The Prophet of Immortality

Popular Science ^ | January 2005 Issue | Joseph Hooper

[Momaw Nadon]

FYI and discussion

[Kurt_D]

This makes me hum along Alphaville's song "Forever Young"...

[Northern Yankee]

Just what I want to do... pay taxes forever...

[jrfaug06]

Funny, I came up with that biological ponzi scheme as an orginal thought years ago.

I am 50. I figure if I can live another 30 years then I should be able to live another 20 because of science. Keep in mind that in 30 years there will be no cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. If I can live those extra 20 then I will be able to live another 20 because of more advances. This goes on and on.

The big challenge of the generation being born today, here today now, is who gets to live 150 years.

Change is a coming.


John

[goodnesswins]

ROFL....yeah, used to be two things for CERTAIN....DEATH and TAXES.....now it's looking like TAXES are the ONLY certain thing! (Well, if you believe all this.)

[goodnesswins]

My husband and I set a goal of 104 when we were in our 40's....the look on my DIL's face when I said this was of shock.....guess she was expecting an inheritance a little earlier.

[stinkypew]

Whether it's 4,000 years or until the universe collapses upon itself (or however it's going to end), we are all still going to die.

Plus, even if the stuff of this article becomes reality, you'd still have to worry constantly about physical obliteration. If you get nuked or otherwise totally vaporized, there is no way science will ever be able to bring you back. And even if they somehow discovered a way to create a "back-up you" to guard against physical obliteration of the original, the back-up would likewise be at risk of physical obliteration.

There is no way out of death. Ever. Period.

[Semper Paratus]

who gets to live 150 years

If you think the popular music is bad today how is it going to be in 2104?

[maine-iac7]

Don't let the dems get ahold of this - they'll up the social security retirement age to 99.

but seriously, folks...It is a myth that we live longer now "than"

our family has thousands of names done in our genealogy - and, just for ex: - in the 1600's =- the Mayflower lines - our folk lived long lives. Just look at the leaders: Gov Wm. Bradford died at 78, Elder Wm. Brewster, just short of 80th BD, John Alden, age 88, and Myles Standish 72. (granted, those were longer than their contemporaries back across the pond. What was the difference? Clean water, clean food 0 including wild game, which was not in abundance - except for royalty - in the Old World, clean air.)

Then there are the recorded statements of Native Americans, even before the Mayflower, telling of how they used to live into the 120+'s before the advent of white man's bread and wine.

Bottom line, for a healthier you - eat sparingly but good and keep the pipes clean!We have, what, about 24 feet of intestines - and a lot of stuff we eat sits and ferments in there - spreading toxins throughout our system...not healthy. (wouldn't expect a car to run well on such clogged pipes.)

[dpwiener]

Whether it's 4,000 years or until the universe collapses upon itself (or however it's going to end), we are all still going to die.

Still, given a choice, I'll go for the latter option.

[Momaw Nadon]

When does the universe end?

A few trillion years from now?

I wouldn't mind living that long.

[GSlob]

Well, the treatment, when and if it comes, would be most likely very expensive and labor-intensive, thus most emphatically not for everybody. (What was the name of that basketball star who got AIDS some 15 yrs ago? He's still alive, IIRC, making the same point). Thus you are right - the question becomes who gets treated. And those who do get the treatment would provoke such a degree of envy that they would need to spend the rest of their very long lives in protective custody.

[dpwiener]

Well, the treatment, when and if it comes, would be most likely very expensive and labor-intensive, thus most emphatically not for everybody.

I have to say that's a very short-sighted objection. ALL new treatments and other new developments are initially very expensive, but then decline rapidly in cost over time (or are replaced by far cheaper and better alternatives). TV's, VCRs, computers, DVDs, etc. were once few in number and available only to the very wealthy. Now they are ubiquitous. Heart bypass surgery is still fairly expensive, but hundreds of thousands of operations are routinely performed and vast numbers of people are alive today as a result. We are a rich society and continually getting richer.

Longevity treatments will likely follow the same path. Within a few years they will become routine and cheap and widely available to anyone who wishes to live beyond the historically typical life span.

[Momaw Nadon]

What was the name of that basketball star who got AIDS some 15 years ago? He's still alive, IIRC, making the same point).

Magic Johnson.

Thus you are right - the question becomes who gets treated.

Eventually, the cost of the anti-aging treatment will become so low that it would be available to everyone. (A modern cheap pocket calculator is several times more powerful than the early room-sized computers).

[Charlespg]

I read something in in a science years about stopping ageing, sooner or later it said the odds would catch up with you,

[jrfaug06]

No kidding!

John

[jrfaug06]

Get ready for Bill Clintons 150th birthday!

John

[FierceDraka]

I wouldn't mind living 5,000 years. I would love to have the extra time to raise a few generations of children.

But there would be drawbacks to living in a society where the average lifespan is so long, like stagnation of society.

[GSlob]

The only people eligible for 5000 yrs lifespan ought to be compulsively creative types like Michelangelo. There are not many (actually, very few) of those, but with them stagnation would be unlikely. The lesser mortals should remain mortal.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Those people who have children and die will be at war with those who choose barrenness and long life. I predict victory for the child-bearing.

Mrs VS