Topic awaiting preservation: Living 350 years ? (Page 1 of 1)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/08/05/long.life.ap/index.html

This news has a little something of Herbetian, it reminded Dune in which people can live to 300 - 350 years thanks to Spice.

But applied to our world, I can find many reasons it won't work...

- Not everyone will be able to afford this 'cure'. And you know well what happens when you put a gap between different parts of mankind : I foresee a conflict.
- Surpopulation.


And to be frank, I'm not even sure living 350 years will make humans wiser... They will only destroy their world more quickly.

Thoughts ?




[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 08-06-2003).]

Thanks for the link, MS. This is a good thing. Human life is precious.

Conflict? Perhaps. I bet it will come from jealousy or envy from those who can't of those who can. Some folks want to live longer but can't afford it, so they seek to take away the option from those that can afford it. Or they will seek to get it for free. People do have the right to live longer, but not at the forced expense of others.

Surpopulation? Honestly, I doubt it. Try to see this from a responsibility angle.
Matter of fact, population growth goes down in times of prosperity (again, to do with responsibility).

We'll find out soon enough if it will work and what kinds of problems arise.

"Death is a mug's lot."

Interesting research - I always felt that stuff just tagetting telomeres and things was doomed to failure as a whole range of things need to be addressed.

On a side note it is good to see that the Monty Python influence on science hasn't yet waned:

quote:

---

Most of these genes carry deadpan scientific monikers: p66shc, ctl-1, Lamin A. Others were mercifully christened in whimsy like age-1, clock, Methuselah, and INDY -- for "I'm Not Dead Yet," a name inspired by a line from a Monty Python movie.

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I really don't think that I'd want to live 350 years. 70'd be enough for me.

I asked my biology teacher about surpopulation, and indeed it shouldn't be a problem. In fact, our world is still 'desert' of human beings, we could still live on Earth even if we were a hundred times more numerous. The only problem, again, is not abusing of the ressources of Earth (like we do nowadays), otherwise the living conditions would degrade quickly.

CFB : You're right, people nowadays fill their lives enough in 80 years not to want to continue them. You know, we are constantly living in a hurry, urged by the flow of time. Wouldn't it great to have more time to appreciate our world and our life ? I believe you answered this because you think you would be bored of life at this age, tired of living in our hurry. All I can hope is that by living longer, people will slow down, appreciate the facets of the world they don't have the time to notice, become aware the beauty of life. And 350 years wouldn't still be enough to discover everything there is to discover in our world.

Funny thoughts :

- Imagine the number of posts Emperor would have in 300 years.
- Imagine the family meetings with ten different generations.

quote:

---

I really don't think that I'd want to live 350 years. 70'd be enough for me.

---

aaaah, to be 15 again =)

Jason

I'm shooting for 1000 yrs. Maybe a vampire will find me.

With any luck people living longer will allow them to see the "Big Picture" since they would no longer think that after I am dead the world will go to Hell in a handbasket but in my life it will happen.

I think this might lead to an intial jump in population but after that it would level out or eveen slow down as people begin to adjust to the longer life spans.

__________________________
"Show me a sane person and I will cure him for you."-Carl Jung
Eagles may fly high, but beavers don't get sucked into get engines.