford it then the mandatory retirement age would be lifted. We'd all be a lot healthier and we'd be capable of working longer, so pensions would take a lot longer to kick in, as would dependence on the state. If the top 10% get it we'll have a lot of rich, long living folk doing what rich, long living folk do. Making more money. Spending more money. Society will probably adapt around that again. It has the potential to make life on this planet untenable, but imagine what humanity could achieve if people had another 20% of time to work in. The discoveries scientists could make knowing that 20 years from being 35 they've still got chance to do another 20 year project, so fully invested in solving the problems that would take 20 years without worry it's worthless. (I also disagree with everyone suggesting you'd be a fan of eugenics as well, as that seems out of line with that fact you seem to be a proponent of naturalised life spans)
bitwize 14y ago
The best way to improve quality of life towards the end is to end your life early, hence my support for legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

Yes I mean ethically the idea of a single treatment extending life so dramatically doesn't sit well with me. I appreciate the need to improve quality of life in old age.

tolmasky 14y ago

So is your concern that the quality of life would degrade as the rate it does now (so in other words, you don't want really miserable 110 year olds). Or, are you saying, even if we extended life and kept you feeling healthy for the same proportion as now, just longer (so things were now fine and dandy until, let's say, you're 80 and then slowly degrade to 110), you would still have a problem with it?

andrewfelix 14y ago
What the researchers seem to be suggesting is extending life for no specific reason, other than preventing the complications that are associated with aging that can and do eventually lead to death. So my issue is; there is no great societal benefit to just extending life for the sake of it, as opposed to say, making people more comfortable in their old age. IMO the world would not benefit from millions of people living until they're 130 years old.
- xiaoma 14y ago
  At what age then, do you feel people's lives should be terminated?
- Nursie 14y ago
  So? Screw society and 'the world', the question is have you got a damn good reason why I, as an individual, should not be allowed to extend my life if I can afford both the treatment and to support myself?

nicholassmith 14y ago

People are downvoting you because they disagree with you, and not on the quality of your argument. Which I disagree with, but it's valid. The way I'm taking it is that you think humans should live a natural life span, rather than an unnatural one boosted by a treatment, as the risk could be upheaval to our already tenuous social situation due to rising old age and supporting that. However, if a life span is extended using this treatment by a factor of, lets say conservatively 15%, and helps offset some of the illness related to ageing (heart disease etc) then that's partially resolved the situation. There's two ways it'd go, it'd be cheap enough for many people to afford, or pricy enough for the top 10% to afford. Either way society as a whole would adapt to the change, if it's cheap and everyone can afford it then the mandatory retirement age would be lifted. We'd all be a lot healthier and we'd be capable of working longer, so pensions would take a lot longer to kick in, as would dependence on the state. If the top 10% get it we'll have a lot of rich, long living folk doing what rich, long living folk do. Making more money. Spending more money. Society will probably adapt around that again. It has the potential to make life on this planet untenable, but imagine what humanity could achieve if people had another 20% of time to work in. The discoveries scientists could make knowing that 20 years from being 35 they've still got chance to do another 20 year project, so fully invested in solving the problems that would take 20 years without worry it's worthless. (I also disagree with everyone suggesting you'd be a fan of eugenics as well, as that seems out of line with that fact you seem to be a proponent of naturalised life spans)

bitwize 14y ago

The best way to improve quality of life towards the end is to end your life early, hence my support for legalization of physician-assisted suicide.