3 ms·

I'd rather have the choice. I have no choice with ageing. The same is true of "immortality". What immortality really means is that you kind of have a choice of

by salient 13y ago

I'd rather have the choice. I have no choice with ageing. The same is true of "immortality". What immortality really means is that you kind of have a choice of not disappearing forever (well unless a car runs you down or something, but in the future that can probably be fixed, too, by "backing ourselves up").

ams6110 13y ago
Rather selfish? We'll have enough problems in the coming decades with geriatric baby boomers, you now want to give people the option to live forever?
- rjknight 13y ago
  If they have fewer kids then where's the harm?
  - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
    This is very true. It's proven itself over and over in history. The more stable, healthy, and developed a country is the less children it has. Europe and East Asian countries are having this problem right now as both have negative population growth. In fact this might be the solution to over population. If I knew I'd live to 150 I'd probably wait till I'm 75 to reproduce and replace myself with children.
    - VLM 13y ago
      Well, you've outed "Chris" as the male form of the name "Chris" as there are certain female reproductive system issues where once you're outta eggs thats all folks. Dudes are fertile to a ripe old age. So at 75 you need a wife 1/3 your age. The cultural issues could be pretty huge if women are only fertile for a small fraction of their life and dudes are fertile for X times as long as women. Or maybe it becomes a cultural "job" of young people to churn out kids as fast as possible for old people to raise them, which we seem to already be implementing in certain socioeconomic classes.
      - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
        Good point. But I'm sure that's a problem that will be solved by that time. Not sure if this is 100% true but "It had been widely accepted that a woman was born with a limited number of eggs [...] But, in 2012 this dogma was challenged in a paper that found proliferative germ cells that sustain oocyte and follicle production in the postnatal mammalian ovary. This means that women do not have a limited number of eggs."
        VLM 13y ago
        OK interesting, but the larger scale problem exists now where most 75 year old women are infertile. That could be "fixed" by yet another medical breakthru.
        zzzeek 13y ago
        that's an ongoing debate but does not change the fact that women hit menopause in their mid 40's right now. disclaimer: my wife and I have spent about $100K over the past 6 years trying to get pregnant, including several IVFs and a failed donor cycle (that's where you write a check for $30000 and flush it down the toilet).
- salient 13y ago
  No. Survival is our strongest instinct. Besides, human population will plateau around 10 billion or so, and we're already seeing trends, from very early ones to pretty advanced ones (Japan), where people decide not to have kids anymore in modern societies, or even have sex with other humans. You're thinking immortality would be a problem given the current conditions. But the conditions will be different in the future. The same will be true for food production, which should be vastly more efficient in the future, and enough to feed everyone.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    We can already feed everyone. The problem is distribution, not production.
- moe 13y ago
  I have a hunch this is a technology that will take very long to 'trickle down' the forbes list.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Obamacare won't cover it, then?
  - orangecat 13y ago
    I don't. An effective anti-aging treatment would likely pay for itself in Medicare savings alone.
- melling 13y ago
  This comment must fall under some FAQ. Someone always brings it up in the "What if humans could live a lot longer." I'm sure that it's trivial to answer and has been answered a million times.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  First of all, generations are pipelined. If we live twice as long, the world needs to support twice as many people, not infinitely many. Secondly of all, one of the problems with the baby boomer generation was just the "boom". The growth was not continued/sustained. Thirdly of all, I figure with people spending proportionally more of their lives in a field instead of in school, plus population pressures, we'll figure out how to colonize other planets pretty quick :)
- indrax 13y ago
  You want to let everyone die to maintain solvency?

by salient 13y ago

ams6110 13y ago

Rather selfish? We'll have enough problems in the coming decades with geriatric baby boomers, you now want to give people the option to live forever?

rjknight 13y ago
If they have fewer kids then where's the harm?
- ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
  This is very true. It's proven itself over and over in history. The more stable, healthy, and developed a country is the less children it has. Europe and East Asian countries are having this problem right now as both have negative population growth. In fact this might be the solution to over population. If I knew I'd live to 150 I'd probably wait till I'm 75 to reproduce and replace myself with children.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Well, you've outed "Chris" as the male form of the name "Chris" as there are certain female reproductive system issues where once you're outta eggs thats all folks. Dudes are fertile to a ripe old age. So at 75 you need a wife 1/3 your age. The cultural issues could be pretty huge if women are only fertile for a small fraction of their life and dudes are fertile for X times as long as women. Or maybe it becomes a cultural "job" of young people to churn out kids as fast as possible for old people to raise them, which we seem to already be implementing in certain socioeconomic classes.
    - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
      Good point. But I'm sure that's a problem that will be solved by that time. Not sure if this is 100% true but "It had been widely accepted that a woman was born with a limited number of eggs [...] But, in 2012 this dogma was challenged in a paper that found proliferative germ cells that sustain oocyte and follicle production in the postnatal mammalian ovary. This means that women do not have a limited number of eggs."
      - VLM 13y ago
        OK interesting, but the larger scale problem exists now where most 75 year old women are infertile. That could be "fixed" by yet another medical breakthru.
      - zzzeek 13y ago
        that's an ongoing debate but does not change the fact that women hit menopause in their mid 40's right now. disclaimer: my wife and I have spent about $100K over the past 6 years trying to get pregnant, including several IVFs and a failed donor cycle (that's where you write a check for $30000 and flush it down the toilet).
salient 13y ago
No. Survival is our strongest instinct. Besides, human population will plateau around 10 billion or so, and we're already seeing trends, from very early ones to pretty advanced ones (Japan), where people decide not to have kids anymore in modern societies, or even have sex with other humans. You're thinking immortality would be a problem given the current conditions. But the conditions will be different in the future. The same will be true for food production, which should be vastly more efficient in the future, and enough to feed everyone.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  We can already feed everyone. The problem is distribution, not production.
moe 13y ago
I have a hunch this is a technology that will take very long to 'trickle down' the forbes list.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Obamacare won't cover it, then?
- orangecat 13y ago
  I don't. An effective anti-aging treatment would likely pay for itself in Medicare savings alone.
melling 13y ago
This comment must fall under some FAQ. Someone always brings it up in the "What if humans could live a lot longer." I'm sure that it's trivial to answer and has been answered a million times.
sliverstorm 13y ago
First of all, generations are pipelined. If we live twice as long, the world needs to support twice as many people, not infinitely many. Secondly of all, one of the problems with the baby boomer generation was just the "boom". The growth was not continued/sustained. Thirdly of all, I figure with people spending proportionally more of their lives in a field instead of in school, plus population pressures, we'll figure out how to colonize other planets pretty quick :)
indrax 13y ago
You want to let everyone die to maintain solvency?