Longer Lifetimes, Good or Bad?

42 posts

Flag Post

What are your opinions on a longer lifetime? By this, I don’t mean living to 150, I mean living to 500 or more.

I think its too unnatural, you should only live as long as your body lasts. It is straying too far from the natural laws of Human Impermanence.

 
Flag Post

Certainly not. I don’t know about natural ‘laws’ but the overcrowding and drain on the planet’s resources is already bad enough without artificially extending our lifespans further.

 
Flag Post

“Natural” fallacy. I’ll live as long as I can manage by any means necessary. The same technologies that will allow us to live longer lives will allow us to manage our resources more efficiently.

Perhaps if we were a little LESS impermanent we might get a little better at long term planning.

 
Flag Post

Not to mention that if you believe the Bible is was actually perfectly natural for humans to live hundreds of years.

 
Flag Post

I don’t know why, but I get this feeling that if you live too long you are holding something back.

 
Flag Post

That’s nice, and if you don’t want to live for a long time, no one is forcing you to. But don’t talk about whether of not you should be able to make that same decision for the rest of us.

 
Flag Post

Have you read the Dune series? In particular, Sandworms (the last book of the continuation).

Erasmus concludes that the one thing that seperates thinking machines from humans is death, and in a fairly cliche ending asks Paul to guide him through that last phase.

I don’t think a longer lifetime is a bad thing. You’re going to die eventually, but there is no real reason for that to happen when your body would have expired.

Remember that during ages past, you would be lucky to live to 30. If you’re going to suggest that “We shouldn’t live longer because it’s unnatural”, you have to realise that if it wasn’t for “unnatural” medicine and surgery we wouldn’t be living as long as we do now.

 
Flag Post

I don’t really care if it’s ‘unnatural’, but if we start living for 500 years and the birth rate stays at the same level, the population of earth is going to increase far beyond our ability to cope with it. Unless we manage cold fusion or something, or colonise other planets, living for that long would cripple us as a species. We’d just strip the earth bare.

 
Flag Post

I don’t know why you are being so rude, Redem. I’m not forcing my opinion onto anyone :\

 
Flag Post

But don’t talk about whether of not you should be able to make that same decision for the rest of us.

It’s called the serious discussion forum for a reason dude.

 
Flag Post

That’s always the issue with this kinda thing. Those against being against other people being able to decide for themselves.

It’s academic at the moment, of course.

 
Flag Post

Im made of straw. I live forever.

 
Flag Post

I don’t really care if it’s ‘unnatural’, but if we start living for 500 years and the birth rate stays at the same level, the population of earth is going to increase far beyond our ability to cope with it. Unless we manage cold fusion or something, or colonise other planets, living for that long would cripple us as a species. We’d just strip the earth bare.

Natural Selection. If it doesn’t work for us, then long lifetimes will eventually be impossible, why not try? Plus, there is almost no means to this kind of longevity other than a radical change in our genetic code… Our body naturally shuts itself down over time…

 
Flag Post

Who said life has to be linked to your body? It’s not entirely out of the question that neurons, or at least something “close enough”, can be created artificially. From there, if new neurons are introduced into the brain to replace those that die off, all other bodily functions can be replaced entirely.

 
Flag Post

we would out grow our resources= LOSE-LOSE

 
Flag Post

But just think – with everything silicon-based, we wouldn’t need food, or transportation! That completely eliminates the two major resource consumption processes.

 
Flag Post

Yeah but you wouldn’t be human.

 
Flag Post

This thread is making me jealous of those huge turtles at the zoo.

But when i think about it, they don’t seem to be enjoying there 250 year long lives. However that might be because there in a zoo. But I think not.

 
Flag Post

Yeah but you wouldn’t be human.

Define “Human”.

Me personally, I prefer to define it based on psychological aspects rather than physical aspects. Is an amputee human? What about someone with a pacemaker? Artificial leg? Artificial body?

And even if you do define being “human” based on physical characteristics, I don’t really care about being “human” as much as I care about being “me”. And I define myself based on psychology, rather than physiology.

 
Flag Post

When you’re making arguments based on what people say in fiction, keep in mind that nobody has ever lived more than 130 years. Any comments about “not being human” are pure conjecture.

 
Flag Post

As things are now, it’d definitely be pretty hard to imagine. It’d also severely deplete the worlds resources. IF new technologies in the field of better resource management and production can keep up with increasing life spans, then then it becomes more practical. The future is absurdly hard to accurately predict sometimes, particularly long term predictions like this one. Overall, though, if such a thing would be possible, it’d probably have to be people who are in the elite classes of society, though that’d take the discussion into a different argument.

Assuming that all of it is possible and that your family, friends, etc. also keep up with you (as in they die earlier while you keep going), it’d be pretty awesome to see how things change and develop. I’d probably be too severely by nostalgia, though, I think. However, if prolonging life is by becoming some bionic creature, I don’t think that it’s worth it. There are too many other directions to be focusing resources on and likely massive gaps between life expectancies.

I suppose that also depends upon the environment that people grow up in. Some want to wring out every last second that they can find, while others are more willing to accept death.

Sorry for the long and somewhat fragmented post <.< >.>

 
Flag Post

It’s something I think about alot
I reckon living to 100 should be a good target for an average. Anything higher is… well pointless. After a while you’d probably run out of things you want to / could do.

 
Flag Post

Would I want to? It depends.

Would I have the means to survive, to eat, to make money? Would I be healthy, energetic, or a vegetable like old woman knitting in a chair?

I have to say, I love my life as it is right now, so I wouldn’t mind it lasting longer, provided the people in my life that I love are there to share it with me. Without these people in my life, my family, I’d rather be dead honestly.

 
Flag Post

Your body surviving isn’t half as important as your mind surviving. How many truly innovative minds are there over the age of 70? Innovation is pretty much dead after about 50. I’m only 25, and already I can feel my mind getting set in tracks, less interested in exploring and more convinced that thus is so. I don’t care to live past 70 unless my mind lives with me in a healthy condition. If I’m just bumming around playing Go at 70, I’d rather just expire.

 
Flag Post

Excellent point….
Why do all the smart people die young :/