-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should we end aging forever? - Kurzgesagt
- Thread starter Litan
- Start date
nkarafo
Member
I think of the generations who lived in the past, like during the dark, medieval ages and think "these poor people were born at the worst times. They missed everything". And then i think about the future, how will the world be in 200-300 years from now... People in that time-frame will remember us and wonder "how did they live like that?"
I like the idea of living forever only so i can witness everything and not miss a thing, good or bad. Maybe die when humanity dies but if it doesn't i would like to be around. Just imagine all the things you miss in the far future because you won't exist. Who knows, maybe we will become a type 3 civilization some day.
I like the idea of living forever only so i can witness everything and not miss a thing, good or bad. Maybe die when humanity dies but if it doesn't i would like to be around. Just imagine all the things you miss in the far future because you won't exist. Who knows, maybe we will become a type 3 civilization some day.
We are still not quite type 1 atm.
Your reaction is the odd one. I'd rather not have a genetically perfected caste of rich overlords who get to experience the full benefits of human technology while a permanent underclass has to work and die for them.
And let's be honest, there would be a massive race divide as well.
Dreamwriter
Member
This is kind-of like the movie In Time - in that movie, people stop aging at 25. Potentially to solve overpopulation and resource issues (the movie never really gets into the backstory of how/why this all came to be), lifetime has become a currency - at the age of 25, you are given one more year to live, and you pay for everything with this time - an hour and a half for a bus ride, four hours for a cup of coffee, etc. In that world, the rich can basically live forever, while the poor live literally day to day, starting each day with 24 hours to live, getting paid daily for their work. And the rich control the economy, always raising prices to make sure the poor cant improve their situations.
LordKasual
Banned
it's already way too many people on earth
If every nation consumed energy the way the US does (which i assume is what the world wants) then it would be even more obvious
This, and I choose the first without hesitation.
Implement a breeding licence to have children, boom.
Too late for me (and probably all of us), though.
I wouldn't personally want to end it, but obviously everyone can't live forever in a sustainable society. There would have to be some kind of limit.
Wowfunhappy
Member
If we built our economy and grid on wind and solar energy, and didn't sell everything wrapped in disposable plastic, the world would be a lot more sustainable. And yes, it's perfectly possible to do this without going back to the stone age.
The problem isn't people, the problem is an unwillingness to change. Maybe if we all lived longer, we'd be more mindful of our futures.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
We will be able to colonize the universe much quicker this way, plus it would render the time to travel at sublight irrelevant.
If we didn't have to worry about aging or reproducing in space we have the ability to build relativistic ships right now to take ageless immortal people to other star systems.
If we didn't have to worry about aging or reproducing in space we have the ability to build relativistic ships right now to take ageless immortal people to other star systems.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Even if I could live forever, I still wouldn't want to spend millennia in a spaceship, lol. That's still time I'd have to live through.
ChubbyHuggs
Member
No, people should die.
These threads are always full of the most annoying, erroneous assumptions.
For starters, developed nations are already below replenishment levels of reproduction. It goes without saying that access to even greater healthspans (note: not even talking about lifespans here, just the length of time during which you are at your prime of health) would decrease the pace of reproduction even further, simply due to the nature of human planning and prioritization. More time available to do what you want -> less pressure to make kids NOW -> fewer kids in general.
Secondly, accidental causes of death still happen, and while a huge contributor to this will go away in the near future (thanks to self-driving vehicles), there will still inevitably be a large number of people who expire simply due to freak accidents even with True Immortality. In combination with the above, it is fair (if not safe) to assume that a population crisis would not present itself in anywhere near the time that many in this thread would purport it to.
Oh yeah, thirdly, the vast majority of population growth is still in undeveloped nations. See first point. It will plateau eventually, given enough development, but of course that would mean giving them the resources to do so. At any rate, you can bet that folks in developed countries would have far less access to such remedies than anyone in a developed country.
Finally, you're going to participate in it anyway. No matter what you believe or what you've said in this thread, you WILL do absolutely everything in your power to extend your healthspan when such technology is available - because why the fuck would you not? Obviously, many of us will be stymied in terms of access by monetary concerns, but given enough time even the cost of such care will eventually fall due to technological progress (especially thanks to things like general artificial intelligence becoming a reality within the next decade or so). It is simply an inevitability that you will have access to cheap pills that will extend your health span and you'd have to be quite literally suicidal to pass that up.
People are going to be living longer and longer lives as time goes by and nothing you folks have to say about it is going to change that. It's simply an inevitable part of human progress. Where there is a will, there is a way, and there is definitely a will, with billions of dollars being poured into this endeavor. We will have to address issues with regards to access and resource consumption and all of that, the vast majority within our lifetimes (on the assumption that few of us on Gaf are 40+). It's not a question of if, but when.
We shouldn't be speaking in terms of hypotheticals. We should be speaking in terms of what we should be doing to make this as smooth a transition as possible, along with all the other things that are going to disrupt humanity's existence over the coming decade (along with things like 3D printing, genetic manipulation, machine learning, quantum computing, and so on). Anything else is naivete at best. Our reality is changing rapidly, and I'd much rather we recognize that fact than pretend that the status quo will somehow magically be maintained into the year 2025 and on.
For starters, developed nations are already below replenishment levels of reproduction. It goes without saying that access to even greater healthspans (note: not even talking about lifespans here, just the length of time during which you are at your prime of health) would decrease the pace of reproduction even further, simply due to the nature of human planning and prioritization. More time available to do what you want -> less pressure to make kids NOW -> fewer kids in general.
Secondly, accidental causes of death still happen, and while a huge contributor to this will go away in the near future (thanks to self-driving vehicles), there will still inevitably be a large number of people who expire simply due to freak accidents even with True Immortality. In combination with the above, it is fair (if not safe) to assume that a population crisis would not present itself in anywhere near the time that many in this thread would purport it to.
Oh yeah, thirdly, the vast majority of population growth is still in undeveloped nations. See first point. It will plateau eventually, given enough development, but of course that would mean giving them the resources to do so. At any rate, you can bet that folks in developed countries would have far less access to such remedies than anyone in a developed country.
Finally, you're going to participate in it anyway. No matter what you believe or what you've said in this thread, you WILL do absolutely everything in your power to extend your healthspan when such technology is available - because why the fuck would you not? Obviously, many of us will be stymied in terms of access by monetary concerns, but given enough time even the cost of such care will eventually fall due to technological progress (especially thanks to things like general artificial intelligence becoming a reality within the next decade or so). It is simply an inevitability that you will have access to cheap pills that will extend your health span and you'd have to be quite literally suicidal to pass that up.
People are going to be living longer and longer lives as time goes by and nothing you folks have to say about it is going to change that. It's simply an inevitable part of human progress. Where there is a will, there is a way, and there is definitely a will, with billions of dollars being poured into this endeavor. We will have to address issues with regards to access and resource consumption and all of that, the vast majority within our lifetimes (on the assumption that few of us on Gaf are 40+). It's not a question of if, but when.
We shouldn't be speaking in terms of hypotheticals. We should be speaking in terms of what we should be doing to make this as smooth a transition as possible, along with all the other things that are going to disrupt humanity's existence over the coming decade (along with things like 3D printing, genetic manipulation, machine learning, quantum computing, and so on). Anything else is naivete at best. Our reality is changing rapidly, and I'd much rather we recognize that fact than pretend that the status quo will somehow magically be maintained into the year 2025 and on.
Fuck no.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Sign me up.
We're making progress. It definitely feels slow, but then again, the human genome project felt very slow for a long time, until suddenly it wasn't.
You'll hear nothing for a long time, until suddenly we hit that breakthrough that changes everything, or they synthesize a lot of disparate research into an actual, functioning treatment. There's a lot of technology advancing in parallel that can speed things up as well, such as quantum computing, traditional computing, and machine learning. We really can't predict the future very well at this point because things are just moving too rapidly.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
If we end aging then we have to regulate birth rates.
900+ for me like Adam and Noah.
Brock Reiher
Banned
What if a lot of people do this and then everyone dies from a bad flu outbreak?
Holy Order Sol
Member
Is this thread going to just keep filling up with more "no, we shouldn't" drive-by posts?
I wonder how many people posting that would actually kill themselves right now if prompted to. What makes you think that'll change in 25 years if you're still as healthy as you are today thanks to advancing medical science? I get a sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of you just don't want to grow old, rather than actually wanting to end your life at some arbitrary point in time.
Life being limited is not what gives it meaning, come on now. We ascribe it meaning through our own wants and desires and dreams and aspirations. The fact that we have a limited lifespan only limits the amount of stuff we can do within that lifespan. It does not automatically make any of it more meaningful as a consequence.
I wonder how many people posting that would actually kill themselves right now if prompted to. What makes you think that'll change in 25 years if you're still as healthy as you are today thanks to advancing medical science? I get a sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of you just don't want to grow old, rather than actually wanting to end your life at some arbitrary point in time.
That's some deathist bullshit if I've ever seen it.
Life being limited is not what gives it meaning, come on now. We ascribe it meaning through our own wants and desires and dreams and aspirations. The fact that we have a limited lifespan only limits the amount of stuff we can do within that lifespan. It does not automatically make any of it more meaningful as a consequence.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Thank you for being a voice of reason in this thread.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Dear god no. Thats the fastest route to social armageddon. People need to die. Not because of overpopulation but because our cultures need to grow and change
Why? Its a huge universe out there. We won't be stuck on this rock too much longer. As a mattee of fact i would be willing to bet you that the private sector via asteroid mining operations will establish the first real colonies in space. Followed by the tourism industry.
And yes lets end aging forever. I love there are scientists treating death as a disease not a necessary function of life.
LordKasual
Banned
Likewise
I mean ethically, the more humans on earth, the shitter off literally every other species (that isn't a domestic cat or dog) is
but living forever is pretty cool
Lets hope so
But GAF hates Elon Musk so dont bring him up
Can we even understand immortality.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I really don't think overpopulation is the problem here. Ancient people anchoring social and cultural development is
Neoleo2143
Member
Austriacus
Member
People dont just magically become culturally and socially stagnant, its a process related to aging as well, cure aging and you also increase neuroplasticity which is heavily affected by an aging body.
It wont just make people be more open to new ideas because neuroplasticity also needs to be stimulated but it would go a long way in helping solve the "old people cant change" problem.
LordKasual
Banned
well even with biological immortality, you can (will) still die
Wowfunhappy
Member
You don't think that people just have a natural tendency to become set in their ways when they've been doing it for years and years and years?
Mind you, I think 1000 year old people would get over it.
Thanks! I do try.
I suppose I should mention that I've put a lot of thought into this (probably more than most people on GAF) because I'm dreadfully disappointed at the state of trans-related care and am kind of banking on living long enough to see the point where actual morphological freedom becomes possible - and obviously the only way I can guarantee that is if aging (and aging-related symptoms) are fully addressed by medical technology.
All of this gaming and anime and crap are just a bunch of distractions to keep me occupied until that time comes.
I think you have a serious misunderstanding of how this is going to work.
It's not going to be one single monolithic operation that costs tens of thousands of dollars (at first) like apparently a bunch of folks in this thread think it will be. It's going to be a series of small steps - a bunch of medical and nutritional supplements that each address one aspect of the aging puzzle, one piece at a time, until we reach a point where we're fully addressing every symptom and people just... stop aging.
And this is why I find all the objections to the idea entirely useless. You literally can't stop it from happening. If pharmaceutical companies just start selling anti-aging pills that everyone wants to acquire and it's easily available people will stop aging purely because the option is there. There is nothing you can do to prevent this from happening. Too many powerful people really, badly want to live to an old age without the symptoms of old age and that medical research will inevitably bear fruit given enough time and resources.
I think our energy would be far better invested into making sure that the access is there, that it isn't expensive and exclusive to the rich, and that we do everything in our power to make sure life is actually livable for everyone when we're living to our 120s without wrinkly skin and atrophied muscles.
theofficefan99
Junior Member
I honestly want to live for hundreds of years.
lukeskymac
Member
No they fucking don't.
It would be interesting to find out how a human brain would cope with hundreds, if not thousands of years of accumulated information and experiences.
I don't really think this would be a good or bad thing, necessarily. It likely wouldn't even be the end of death, simply the end of decline and decrepitude as a consequence of one's own biological functions.
I don't really think this would be a good or bad thing, necessarily. It likely wouldn't even be the end of death, simply the end of decline and decrepitude as a consequence of one's own biological functions.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
I can't help but have the impression CGP Grey is having his midlife crisis and this is his way of coping with his own mortality.
Like how? There is so much to life. I mean if you live in a one horse town the whole time, ok sure. But, you could travel the world 1000 times and still find new things to see and discover.
I'd live 2000 years if I could.
Sure, but would you prefer to grow weak and infirm or stave off physical and neurological decline before you decide that you're bored?
SolarPowered
Member
I don't want to die, but we'll have to take one for the team and bite the dust. We're not ready for that shit as a species. America alone is exhibit A. Give it another 500 years or so and then we'll see.