PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical: Extension of Lifetime


irishjayhawk
01-01-2008, 11:46 PM
If there was a drug that extended your lifespan to 150, then another advancement a few years later to 400 and exponentially from there, would you take it?

Assume this drug has no side effects. Or if you must have them for the hypothetical, they are like any other drugs with small headaches and things. Minor is the key.

So, would you take it?

Dave Lane
01-02-2008, 07:12 AM
But if you are a christian wouldn't this delay your meeting up with jesus? And would he be pissed you nade him wait?

dave

DenverChief
01-02-2008, 07:30 AM
But if you are a christian wouldn't this delay your meeting up with jesus? And would he be pissed you nade him wait?

dave

:LOL:

seriously ...in this hypo do you physically age or just stay the same as you were when you first took the drug?

patteeu
01-02-2008, 07:35 AM
I voted "YES" under the assumption that the extension was going to be a pretty good quality of life as opposed to 400 years in a nursing home or on a respirator.

memyselfI
01-02-2008, 08:13 AM
It would depend on the state and body of the mind. Would your physiological state be the same age as your chronological age? If so, why bother?

And then too, there is the ethical questions of overpopulation. Do we want a shift from being overpopulated with young to ancient?

I'd be inclined to say no but without the answers to theses questions then I wanted to keep my options open.

stevieray
01-02-2008, 08:40 AM
No.

why would anyone want to?

trndobrd
01-02-2008, 09:22 AM
No.

why would anyone want to?


400+ years of social security

Taco John
01-02-2008, 10:47 AM
I would do it. I think lifespans are way too short now.

Sully
01-02-2008, 10:55 AM
A few questions...
Would my quality of life be decent at all?(If it's horrible, like those we extend nowadays, then hell no)

Would my wife have access to the same pill? (Couldn't live that many years without her)

WOuld I be able to work for a higher percentage of years? (If I can't work, then how wold I support myself?)

memyselfI
01-02-2008, 11:21 AM
Would my wife have access to the same pill? (Couldn't live that many years without her)



Oh, that is like one of the sweetest things I've ever heard. :clap: :thumb: o:-)

On a football BB no less.

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:28 AM
I voted "YES" under the assumption that the extension was going to be a pretty good quality of life as opposed to 400 years in a nursing home or on a respirator.

Fair enough and something I should have clarified.

alpha_omega
01-02-2008, 11:31 AM
No thanks.....probably still not enough time to see our team win the SB.

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:31 AM
It would depend on the state and body of the mind. Would your physiological state be the same age as your chronological age? If so, why bother?

I think this is the same as patteeu's question, and I forgot to clarify it. You'd stay the same, aging nonetheless but VERY VERY slow.

And then too, there is the ethical questions of overpopulation. Do we want a shift from being overpopulated with young to ancient?

I knew this would come up. ACtually, this is one of the reasons I'm surprised that NASA or some other private industry isn't getting the funds to get into space. Imagine the 70Billion on Iraq going to getting us off the planet.


I'd be inclined to say no but without the answers to theses questions then I wanted to keep my options open.

Fair enough. If you had a gun to your head, what would you choose?

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:31 AM
A few questions...
Would my quality of life be decent at all?(If it's horrible, like those we extend nowadays, then hell no)

Would my wife have access to the same pill? (Couldn't live that many years without her)

WOuld I be able to work for a higher percentage of years? (If I can't work, then how wold I support myself?)

Yes. Everyone has access.

As for your last question, I'm not sure. I think society would figure itself out. :)

Adept Havelock
01-02-2008, 11:42 AM
If my Family and Friends have access, my answer is "Yes".

If not....probably not. I'm not cut out to be the next Lazarus Long.

memyselfI
01-02-2008, 11:43 AM
I think this is the same as patteeu's question, and I forgot to clarify it. You'd stay the same, aging nonetheless but VERY VERY slow.



I knew this would come up. ACtually, this is one of the reasons I'm surprised that NASA or some other private industry isn't getting the funds to get into space. Imagine the 70Billion on Iraq going to getting us off the planet.



Fair enough. If you had a gun to your head, what would you choose?

I'd have to say no. Just too many unknowns and insanely selfish. Interesting question though. Though I would be interested in something that would give a longer childhood and slow down the entire aging process.

jAZ
01-02-2008, 11:51 AM
Which planet would I be forced to move to? I see this one getting pretty damn crowded in such a scenario.

I think this hypothetical is more intersting than the idea of suddenly having immortality.

I don't know how I will feel later, but I feel good about being alive today. So I like the option of extending my life. But at some point, I might not agree. And the notion of never dieing is akin to the notion of never getting to sleep again.

On the surface it sounds great, but the reality is that sleeping is a great joy. Death might be the equivilant.

And what of reincarnation? What if all die only to be returned as something else. It would suck to lose out on the opportunity to be the next guy to nail Angelina Jolie. I don't see having a chance at that in my current lifetime.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 12:18 PM
For the people who say "NO", what's the difference between something like this and taking medicine (or having surgery) to keep life threatening conditions at bay? Or do you refuse those types of life extension too?

Nightfyre
01-02-2008, 12:25 PM
For the people who say "NO", what's the difference between something like this and taking medicine (or having surgery) to keep life threatening conditions at bay? Or do you refuse those types of life extension too?
I am thinking about getting a DNR completed. The world is vastly overpopulated with human beings. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I feel it is my obligation to adopt and die (relatively) young.

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 12:27 PM
I am thinking about getting a DNR completed. The world is vastly overpopulated with human beings. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I feel it is my obligation to adopt and die (relatively) young.
Isn't overpopulation something that:

a) can be overcome?
b) that should be focused on (space exploration, moon colonization (if possible), etc etc)

I see overpopulation as an obstacle as to why EVERYONE wouldn't be able to take it, but as we can see, not everyone would. And further, it's an obstacle so far as we don't actually work towards removing it.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 12:33 PM
I am thinking about getting a DNR completed. The world is vastly overpopulated with human beings. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I feel it is my obligation to adopt and die (relatively) young.

I'd rethink that, if I were you, when you have a family. At least as long as you are in good health. Otherwise, more power to you.

Iowanian
01-02-2008, 12:37 PM
Possibly the 150....but it would depend on alot of factors.

I wouldn't likely do it for a couple of reasons, one being I wouldn't want to watch my children and grandchildren and friends and family all die.

I'm thinking this pill wouldn't save your life for that many years anyway. You're exposed more to crime, accidents, war, terrorism and phsical ailments that aren't disease caused.(arthritis etc).

I'll take every day God gives me, and hope I do enough with it.

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 12:52 PM
Possibly the 150....but it would depend on alot of factors.

I wouldn't likely do it for a couple of reasons, one being I wouldn't want to watch my children and grandchildren and friends and family all die.

I think that point is moot since everyone has access to it.


I'm thinking this pill wouldn't save your life for that many years anyway. You're exposed more to crime, accidents, war, terrorism and phsical ailments that aren't disease caused.(arthritis etc).

I'll take every day God gives me, and hope I do enough with it.

Yes, all those wouldn't be covered....

Nightfyre
01-02-2008, 12:54 PM
I'd rethink that, if I were you, when you have a family. At least as long as you are in good health. Otherwise, more power to you.
As long as I am not a burden to society and/or my family. I obviously don't have a wish to be dead hehe.

Nightfyre
01-02-2008, 12:58 PM
Isn't overpopulation something that:

a) can be overcome?
b) that should be focused on (space exploration, moon colonization (if possible), etc etc)

I see overpopulation as an obstacle as to why EVERYONE wouldn't be able to take it, but as we can see, not everyone would. And further, it's an obstacle so far as we don't actually work towards removing it.
Sure, overpopulation can be overcome one of three ways:
1) Individuals taking the personal responsibility seriously (What I'm doing)
2) Massive government intervention (Something I don't believe in)
3) The eventual and inevitable collapse of the species due to massive food shortages/pollution/lack of space/whatever.

I suspect #3 will occur before #1 and #2 are implemented on a globally significant scale.

Iowanian
01-02-2008, 01:19 PM
This is probably more of a concern for those afraid to die, because they think this is it.

Chief Henry
01-02-2008, 03:08 PM
If you can avoid cancer and heart disease, many of you will see 95 to 100 years of age. Plan accordingly.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 03:15 PM
Who the heck wants to be Methusaluh and eat lentil stew kosher for another 300 years or so. I don't want to look like a leathery old hag that's post-menopausal like forever!!!!! What fun is that?

Nope NOT me!
I think they musta had a pill like this, or its herbal equivalent back in early Biblical days.

memyselfI
01-02-2008, 03:26 PM
For the people who say "NO", what's the difference between something like this and taking medicine (or having surgery) to keep life threatening conditions at bay? Or do you refuse those types of life extension too?

Because you are doing those things to keep living WITHIN A NORMAL LIFE EXPECTANCY. What has been described here in the original post is anything but normal.

BIG_DADDY
01-02-2008, 03:34 PM
Because you are doing those things to keep living WITHIN A NORMAL LIFE EXPECTANCY. What has been described here in the original post is anything but normal.

You are the best reason rolling to justify shortening life expectancy.

BIG_DADDY
01-02-2008, 03:40 PM
As long as I had a quality of life then I would most likely.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 03:47 PM
Because you are doing those things to keep living WITHIN A NORMAL LIFE EXPECTANCY. What has been described here in the original post is anything but normal.

It's only a "normal life expectancy" because modern medicine (along with other factors like nutritional improvements) has extended it well beyond what it was even a century ago. I still don't see the difference here. This is just a wonder drug that extends the normal life expectancy out another 400 years. Sign me up.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 03:51 PM
It's only a "normal life expectancy" because modern medicine (along with other factors like nutritional improvements) has extended it well beyond what it was even a century ago.

Actually, if Biblical ages are true, ( Wasn't Noah like 300 sg yrs old?) our life expectancy has declined. Today, there are some peoples who live on average well past 100 like 140 iirc up in the Himalayas. Mineral rich soil with crops grown above the pollution line. Maybe there's more to environmental destruction theories afterall? :hmmm:

Ultra Peanut
01-02-2008, 05:21 PM
**** yes. I want to see the amazing shit that's going to happen 200 years from now.

trndobrd
01-02-2008, 05:25 PM
**** yes. I want to see the amazing shit that's going to happen 200 years from now.

mlyonsd
01-02-2008, 05:28 PM
Question....

Do I have to continually take the pill or once I take it am I good for the first 150 years?

I see two problems...the first being of course I have to keep taking the pills and I quit paying attention and my wife puts placebos in the medicine bottle.

The second is I just had an 11 day vacation and got so bored I was sorting/arranging the screws in my screw organizer yesterday. For some reason all of a sudden I didn't like the idea of wood screws mingling with metal screws.

Anyway, I'm not sure of how good an old retired fart I'm going to be so would like the option of dropping off the pill and having a pleasant heart attack to end the monotony.

BIG_DADDY
01-02-2008, 05:29 PM
**** yes. I want to see the amazing shit that's going to happen 200 years from now.


With your hormone replacement therapy your mouse ears are going to last longer than you.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 05:52 PM
Actually, if Biblical ages are true, ( Wasn't Noah like 300 sg yrs old?) our life expectancy has declined. Today, there are some peoples who live on average well past 100 like 140 iirc up in the Himalayas. Mineral rich soil with crops grown above the pollution line. Maybe there's more to environmental destruction theories afterall? :hmmm:

Please don't push me into irishjayhawk's arms. I'm talking about recorded history (and not the kind that is recorded in the bible). Life expectancy has clearly and dramatically risen, especially since the birth of modern medicine.

Ultra Peanut
01-02-2008, 06:12 PM
With your hormone replacement therapy your mouse ears are going to last longer than you.SURE THING BRAH

SPOT ME BRAH

high five brah

Hydrae
01-02-2008, 06:17 PM
I would probably go for the first one but after that, no. I don't know what happens after death but in some ways I am looking forward to discovering the answers to that mystery. I have never wanted to live forever and I think a few more years would be plenty.

Of course on about my 140th b-day (2100) I may have changed my mind. :)

patteeu
01-02-2008, 06:28 PM
I would probably go for the first one but after that, no. I don't know what happens after death but in some ways I am looking forward to discovering the answers to that mystery. I have never wanted to live forever and I think a few more years would be plenty.

Of course on about my 140th b-day (2100) I may have changed my mind. :)

Can I have your unused pills?

Hydrae
01-02-2008, 06:44 PM
Can I have your unused pills?


Sure, I won't be using them at that point.


Actually, I wonder what I could get for them on e-bay. :)

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:36 PM
This is probably more of a concern for those afraid to die, because they think this is it.

Or for people who don't subscribe to your belief system and aren't afraid one way or the other. :shrug:

irishjayhawk
01-02-2008, 11:36 PM
Question....

Do I have to continually take the pill or once I take it am I good for the first 150 years?

I see two problems...the first being of course I have to keep taking the pills and I quit paying attention and my wife puts placebos in the medicine bottle.

The second is I just had an 11 day vacation and got so bored I was sorting/arranging the screws in my screw organizer yesterday. For some reason all of a sudden I didn't like the idea of wood screws mingling with metal screws.

Anyway, I'm not sure of how good an old retired fart I'm going to be so would like the option of dropping off the pill and having a pleasant heart attack to end the monotony.

Yes, you'd have to continue taking the pills. And I think you've got bigger issues if your wife is trying to kill you. :p

a1na2
01-03-2008, 06:10 AM
If you take a nap for 200 years what kind of world will you wake up to?

Think about the differences between 1808 and 2008.

This is all speculation on my part, but think about the future that you cannot track from now forward.

You will be a man/woman without a country, without a working knowledge of how to function. You will not be able to defend yourself based on the laws of the time. You will not be immunized against any diseases that may be prevalent at the time. You may not survive the nap because of natural disaster or even war.

Even if your life sucks at the moment, now is your time.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 06:50 AM
http://i5.tinypic.com/6lnovw9.jpg

DaKCMan AP
01-03-2008, 07:39 AM
Who needs the drugs? I already plan on living forever, so far so good.

memyselfI
01-03-2008, 08:54 AM
It's only a "normal life expectancy" because modern medicine (along with other factors like nutritional improvements) has extended it well beyond what it was even a century ago. I still don't see the difference here. This is just a wonder drug that extends the normal life expectancy out another 400 years. Sign me up.

But the normal life expectancy changes have been incremental and have not been the severe nature that the OP is talking. Increasing life expectancy by 10-20 over a 100+ year period is not the same as increasing it by 50-300 years by taking a pill over a period of time.

patteeu
01-03-2008, 11:10 AM
If you take a nap for 200 years what kind of world will you wake up to?

Think about the differences between 1808 and 2008.

This is all speculation on my part, but think about the future that you cannot track from now forward.

You will be a man/woman without a country, without a working knowledge of how to function. You will not be able to defend yourself based on the laws of the time. You will not be immunized against any diseases that may be prevalent at the time. You may not survive the nap because of natural disaster or even war.

Even if your life sucks at the moment, now is your time.


Nobody said anything about sleeping for 200 years. This is a life extension drug not a Rip Van Winkle tranquilizer.

patteeu
01-03-2008, 11:12 AM
But the normal life expectancy changes have been incremental and have not been the severe nature that the OP is talking. Increasing life expectancy by 10-20 over a 100+ year period is not the same as increasing it by 50-300 years by taking a pill over a period of time.

It's not the same, duh, but I don't see any difference that matters. What level of change in the normal life expectancy over what period of time do you deem acceptable?

memyselfI
01-03-2008, 12:46 PM
It's not the same, duh, but I don't see any difference that matters. What level of change in the normal life expectancy over what period of time do you deem acceptable?

The difference being that the world has been able to absorb the increase in life expectancy because it did not happen all at once and for exceedingly long periods of time to EVERYONE. As it stands now, the increase is for some but not all. Resources have been strained but for the most part the increase has not put all of humanity at risk the way the scenario OP introduced could.

Chief Henry
01-03-2008, 03:26 PM
Who's money will you be living off of when you live that long ?

stevieray
01-03-2008, 03:43 PM
just like it's hard to imagine life at forty when you are twenty, the same holds true for being seventy-five and imagining a hundred and fifty..

That said, I think that at some you are making just being alive your purpose, rather than your life having purpose, intent and signification.

Adept Havelock
01-03-2008, 04:27 PM
That said, I think that at some you are making just being alive your purpose, rather than your life having purpose, intent and signification.

Perhaps some do. I just figure I have a greater chance of "having purpose, intent, and signification" while viable than I do as a handful of ashes blown in the wind or a rotting husk in a box. :shrug:

mlyonsd
01-03-2008, 06:01 PM
Who's money will you be living off of when you live that long ?

Chelsea Clinton will have SS all figured out by then.