To all the people who think longer life is a bad idea because of over population, food shortage, etc.
Should we shut down all the hospitals of the world?
Should we stop finding ways to fight/cure cancers, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease and other chronic diseases?
If not, you realize the result of finding cures for diseases like this is almost certainly a longer life span for most people.
What would people die from if we keep them healthy?What a ridiculous comparison. Keeping people healthy and extending their lives within reason is completely different than people living forever.
What would people die from if we keep them healthy?
You think people die from having made a certain number of revolutions around the sun or something? What do you think old people die from exactly? Just being old? Like literally, the number of years since they were born kills people?Old age. We'd all end up like Sloth from Seven, too weak to move.
SENS research foundation has recently had a paper accepted in a scientific journal. "The headline result in this paper is that we are the first team ever to get two of the proteins encoded by genes in the mitochondrial DNA simultaneously functioning in the same cell line..."
The aim is to have back up copies of the mitochondrial DNA in the genome itself.
I'm sure that has significant meaning to you since you seem to be an expert on the subject.
How much do you read about the subject and developments in the field on a weekly basis would you say?
Where did I say I was an expert? The overt passive aggressiveness is hilarious.
Im giving my opinion, just like you are. Clearly you dont like that people dont think such a breakthrough will be widely available in our lifetime. Sorry.
Opinions on science don't matter much if you don't do research into the subject.
I think overpopulation wouldn't really be a problem anymore if the need for governments to actively fight the greying of their population disappears. Right now governments want people to produce children because they want society to continue existing, I guess? If people stay healthy much longer, the need to actively get people to produce babies will diminish and I'm sure the way things are governed right now will change also.Overpopulation has a simple solution. If you want to live indefinitely, then you don't get to have kids. If you want kids, you don't get to live indefinitely. Easy peasy.
I guess I was over estimating your knowledge then. But I really can't understand why you would make these statements though. You haven't really provided any basis for why you think this. And if you haven't really read anything about it then of course you would think this. It's hard to make a reasonable assessment if you don't really know much about a subject, right?Where did I say I was an expert? The overt passive aggressiveness is hilarious.
Im giving my opinion, just like you are. Clearly you dont like that people dont think such a breakthrough will be widely available in our lifetime. Sorry.
What do you think makes people old?You think people die from having made a certain number of revolutions around the sun or something? What do you think old people die from exactly? Just being old? Like literally, the number of years since they were born kills people?
What? How old are you exactly?
You think people die from having made a certain number of revolutions around the sun or something? What do you think old people die from exactly? Just being old? Like literally, the number of years since they were born kills people?
What? How old are you exactly?
What a ridiculous comparison. Keeping people healthy and extending their lives within reason is completely different than people living forever.
Death is a feature.
Do you imagine the amount of assholes that will keep living forever..
What do you think makes people old?
Could provide me with an definition of "old"? Then I could attempt to answer your question.What do you think makes people old?
I guess I was over estimating your knowledge then. But I really can't understand why you would make these statements though. You haven't really provided any basis for why you think this. And if you haven't really read anything about it then of course you would think this. It's hard to make a reasonable assessment if you don't really know much about a subject, right?
Maybe you should try reading on the subject. Unless you don't want to change your mind of course.
lol its not always easy when we breed like rabbits regardlessOverpopulation has a simple solution. If you want to live indefinitely, then you don't get to have kids. If you want kids, you don't get to live indefinitely. Easy peasy.
lol its not always easy when we breed like rabbits regardless
C'mon you apes, you wanna live forever?!
Maybe..Unless the procedure to come immortal involved a bunch of forms and then being made sterile.
We were born at the wrong time lol..
Could provide me with an definition of "old"? Then I could attempt to answer your question.
A person whom has lived for 80 years is old in number of years relative to other humans who were born much later and certain other organisms too. But not old in years compared to some other organisms that can live for hundreds or thousands of years.
So if we're talking number over revolutions around our sun, earth years, counted since birth then yes the passage of time makes people older in that sense. And 80 years or whatever is old for humans relatively speaking. However some people that have been alive for 80 of those years can be fitter than some people who have been around for less years. There are people whom live beyond their twenties with the mind of a child... So earth years seems to be an irrelevant counter when it comes to this subject.
There's also the concept of biological age. Psychological age, functional age. These are not necessarily determined by how much time a person has been alive.
Sign me up. No interest in the whole death thing. Very overrated.
I'm not. It seems to me that the way things seem to you are not how they actually are.You seem so offended.
Good news! There are road maps of sorts. And they're gaining traction in main stream scientific discourse. Watch anything by Aubrey de Grey for instance. If you want to keep up with developments here is a good website. There news, papers etc. relevant to fighting aging are discussed and linked. It is written a bit dry, though.And for the record, of course I'd want a breakthrough like this to be available within my lifetime. Im just not gonna get my hopes up on something that is still being researched with no clear roadmap to implementation.
Also, since you seem to be the expert in this field, can you please provide articles to show that the medical tech for human immortality is going to be widely available within the next ~50 years?
This also works as a great argument against the Polio vaccine and giving aid to tsunami victims. I'm not buying it.Yes, those things aren't natural and look where they've gotten us. The world is literally rotting and telling us that what we're doing is wrong. Denying natural processes by attempting to exert control over them is a losing battle that just leads to needing to exert more and more control to correct for the consequences of the initial attempt at control.
And what did astronauts do when they got to the moon? They looked back at the Earth and were in awe of its beauty. We don't exist without it.
"Nature" isn't battling us. Life isn't a race for "progress." There is no life without death. You cannot live without also dying.
Besides, if everyone stopped dying, the world would descend into total chaos. No organism, planet, star, etc. exists eternally.
Furthermore, to what end? If everyone lived forever or even just for 200 years, we would quickly need multiple other Earths to live on. If life is a race for "progress," as you seem to think it is, then what is at the finish line?