Life extension in an increase in the maximum lifespan beyond the current maximum lifespan, especially for humans. For those who regard aging as a disease, therapeutic methods to achieve maximum lifespan are anti-aging medicine. Whether human lifespan can or should be extended is the subject of much controversy.

Long Story Short: There are people that do not want to die. And there are people that are working towards this goal.

Is this the right thing to do?

Debate.

Further reading:
The Fable of The Dragon-Tyrant (http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)
Life Extension Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension)
Biological Immortality Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality)

I beleave that we cannot make humans immortal, but make our average life span very long.

I would and woundnt want such a thing. First of all, what shall be done with such a long life span? Our world cant stop reproducing as is, and with such a long life span we may be forced to import our problems onto other planets or even total destruction of our race.

But then with such a long life span, we can go to new lands easier, which is the only pro I can think of now.

~

Now, if I would personaly want life extentions depends on the situation. If the world is crappy and over populated, then no. If the world is 'perfect' (to an extent of perfect) then yes.

i from a personal point of view wouldn't care that much. i guess it would be nice to have a few more years to snowboard and talk on ichigo's.

although from a ethical standpoint we humans should be grateful that life expectancy has doubled, possibly trippled in the past 300 years. but if we allow ourselves to be genetically enhanced (interupting evolution or maybe even playing a roll in it) what's to stop us from doing other debatable things such as cloning humans, genetic alteration at birth, and abortion?

Once we've stopped ageing, everybody will die from: disease, accident, murder or suicide.

I believe that we cannot make humans immortal, but make our average life span very long.
Once we've stopped ageing, everybody will die from: disease, accident, murder or suicide.See the wiki definition of Biological Immortality, link above.


Our world cant stop reproducing as is, and with such a long life span we may be forced to import our problems onto other planets or even total destruction of our race.

"Would curing aging cause terrible overpopulation?" (http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/concerns.htm#opop)


First of all, what shall be done with such a long life span? Is life already long enough to do the full range of what life offers? (http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/concerns.htm#boredom)


What's to stop us from doing other debatable things such as cloning humans, genetic alteration at birth, and abortion?
Playing God Again? (http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/concerns.htm#natural)

I would and woundnt want such a thing. First of all, what shall be done with such a long life span? Our world cant stop reproducing as is, and with such a long life span we may be forced to import our problems onto other planets or even total destruction of our race.

Sadly , the human race will do the above without longer lives. We are ultimatly our own destruction and our own rebirth.
I personally dont care if we have extended lives are not. I cant say no and I cant say yes , for me its just whatever happens happens. Well thats what i think at this momment in time. I'll read some of the links and see how i feel then.

It sounds like something useful to use on geniuses, if they're too valuable to lose. But for normal people...? I don't think it's a good idea.

Given enough time, everybody can become veritable geniuses through brute accumulation of experience.

EDIT: Hopefully.

I'd like to live around 800 years. I think I'd be able to see everything I want to see and do what I'd really want to do by then.

No. I'm not going to post all the reasons why we shouldn't live longer because there's too many and it would be very time consuming.

No. I'm not going to post all the reasons why we shouldn't live longer because there's too many and it would be very time consuming.Thank you very much for your non-contribution. Now, please refrain from any further comments in this thread as I would not wish to be liable for any further expenditures of your time.

^ well seeing as how you've googled this idea thoroughly then posted links, all of our input is kinda pointless to some extent.

^ well seeing as how you've googled this idea thoroughly then posted links, all of our input is kinda pointless to some extent.Don't be silly. Are you incapable of distinguishing between intelligent input and hot air? You only had a cursory understanding of the topic and attempted to discuss it; what do you think the links are for?

You only had a cursory understanding of the topic and attempted to discuss it
of course i attempted to discuss it, you wanted our input however

-->we don't need to post stuff equivalent to the size and intelligence of whatever is written by a scientist or philosopher, similar to your pretty links.

i can distinguish quite well. but if you want to get someone's unbiased and honest input on a subject (without repeating the links that you have), every know bit of fact and previously debated links from other scientific and what not sites in the thread or else you alter their views. After Rd and I put our input you right away quote ourselves and put these links to firmly belittle how little we know on the subject and that we've repeated something. this is a forum, not an encyclopedia.

You guys just did what you said not to do <_<


Given enough time, everybody can become veritable geniuses through brute accumulation of experience.

Not exactly, there is a diffrence between being genuinly smart and just having common sense. It is true that only a select few are genuine geniuses, such as Einstein. After recent study on his brain people found out some parts of his brain were abnormaly larger and had very active glands that released hormones that provoked more out of the box thinking.

*ends pointless rant*

Now, there is alot of things to do with in lets say 1000 years, but wouldnt you think you would lose intrest?

I think it depends how many years you are talking about being added.

If people are to live too long, there will be more compeition to the already limited resources, so they most likely kill each other anyway if they can live for hundreds of years.

^tru

Well I think that by the time that we are at a sufficient level to actual extend the lifespan of people by a considerable amount (coming close to immortality even) we will have solved many of the human problems that are around right now.

to put things simply, let's play god.

you're it.

Given enough time, everybody can become veritable geniuses through brute accumulation of experience.

EDIT: Hopefully.
:lol:

Of course I attempted to discuss it, you wanted our input however.

-->We don't need to post stuff equivalent to the size and intelligence of whatever is written by a scientist or philosopher, similar to your pretty links.

I can distinguish quite well. but if you want to get someone's unbiased and honest input on a subject (without repeating the links that you have), every know bit of fact and previously debated links from other scientific and what not sites in the thread or else you alter their views. After Rd and I put our input you right away quote ourselves and put these links to firmly belittle how little we know on the subject and that we've repeated something. This is a forum, not an encyclopaedia.

I may have contradicted myself, but the thing I am looking for, as stated in the very first post, is a debate. Of course the size of what you post scarcely matters, but if it is not intelligent, be prepared to be humiliated.

I don't want unbiased and honest input, I want a debate. If you don't have anything worth debating over, why don't you just stay out?

The pretty links are there for you to gain a preliminary understanding of the "For" mindset, not pointless garnish.

And oh, THANKS SO MUCH FOR POINTING OUT THAT THIS IS A FORUM TO ME, I HAD NO IDEA.

Geez.


To put things simply, let's play god.There is no good or evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it.

Or is it?

I did a report on this and they found that the reason that aging is happening is that extra ATP energy or somthing like that is getting lose and its like a cannon ball and it can damage anythying in your body it wants and it attacks your DNA and causes it to grow weaker and thats how you age... They have made a medicine that reduces the ATP energy (or whatever it is) and that reduces the damage on your cells which makes you age slower.. They haven't tried this on hmans, but they have on rats, worms, and pigs. They all lived more than double their normal life-span and scientists say that if they use it on humans, it will make them live to be around 150 years old!!! But most scientists don't like that idea because it will increase population and that is not good >.< so I have to agree with the scientists... It's an amazing jump in science, but its not for the good of the world...

But most scientists don't like that idea because it will increase population and that is not good >.< so I have to agree with the scientists... It's an amazing jump in science, but its not for the good of the world...

Let me quote from my pretty links.

"First let's look at past precedent. Put yourself in the position of someone powerful -- the prime minister of France, for example -- in, say, 1870 or so, when Pasteur was going around saying that hygiene could almost entirely prevent infant deaths from infections and death in childbirth. In your position, you have some influence over how quickly this knowledge gets out -- and, thus, how quickly lives start being saved. But you realise that the sooner people start adhering to these principles and washing their hands and so on, the sooner the population will start exploding on account of all those children not dying. What would you have done? -- got the information out as soon as possible, or held it back as best you could in order to delay the population crisis?"

I may have contradicted myself, but the thing I am looking for, as stated in the very first post, is a debate. Of course the size of what you post scarcely matters, but if it is not intelligent, be prepared to be humiliated.

I don't want unbiased and honest input, I want a debate. If you don't have anything worth debating over, why don't you just stay out?

The pretty links are there for you to gain a preliminary understanding of the "For" mindset, not pointless garnish.

And oh, THANKS SO MUCH FOR POINTING OUT THAT THIS IS A FORUM TO ME, I HAD NO IDEA.

Geez.

There is no good or evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it.

Or is it?
lol i'm glad you took my comment so hastily. well it obviously seems i'm mistaken. continuing arguing with your quotes.

It's ironic. The main reason why this planet is dying is because of the humans living on it. Slowly but surely we're depleting this planet of the things it needs to survive. But yet we wish to live longer. The only thing living longer will accomplish, in my opinion, is a faster rate of this planet's death. What would be the point of living longer is we have no planet to live on?

People have somehow gotten this idea that death is this big scary thing that goes against human nature when really it is human nature. I could understand the idea of the extension of human life being brought up in the case of someone great who actually contributed to the greater good. But I don’t think it should ever be carried out.

Regardless of how some of us might seem, humans are not completely incapable. I think we would be able to, if we ever had to, follow in the footsteps of someone greater than us. If we extended the life of someone like President Bush (:lol2: like that'd ever be considered...) and just sat back and let him take care of everything for a couple of thousand years....well let's say the world would be a helluva lot better if we just let him die.


Dr. Aubrey de Grey believes that it will someday be possible for humans to live thousands of years in a youthful condition.

Yes, because having a couple of billion 21 year-olds running around is the way to go! ((sarcasm))

I honestly can't see anything good coming out of this. (yes, that was the point to this long post...) If there are, in fact, benefits to this please enlighten me :\

Move to another planet. Those few hundred extra years will come in for that extremely long journey. Even if it takes a few.. hundred.. thousand generations.

Seriously though, there probably will be a solution to the consumption of resources if we do live longer (I'm just messing with values like 800) even if it comes to rationing. Only thing I'd be worried about is the quality of life if this happened but then.. thats because I'm a punk. B)

Edit: I was contemplating deleting this post as it was to a post on the last page. I'm leaving it up here to show how unbelievably bad I am at getting my points across.. because I'm a punk B)

Red Stone is right. People will adapt, because it has been happening for the many 1000's of years. And you must remember that we will; no matter what you want; go to space and live there. I dont really like the idea of exporting our problems to diffrent places because that will only create more problems.

Now, I beleave with a great society and government (for the whole world) that longer lives would be fine.

But who are we to complain? As life progresses, all the life spans for all the organisms on Earth get bigger and bigger. The real question is do you beleave a medical fountain of youth good, and are we playing god?

I beleave that we are not playing god, for I beleave in no god. I guess things like that can only be answered when we have a chice to do so, because right now we dont know the conditions of the planet its habatints of that time.

Transhumanism is an attempt to achieve the goals of religion through technology, a way to create a heaven on earth supported by those who have realized that there is no heaven but can't accept it. Death and suffering are a part of life. The pain of loss gives meaning to the joy of living and it motivates us.

The reality of death motivates us to use our lives as best we can. Transhumanism is a way to escape the challenge that death poses to humanity, the challenge to confront it and use it as an opportunity for personal growth and a basis for meaning. Instead of confronting reality, transhumanists try to remake it into something more palatable.

Hmm...counter to the counter-argument to "The young are the most creative, so multi-centenarians would be ossified":

After 3 months, you can no longer naturally learn a spoken language
After 13 years or so, it's insanely hard to learn a foreign language without an accent
(These numbers are from the top of my head, but you get the idea)

This restriction deals with the DEVELOPMENT of the brain, not the AGING of the brain. Even if we were to prevent the aging of the brain, we would not be able to acquire limitless amounts of knowledge since a lot of it has to come during the development phase. Or would you rather prevent the development of the brain? :P



I'd cite Genesis 6:3, but not many of you will buy it...

The average life span of humans has gotten longer. The maximum age has not. The reason the life span of humans has been increasing is because we're lowering infant mortality rates.

"I don't want unbiased and honest input, I want a debate."

??? My reading of that: I don't want people to talk about how they feel, I want people to play the devil's advocate so that I can see feathers fly.

But if you really want biological immortality, restore the water canopy...

And most importantly, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us would not want to become biologically immortal in the world as it is today. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical to take that money that we would donate to SENS and instead devote it to making the world a better place NOW? Alternative energy, AIDS, and developing countries, in my opinion, need this money much more than SENS, which will (I'm 99% sure about this) benefit the rich first (Do you honestly think that they'll come up with some magical inexpensive pill that makes you immortal? No! It'll be a multi-million-dollar process that only the rich can afford, especially since they'll need to give the process to their kids, and then to theirs, and so on.)

Wahey! A new challenger! Let's start with what I feel like answering:
"I don't want unbiased and honest input, I want a debate."

??? My reading of that: I don't want people to talk about how they feel, I want people to play the devil's advocate so that I can see feathers fly.It all boils down to me wanting to find a non-reason to argue.


Hmm...counter to the counter-argument to "The young are the most creative, so multi-centenarians would be ossified":

After 3 months, you can no longer naturally learn a spoken language
After 13 years or so, it's insanely hard to learn a foreign language without an accent
(These numbers are from the top of my head, but you get the idea)

Counter-argument: Lemme throw you into, oh, say, Lebanon. Assuming that you don't know any Lebanese and have no other way of communicating with the locals besides learning Lebanese, you'll be reasonably fluent within three months. That's the gist of a seventy-odd years social experiment: you can learn a language in three months, provided that you don't have some neural dysfunction.


I'd cite Genesis 6:3, but not many of you will buy it...
Good decision.


But if you really want biological immortality, restore the water canopy..Come again?


And most importantly, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us would not want to become biologically immortal in the world as it is today. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical to take that money that we would donate to SENS and instead devote it to making the world a better place NOW? Alternative energy, AIDS, and developing countries, in my opinion, need this money much more than SENS, which will (I'm 99% sure about this) benefit the rich first (Do you honestly think that they'll come up with some magical inexpensive pill that makes you immortal? No! It'll be a multi-million-dollar process that only the rich can afford, especially since they'll need to give the process to their kids, and then to theirs, and so on.)Of course they need this much more than SENS - but it does nothing to elongate your lifespan. It boils down to how far your humanitarian tendencies goes, I guess, and mine is cruelly limited. I know, I'm a monster. :lol:

Anyway, Time Is Running Out, so please refer to the FAQ again. Thanks alot for your time and input.

Red Stone Out.

I actually heard an extensive lecture on this subject at a forum at my University. The professor was trying to champion the issue.

I disagree with him and Red Stone.

On the most basic level, I don't think it can be done. What our bodies do is die. They peak their potential, reproduce, and die. It would be a great idea if we could remove our bodies from the picture. And the consequences of halting our natural progression at its "peak" is potentially disasterous in terms of what it would do to us biologically.

However, leaving biological logic aside for a moment, think of the consequences of no one dying. No one would be allowed to be born because the population would be enormous. The earth could not support humanity. So at what generation do we say, "ok, you can't be parents?" And think of the consequences for halting human reproduction. There won't be the "next" Mozart, Freud, Shakespeare, or anyone.

And the little Dragon Fable. It criticizes critics of this logical nightmare by saying they only rely on rhetoric, and they're too cowardly to see the true vision. Well, what was that fable if not rhetoric? Metaphor and Allegory are rhetorical devices.

And about your "no right and wrong," how do people say this and feel intelligent? I won't even pull out the Hitler card. Amorality and man-made immortality stink of adolescent marijuana fumes. Of course there's a right and a wrong. Sometimes it's difficult to see, but it's there.

Ooh, more input!

First off, that 'no right and wrong' quote was borrowed from Harry Potter's You-Know-Who - so I'll let you judge what type of people would think that way, and if I actually do support the quote.

Secondly, what are the potential disasters? Granted, there's no telling at the moment what eating a can of GM baked beans could do to your future fruits of your loins, but I guess that it's not too farfetched to say that obvious hazards would have been eliminated by the time we have achieved a reasonable degree of research into the matter. Than it's time to find a few guinea pigs to work out the bugs and kinks - there are always those that don't think it too high a price for immortality, even if it comes to compromising ethics and doing other immoral deeds.

I'm not very much in keeping with the news, what with c*****work and all, but I don't recall seeing second Mozarts and Freuds on the headlines for quite a few years. Of course, I deludedly(?) believe that great men are appreciated most by future generations - but I'll agree that stopping human reproduction does has a major drawback - we will cease to introduce genetic variations into our gene pool, and any Zergs or biologists out there will tell you that that is baaaad.

Lastly, the Dragon Fable - a nice piece of SENS propaganda don't you think? - which was why I linked to it in the first place. Is it really laying the truth bare before you, or is it just a pretty veil of lies to tempt your senses and pervert the truth? Will people really just throw away what they believe in just for biological immortality? Not you, not me, but there are people that believe that no price is too expensive for this luxury - but whether they conform to our standards of morality or even sanity isn't quite clear.

Maybe they have already paid the first price with their sanity, and is now pursuing a nightmare of their diseased mind, which will only lead them to the proverbial gates of Hell.

Anyway, thanks for the input. :lol:

EDIT: OMG, the Dragon Fable's hosted by Nick Bostrom??? Hmm...

Counter-argument: Lemme throw you into, oh, say, Lebanon. Assuming that you don't know any Lebanese and have no other way of communicating with the locals besides learning Lebanese, you'll be reasonably fluent within three months. That's the gist of a seventy-odd years social experiment: you can learn a language in three months, provided that you don't have some neural dysfunction.

Yes, I will learn to speak Lebanese. No, I can never get rid of my accent. It has been shown that after a certain point, if you have not been "taught" to distinguish between two sounds, you simply CANNOT distinguish it, no matter how hard you try. That's why Americans sound funny when they try to say Vietnamese words, since they can't distinguish the sounds of the accents.

The "water canopy" is a hypothesis that Earth at one time had a layer of (ice) water above the atmosphere. It was kept stable through its shape and some weird electromagnetic stuff that I don't understand. Such a layer would compress the atmosphere, creating hyperbaric conditions on Earth. Hyperbaric conditions have been shown to greatly improve bodily functions from natural healing to growth. In addition, a water canopy would screen out X-rays from the sun. X-rays are just as damaging to you as UV radiation, and no amount of sunblock will stop them. (You need several inches of concrete to do that, and I'd be loath to put on concrete armor every time I wanted to wander outside.) The elimination of X-rays would probably dramatically slow the aging process.
The main problem with this idea is that a water canopy is inconsistent with geoevolutionary theory (there's no way that such a water canopy could form and then survive for that long). Of course, there's no problem for those of us who believe Earth had a Creator. But regardless of whether or not we actually had a water canopy before, it would seem that if in the distant future we could restore this water canopy, we could live longer, healthier lives.


I'm not very much in keeping with the news, what with c*****work and all, but I don't recall seeing second Mozarts and Freuds on the headlines for quite a few years. Of course, I deludedly(?) believe that great men are appreciated most by future generations - but I'll agree that stopping human reproduction does has a major drawback - we will cease to introduce genetic variations into our gene pool, and any Zergs or biologists out there will tell you that that is baaaad.

The one that first comes to mind is Stephen Hawking, who is alive and well (well, as "well" as he's ever been).

Oh yes, that fella. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about his contributions - our spheres of interest have yet to intersect - but I do respect him for having the balls to disprove his own theory, for he is a scientist. We could do with a few of him in other fields of research.

Chomsky also comes to mind. You may not agree with him on many, many issues, but he definitely reinvented Linguistics.

Hmm, I'd have to look him up. Thanks for bringing him to my attention - I'd like to learn more about Linguistics.

What would it be like, if we could preserve such prodigies for a few centuries? Would their creativity wane and die off, or will they continue to provide humanity with revolutionary insight? What will it be like, if we still have Einstein and Chopin and Co. with us?

A giant social problem because you will have a group of all the good intelligent people and a group of average people, the work of the average people will be considered secondary compared with the people like Einstein and Chopin while you would be lucky if the old prodigies are not senile by then and can take care of themselves.Thus there will be a group of supressed people who are always under the shadow of these so called geniuses and they will be ignored for their contributioin to society thus might give up and they will lead to the degradation of the entire world as they always rely on their prodigies to solve their problems.

There will be a segregation between people who hope that the prodigies live on and people who hope that they die, then they will be assasinated because people think that they have long enough political influence and whatsoever as they are invited to rally for presidents. It will go back to square one except that they die more violently. There is also risk that these intelligent people create more destuction then good to the world with their minds.

At least in my opinion.

The scenario that you predict is definitely plausible (see Gundam SEED and Alastair Reynold's Revelation Space novels).


Thus there will be a group of supressed people who are always under the shadow of these so called geniuses and they will be ignored for their contribution to society thus might give up and they will lead to the degradation of the entire world as they always rely on their prodigies to solve their problems. Do you feel like you're living under the shadow of any prodigy in particular? Does anyone you know feel like they're living nder the shadow of any prodigies? How many of the contributions made to our society are from prodigies, and how many of the contributions are from "normal" people? Has our society ignored the contributions made by "normal" people in favour of prodigies? Has our society ever "relied" on prodigies to solve its problem? Have you ever relied on prodigies, or people that are better than you to solve your problems?


There is also risk that these intelligent people create more destuction then good to the world with their minds.True, but that applies to everyone. If this risk is so overwhelmingly threatening to our race, would we not have already implemented a cleansing programme to actively seek and destroy prodogies, nay, even people who can perform above the average benchmark? Would it not be even more counter-productive, and eventually lead to stagnation on a preemptive scale?

Well, in a way, Einstein was responsible for the atomic bomb, though that was definitely not what he intended...

However, notice that the people who we say will benefit most from life extension are the people "up there." Back to my financial argument, chances are that SENS will create some elaborate gene therapy process. The changes that result will either be inheritable or not. So that gives us two scenarios:
If the changes are inheritable, those really rich people who can afford the process will give birth to immortal children, and so on. The rest of us who can never afford it will have to eventually die out. Plus, what happens if an immortal mates with a mortal? Greek mythology says that the results are often disastrous...
If the changes are uninheritable, those really rich people who can afford the process will still be the only ones who become immortal, and basically we will end up further distancing the elite from normal people. (It's been said that we call things "technological advancements" if (1) they promote the loss of life, or (2) they widen the gap between the rich and the poor.)

In either case, it seems that the end result will be that the normal people will get upset about this, kill the biologically immortal people, and the investment in this technology will have been for naught.

Back to my financial argument, chances are that SENS will create some elaborate gene therapy process.I'd be surprised if the whole package is anything but elaborate, and if it merely entails genetic (re)engineering. There's bound to be a need for routine maintanence as well (see telomeres).


If the changes are inheritable, those really rich people who can afford the process will give birth to immortal children, and so on.Not likely. Their descendants might benefit from a few more decades' worth of life, but I think thats about it.


The rest of us who can never afford it will have to eventually die out.We've been doing so for quite some time now, haven't we?


Plus, what happens if an immortal mates with a mortal?Their descendants may benefit less, or may not benefit at all from the longetivity genes?


Greek mythology says that the results are often disastrous...Sorry, but I'm afraid that I have to disregard this as nonsense.


If the changes are uninheritable, those really rich people who can afford the process will still be the only ones who become immortal, and basically we will end up further distancing the elite from normal people.Heard of space tourism recently? One day, the ticket will cost around, say, 10,000 US dollars. But right now, if no one pays for the ten million US dollars ticket to a space trip, the ten thousand dollars ticket is just a dream. The extortionately high prices of today funds the cheaper prices for tomorrow when it comes to science and technology, and though you can definitely find counter-examples out there it will be difficult to prove that the counter-examples are the rule, rather than the exceptions.

And there's the element of democracy, but I really shouldn't bring it up because I don't really know what is it - anyway, I doubt that the people would stand for such monopoly, especially for longevity treatment. Just think of SARS - if it came back as a major global epidemic and the cure/vaccine for it was discovered, how would the populace react if the governments hoarded the drug only for the elite rich? If the USA alone possessed the formula and wanted to keep it to itself, how would the other countries react to this? Wars have been fought for less - and any government that is for making longevity treatment available to the populace (with the possible exclusion of the Vatican and co.?) will have the backing of the population.

And as for governments that are for keeping the wonderful stuff to the rich and elite, well, that's what revolutions and stuff are for.

For once, why don't you read our posts as a whole instead of commenting on each sentence by itself? Of course no individual sentence of mine has a compelling argument; they were meant to be taken together as ONE argument and to be addressed as such. In this case, attacking the parts does not disprove the whole. I'll treat your arguments in their entirety, one at a time...

"Sorry, but I'm afraid that I have to disregard this as nonsense."

Yes. Anything that does not fit the current paradigm is useless nonsense and nothing can be learned from it. [/sarcasm]
Just because the ancient Greeks were less technologically advanced does not mean they were stupid. They had a lot of great ideas, some of which we ourselves have built off of, and it's exceedingly conceited of us to dismiss their words of wisdom.

"The extortionately high prices of today funds the cheaper prices for tomorrow when it comes to science and technology, and though you can definitely find counter-examples out there it will be difficult to prove that the counter-examples are the rule, rather than the exceptions."

Yes, that will be difficult to prove, but I can turn your example on its head. The 10-million dollar space tickets have very little to do with the recent commercial space flight breakthrough. Science is funded through government money and rich donors, not through doing business.

"And there's the element of democracy, but I really shouldn't bring it up because I don't really know what is it - anyway, I doubt that the people would stand for such monopoly, especially for longevity treatment. Just think of SARS - if it came back as a major global epidemic and the cure/vaccine for it was discovered, how would the populace react if the governments hoarded the drug only for the elite rich? If the USA alone possessed the formula and wanted to keep it to itself, how would the other countries react to this? Wars have been fought for less - and any government that is for making longevity treatment available to the populace (with the possible exclusion of the Vatican and co.?) will have the backing of the population."

Your example doesn't match the object in question. Let's revise it to do so: Say this vaccine for SARS that they discovered uses an extremely rare substance, and only enough can be made for 20 people per year. It now becomes obvious why only the rich and powerful will end up with the vaccine; that's the only way to choose people to receive it, other than by lottery. And you don't seriously want longevity treatment handed out by lottery, do you?

"And as for governments that are for keeping the wonderful stuff to the rich and elite, well, that's what revolutions and stuff are for."

Reread my last paragraph. (See? You are going sentence by sentence.) Your mistake is thinking that lots of people want immortality. Even if there were a pill that granted biological immortality and it didn't cost me a penny, I doubt I'd take it...How much more, then, will people be loath to go through a painstaking (and possibly painful) process to get something that they're not even sure they want. When the revolution hits, immortality will join the immortals in the destruction.

Now, a new problem, this time with the process of perfecting the process. What becomes of the volunteers for the first round of human testing? Chances are, these volunteers will be nobodies who love life so much that they're willing to gamble with what they have in order to get more. If they're willing to gamble with their own lives, I seriously doubt they'd have much respect for the lives of others. So either the test fails, and these people die, defaming the project; or the test succeeds, and we now have these people with very questionable characters who are also biologically immortal. To me, that sounds like a dangerous mix.

Next, a problem with finally achieving SENS:
As you will recall, the main roadblock against cloning is the shortening of the telomeres. SENS, if it works, will remove that roadblock. Then you get the whole can of worms associated with cloning. But since that's not the topic of discussion, I'll leave it to you to check out all the moral, ethical, legal, and scientific issues with cloning.

In this case, attacking the parts does not disprove the whole. I'll treat your arguments in their entirety, one at a time...
1)To each their own?
2)In this case? What about in other cases? Who are you to say "In this case"?
3)You're not afraid of having your parts scrutinised too closely, are you? Of course, the whole exceeds the sum of its parts - but we still want good parts (see cheap/counterfeit parts in vehicles and computers, etc).


Yes. Anything that does not fit the current paradigm is useless nonsense and nothing can be learned from it. [/sarcasm]

Plus, what happens if an immortal mates with a mortal? Greek mythology says that the results are often disastrous...
1)Don't put words in my mouth.
2)Yes, there is often a grain of truth in myths and legends and old wives' tales, but I don't think they were intended to be interpreted in a literal fashion.
3)Now, why don't you take this one step further and tell us how disastrous the results will be?


Yes, that will be difficult to prove, but I can turn your example on its head. The 10-million dollar space tickets have very little to do with the recent commercial space flight breakthrough. Science is funded through government money and rich donors, not through doing business.I'm sorry?
1)Cast your mind back to the early days of mechanical transportation, say, before Henry Ford applied assembly line manufacturing to the mass production of affordable automobiles. Was it government money, or was it rich donors?
2)And then we have Microsoft and the computing industry. Oh yes, government money and rich donors? What about the crucial business arrangements Microsoft made in its early years with IBM? How much did the first generation of electrical digital computers in the 1940s cost? And now? How much money did the government and rich donors put into the industry? If there were no profits to be made, would governments and rich donors continue to invest in such ventures?


Your example doesn't match the object in question. Let's revise it to do so: Say this vaccine for SARS that they discovered uses an extremely rare substance, and only enough can be made for 20 people per year. It now becomes obvious why only the rich and powerful will end up with the vaccine; that's the only way to choose people to receive it, other than by lottery. And you don't seriously want longevity treatment handed out by lottery, do you?
1)Ah, good. What are the statistical probability of such a scenario occurring?
2)What is the probability, that mankind will *never* be able to exceed this "20 people per year" limit?
3)In the olden days, well, the rich were vaccinated first - after they were convinced that vaccination worked - but I digress - how many products were not first made available to the rich?


Your mistake is thinking that lots of people want immortality.1)My mistake, or my opinion? If you think that my opinion is wrong, does that not mean that to me, your opinion is wrong? Are you mistaken in thinking that the majority of the population do not want immortality?


How much more, then, will people be loath to go through a painstaking (and possibly painful) process to get something that they're not even sure they want.1)I don't know, such is the behaviour that many of our race exhibit. How many of us have took the long path to arrive at the conclusion that what we did is wrong? How many times did we embark on a venture with utmost confidence that this is the most efficient method of acquiring what we want (and that we truly want it)?


What becomes of the volunteers for the first round of human testing? Chances are, these volunteers will be nobodies who love life so much that they're willing to gamble with what they have in order to get more. If they're willing to gamble with their own lives, I seriously doubt they'd have much respect for the lives of others.1)Just because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain does not mean that you do not respect the lives of others. In fact, what is at stake here is their own lives - does the testing, in any manner, compromise the lives of others? Why are you concerned about the attitude of the test subjects to the lives of others anyway? I was thinking that the first test subjects would be criminals awaiting capital punishment and the like - see numerous books and movies.


So either the test fails, and these people die, defaming the project; or the test succeeds, and we now have these people with very questionable characters who are also biologically immortal. To me, that sounds like a dangerous mix.1)All in the name of progress?
2)If everything went A-Okay from the get-go . . . well, humanity would've progressed a lot more - and learnt a lot less. We learn from our mistakes - not many of humanity's attempts at innovation succeeded on the first try. Many inventors were subjected to much derision when their early attempts crashed and burned (see Wright brothers, Edison's failures, etc) - but eventually, those mistakes were worth it.
3)Biological immortals are still susceptible to BOOM! HEADSHOT! - and various other inconveniences that us mortals suffer from.


But since that's not the topic of discussion, I'll leave it to you to check out all the moral, ethical, legal, and scientific issues with cloning.Since I already have a reasonable understanding of the implications and various niceties, would you like to take that topic further, or would you like to leave it as it is? It is an interesting factor to introduce into most arguements, but usually pointless as it is terribly difficult to convince others to change their minds (as most arguements are).

"1)To each their own?
2)In this case? What about in other cases? Who are you to say "In this case"?
3)You're not afraid of having your parts scrutinised too closely, are you? Of course, the whole exceeds the sum of its parts - but we still want good parts (see cheap/counterfeit parts in vehicles and computers, etc)."

1) If that's the way you want to argue it, find someone who thinks that's actually a legitimate way of arguing and argue with them instead.
2) "In this case" means you taking each sentence with no regard for what comes next, citing problems that were obviously answered in the very next sentence. It's ok to take one sentence at a time so long as you regard that sentence IN CONTEXT.
""If the changes are inheritable, those really rich people who can afford the process will give birth to immortal children, and so on."
Not likely. Their descendants might benefit from a few more decades' worth of life, but I think thats about it."
If you take a look at the surrounding sentences, my point was to explore all the possibilities in turn and look at their issues.
3)See (2). The problem isn't you finding problems with my parts, it's, to use your analogy, saying that a screw in and of itself does not propel anything forward, so it therefore cannot be used in a vehicle.

"1)Cast your mind back to the early days of mechanical transportation, say, before Henry Ford applied assembly line manufacturing to the mass production of affordable automobiles. Was it government money, or was it rich donors?
2)And then we have Microsoft and the computing industry. Oh yes, government money and rich donors? What about the crucial business arrangements Microsoft made in its early years with IBM? How much did the first generation of electrical digital computers in the 1940s cost? And now? How much money did the government and rich donors put into the industry? If there were no profits to be made, would governments and rich donors continue to invest in such ventures?"

I stand corrected. And so do you. In each case, it was the tenacity and genius of those inventors that allowed them to create their products. They created those items for the masses regardless of whether the expensive ones before them had a market.

"1)My mistake, or my opinion? If you think that my opinion is wrong, does that not mean that to me, your opinion is wrong? Are you mistaken in thinking that the majority of the population do not want immortality?"

Since virtually every religion promotes using this life merely as a stepping stone to the next life, everyone who is religious would therefore not want immortality in this life. Some might be tempted, I'm sure, but this is doubtless more than just "me".

"1)I don't know, such is the behaviour that many of our race exhibit. How many of us have took the long path to arrive at the conclusion that what we did is wrong? How many times did we embark on a venture with utmost confidence that this is the most efficient method of acquiring what we want (and that we truly want it)?"

This painstaking process does not refer to the research/development stage, but the actual treatment that SENS would eventually come up with.

"1)Just because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain does not mean that you do not respect the lives of others. In fact, what is at stake here is their own lives - does the testing, in any manner, compromise the lives of others? Why are you concerned about the attitude of the test subjects to the lives of others anyway? I was thinking that the first test subjects would be criminals awaiting capital punishment and the like - see numerous books and movies."

Doesn't your ending disprove your beginning and prove mine? You don't get capital punishment unless you seriously disrespect other people's lives...
The thing is that you don't have "nothing" to lose and everything to gain. SENS is meant to cure aging and only aging, and not the actual problems that result from aging (cancer, dementia, arthritis, etc.). Therefore the test subject must be someone who has yet to suffer from these ailments. It sounds like the test subjects must be healthy middle-aged (or younger) adults who still have a fair amount of life ahead of them and no indication as of yet that their life will get any worse. THAT is what they're gambling with.
Besides, don't those criminals have to give their consent before being subjected to such tests?

"1)All in the name of progress?
2)If everything went A-Okay from the get-go . . . well, humanity would've progressed a lot more - and learnt a lot less. We learn from our mistakes - not many of humanity's attempts at innovation succeeded on the first try. Many inventors were subjected to much derision when their early attempts crashed and burned (see Wright brothers, Edison's failures, etc) - but eventually, those mistakes were worth it.
3)Biological immortals are still susceptible to BOOM! HEADSHOT! - and various other inconveniences that us mortals suffer from."

1) Translation: The end justifies the means?
2) "Worth it" in whose eyes? Was our gaining of the knowledge of syphilis "worth it" in the eyes of those who received placebo treatment so that doctors could observe how the disease progressed? Was the discovery of atomic power "worth it" to the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
3) So giving them biological immortality is OK because we can kill them once we're done?

"Since I already have a reasonable understanding of the implications and various niceties, would you like to take that topic further, or would you like to leave it as it is? It is an interesting factor to introduce into most arguements, but usually pointless as it is terribly difficult to convince others to change their minds (as most arguements are)."
We seem to be the perfect example of that. Just remember, you said it, not me. Anyhow, there's quite enough material here to work with, cloning aside.

1) If that's the way you want to argue it, find someone who thinks that's actually a legitimate way of arguing and argue with them instead.Hello? I created this thread, and you came. o_o


2) "In this case" means you taking each sentence with no regard for what comes next, citing problems that were obviously answered in the very next sentence. It's ok to take one sentence at a time so long as you regard that sentence IN CONTEXT.Sorry - I should've commented upon this earlier: I find your "context" so confusing that it is easier for me to process your reasoning one sentence at a time (A leads to B, B leads to C, etc). Having done that, it simple appears to me that your "context" is wrong, as A does not lead to B, B does not lead to C, etc.


3)See (2). The problem isn't you finding problems with my parts, it's, to use your analogy, saying that a screw in and of itself does not propel anything forward, so it therefore cannot be used in a vehicle.I think it's more the case of:
1)The screw is of the wrong type/ substandard quality.
2)The vehicle was not supposed to work in the first place?


I stand corrected. And so do you. In each case, it was the tenacity and genius of those inventors that allowed them to create their products. They created those items for the masses regardless of whether the expensive ones before them had a market.No, no, no. That was not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make here is that without business (profits?), products rarely flourish and develop further. Well, it is somewhat simplfied, but it's the basic scenario in which people get their funding cut because their sponsors deem the project financially unviable (unable to produce a profitable product).


Since virtually every religion promotes using this life merely as a stepping stone to the next life, everyone who is religious would therefore not want immortality in this life. Some might be tempted, I'm sure, but this is doubtless more than just "me".I daresay that you are assuming that everyone religious is 100% devoted to their faith. Not that I intend to throw mud upon the piousness of believers and such, but in the face of Death . . . well, our animalistic nature tends to resurface in an ugly fashion.


This painstaking process does not refer to the research/development stage, but the actual treatment that SENS would eventually come up with.Well, I've not the tiniest inkling of how the actual treatment will be (besides my rampant speculations), but suffice to say there are always those willing to endure the inconveniences for biological immortality. Many people have endured the same, if not more, for less.


Doesn't your ending disprove your beginning and prove mine? You don't get capital punishment unless you seriously disrespect other people's lives...
The thing is that you don't have "nothing" to lose and everything to gain. SENS is meant to cure aging and only aging, and not the actual problems that result from aging (cancer, dementia, arthritis, etc.). Therefore the test subject must be someone who has yet to suffer from these ailments. It sounds like the test subjects must be healthy middle-aged (or younger) adults who still have a fair amount of life ahead of them and no indication as of yet that their life will get any worse. THAT is what they're gambling with.
Besides, don't those criminals have to give their consent before being subjected to such tests?
1)I simply do not see the relevence of the test subject's disrespect to other people's lives.
2)I can confidently tell you now that we have a very different picture of what SENS does. Would you wish to compare yours to mine?
3)Not necessarily. In my picture (which is different from yours), SENS would also eliminate the side effects of aging, in other words, cure cancer and arthritis. Not so sure about dementia since I don't know what it is.
4)Well, as much life ahead them as they have before they're taken down the Green Mile or whatever it is before they are capitally punished?
5)See, if you're about to be capitally punished, and was given the choice between certain death and almost certain death . . . see the Cube (movie).


1)Translation: The end justifies the means?
2)"Worth it" in whose eyes? Was our gaining of the knowledge of syphilis "worth it" in the eyes of those who received placebo treatment so that doctors could observe how the disease progressed? Was the discovery of atomic power "worth it" to the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
3) So giving them biological immortality is OK because we can kill them once we're done?1)100% correct.
2)I don't know, I'd be pretty grateful towards those who recieved placebo treatments if I contracted syphilis today. Didn't they sign some sort of agreement or something? Well, consider the alternative scenario if nuclear weapon were not deployed, nay, if Einstein never conceived the basic theories leading up to the event - the rationale one could adopt would be: A) Someone would've done it sooner or later. B)Japan's Scorched Earth policy would've ensured that many more civilians and many more soldiers died a pointless death which could've been resolved more easily. Well, there are countless arguement for and against such things, but as I said, progress has been made, and it is for humanity to reflect upon its morals whether the ends do justify the means. See "If you killed a little girl, you would be given the cure to cancer".
3)Your concerns were that the people with questionable characters would become biologically immortal. I was only reassuring you that their biological immortality offers them no immunity or resistance towards conventional violence (i.e. they can be disposed off the old-fashioned way should they cause trouble).


We seem to be the perfect example of that. Just remember, you said it, not me. Anyhow, there's quite enough material here to work with, cloning aside.I was never under the impression that my arguements would convince you to change the way you think. I'm only arguing for the sake of arguing after all, as stated a few posts (pages?) ago. But it has been a good arguement, and I thoroughly enjoyed every character of it.