kitkat Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 There was an article on the internet that indicated that science was get close to reversing and stopping the aging process. We could possibly live to be a 1000 years old. While this idea might be intriguing to envision living that long of a lifetime, I would imagine that it would produce many undesirable consequences in our society. First this probably would only be available to the very rich and powerful government individuals while the masses would never get the opportunity to live that long. It would turn our society in the worst possible corruption scenario never before seen in our species. Mass execution of the population would occur leaving only a large enough population to keep the species going while serving the individuals that have the opportunity to live for many decades. Does anyone else see catastrophy written all over it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 First of all we are note even close. More bits and pieces are being known but still a long long way away from any applications. Second, this is all very speculative, hence moved to speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 First this probably would only be available to the very rich and powerful government individuals while the masses would never get the opportunity to live that long. It would turn our society in the worst possible corruption scenario never before seen in our species. Mass execution of the population would occur leaving only a large enough population to keep the species going while serving the individuals that have the opportunity to live for many decades. Does anyone else see catastrophy written all over it? No, not necessarily. Technically, we have everything that a salamander has that lets it regenerate limbs, but we're in "scar" mode. Scarring was chosen for us because it closes wounds fairly quickly and lets us run away to heal from injury, rather than the salamander way of hiding out while regeneration replaces lost tissue and limbs. We're at a perfect place in our evolution to switch the scar mode off and switch regeneration on. We have nothing hunting us, we have no need to run away from predators. Regeneration, if it's possible for us, might not be such an expensive idea. And with our cells regenerating instead of copying themselves or scarring over lost limbs, we could live for 1000 years. Sure, things would change. There would have to be some kind of population control implemented. I don't think any mass executions would be necessary, just a limit on how many children people could have. I think the real question is this: If we lived ten times longer, would life mean more to us or less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkat Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 No, not necessarily. Technically, we have everything that a salamander has that lets it regenerate limbs, but we're in "scar" mode. Scarring was chosen for us because it closes wounds fairly quickly and lets us run away to heal from injury, rather than the salamander way of hiding out while regeneration replaces lost tissue and limbs. We're at a perfect place in our evolution to switch the scar mode off and switch regeneration on. We have nothing hunting us, we have no need to run away from predators. Regeneration, if it's possible for us, might not be such an expensive idea. And with our cells regenerating instead of copying themselves or scarring over lost limbs, we could live for 1000 years. Sure, things would change. There would have to be some kind of population control implemented. I don't think any mass executions would be necessary, just a limit on how many children people could have. I think the real question is this: If we lived ten times longer, would life mean more to us or less? If I were to guess, I would say "less" since the young tend to believe that they are instoppable and take risks. Life takes on meaning much later in life when you really how short it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 If I were to guess, I would say "less" since the young tend to believe that they are instoppable and take risks. Life takes on meaning much later in life when you really how short it is. On the other hand, if you had a lifespan ten times longer, you'd reach the point of "meaningfulness" much sooner in your life. You'd have the opportunity to learn ten times more, understand many more things, educate yourself in many more fields. Investments would have ten times longer to grow, illnesses wouldn't be the concern they are now. Risks might be viewed differently. Since we could regenerate lost limbs, teeth, and few traumas would be permanent, it might encourage more risk-taking, but risks that could result in death might take on new meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I would hate to die at fifty if I knew I had another 950 left in me. If we live longer, then untimely death means you miss out on more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Think what you could do in 1000 years... If the planet holds out that long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Think what you could do in 1000 years... If the planet holds out that long Again, one has to wonder if we wouldn't start thinking more long-range if we knew we'd be around to see the consequences of short-sighted decisions based solely on convenience. Would we be able to struggle less to establish a living over 1000 years and have time to do something about observed corruption and injustice? I think the scenario would be different if only the privileged had access to such longevity. But if everyone could live 1000 years, free from senility and worries over health, I think our priorities would definitely change, and hopefully for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Again, one has to wonder if we wouldn't start thinking more long-range if we knew we'd be around to see the consequences of short-sighted decisions based solely on convenience. Would we be able to struggle less to establish a living over 1000 years and have time to do something about observed corruption and injustice? I think the scenario would be different if only the privileged had access to such longevity. But if everyone could live 1000 years, free from senility and worries over health, I think our priorities would definitely change, and hopefully for the better. Similarly, imagine if the human lifecycle was very short (like a week). We'd probably be very short-sighted and selfish creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Similarly, imagine if the human lifecycle was very short (like a week). We'd probably be very short-sighted and selfish creatures. Exactly, everything would be about immediate needs. Hopefully, with 1000 years of living to establish, we'd be a bit more forward-thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Damn, i'll have to work for another 900 years at least. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Damn, i'll have to work for another 900 years at least. Thats a good point, retirement would be a long way off Maybe we'd spend the first 200 years at school... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Ugh, 1000 years sounds exhausting. I think death is exciting, who knows where I will be whisked away to... I can't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Maybe we'd spend the first 200 years at school... Even 50 years could be the equivalent of multiple advanced degrees. How much knowledge could a person potentially store and be proficient with? Imagine being a doctor/lawyer/scientist/professor who could install his own plumbing! Or would we instead have ultra-specialists, surgeon/researchers with 600 years of advanced experience and accumulated knowledge of surgical applications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) Even 50 years could be the equivalent of multiple advanced degrees. How much knowledge could a person potentially store and be proficient with? Imagine being a doctor/lawyer/scientist/professor who could install his own plumbing! Or would we instead have ultra-specialists, surgeon/researchers with 600 years of advanced experience and accumulated knowledge of surgical applications? Imagine if someone like Einstein would've had even a few hundred years to continue pondering GR or related topics in physics. I speculate that a lifespan that long might make "geniuses" exponentially more fruitful in the new knowledge they create over their career. Edited December 15, 2011 by mississippichem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Well, I'm curious as to how much information we could store, without having to constantly revisit it... or how long our memories would last, etc. would the brain be able to keep up with longer lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 (...) Technically, we have everything that a salamander has that lets it regenerate limbs, but we're in "scar" mode. Scarring was chosen for us because it closes wounds fairly quickly and lets us run away to heal from injury, rather than the salamander way of hiding out while regeneration replaces lost tissue and limbs. (...) How long lives a salamander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 How long lives a salamander? We don't know. None have ever died. Seriously, the limb regeneration is only part of the equation. The real trick is to have cells replaced with new cells instead of slowly degenerating copies. I'll try to find the Scientific American article where they talked about this. Edit: Here's the article preview: www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=regrowing-human-limb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36grit Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I could pay off my debts and die in peace. Yeah, that's the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Imagine if someone like Einstein would've had even a few hundred years to continue pondering GR or related topics in physics. I speculate that a lifespan that long might make "geniuses" exponentially more fruitful in the new knowledge they create over their career. Imagine Davinchi, Newton and Einstein still here today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now