Aging (discussion topic).

[Doppleganger]

I just read up on some cryogenics articles and they mentioned a possible consequence of devising successful reverse cryogenic methods could be slowing or stopping the effects of aging. That doesn't sound like a very good prospect from my position - humans are biologically programmed to die and to have a desire to reproduce out of need to strengthen the gene-pools of future generations. The fear of death is only a mechanism to ensure we don't go and be reckless and kill oursleves prematurely - aging is sort of like a mandatory tax of nature to ensure that, in the end, we'll die anyway. But to remove that without removing "the desire to reproduce" could be quite nasty.

To me, the idea of some old dude at age thirty five mingling with his great great great grand-children is uncomforting, perhaps perverse. Although I myself am dedicated to live as long as I can, I'm also perfectly happy knowing I'll die someday (I also look forward to being old - if I take care of myself as best I can, being old + in good health won't be troublesome). I'd pass up immortality if given the opportunity but I don't think a lot of people would do the same.

Thoughts? If technology permits, should people be allowed to dwell in biological stasis? Is it ethical and does it run against the grain of nature's grand plan?

[Lunar Delta]

I'd love to be able to live for a few thousand years, just to see what will happen. The though of all of my memories and experiences fading away into nothing is saddening, I'd rather it not happen.

[Kasumi Violet]

Sure I'd live forever. I'm not planning on reproducing, so the fear of meeting a great-whatever-grandchild of mine isn't a huge deal to me. Although I do think that having some kind of a trade-off between being able to reproduce and being able to live forever would be prudent... otherwise overpopulation would become a real huge problem.

[Loki]

And here we are
We're the princes of the universe
Here we belong, fighting for survival
We've come to be the rulers of your world

I am immortal
I have inside me blood of kings
I have no rival
No man can be my equal!
Take me to the future of new earth

That's all I remember...

I seriously doubt any sort of cryogenics can permanently stop aging without a person being frozen the entire time. And while there's a chance it could slow down aging, I sincerely doubt it would be to the extent of where someone could look as young as their grandchild.

As for immortality- I personally don't care for it. Yes, I'm sure it would be cool to be immortal, but I've already come to terms with the concept of dying someday and I'm 100% I don't care about it. You also need to remember I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in the afterlife or Heaven or Hell or any other concept of life after death, so when I say I don't care about immortality, I seriously mean it.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Humans are biologically programmed to die and to have a desire to reproduce out of need to strengthen the gene-pools of future generations. The fear of death is only a mechanism to ensure we don't go and be reckless and kill oursleves prematurely - aging is sort of like a mandatory tax of nature to ensure that, in the end, we'll die anyway. But to remove that without removing "the desire to reproduce" could be quite nasty.

We agree. We diverge on our solutions.

Doppel's next line of thought: "So, we ought to ban immortality in the interests of preventing overpopulation."
Talon's next line of thought: "So, we ought to ban reproduction in the interests of preventing overpopulation."

As a biologist, I must emphasize that I am familiar with the arguments against putting a hold on reproduction. To "freeze" the entire human population at where it stands today could be disastrous for the species as time approaches infinity since (by definition) "as time approaches infinity, the likelihood of a supervirus, out of control, coming into existence and erasing all human life approaches 1." Which is to say, "it's good to keep the Grim Reaper on his toes" through constant genetic reshuffling every generation.

That stated, I don't like this line of thinking at all -- I think it's gambler's logic. Just like the gambler who thinks to himself, "If I keep buying the same ticket, I'm bound to win at some point!", so too does the biology student argue, "If I keep humanity where it is, then at some point there's bound to be some virus which our genome isn't prepared to fight off." The thing is, just like you could change your lottery ticket and win, so too can you change your genome and still get pwned by a supervirus. Similarly, just as you can keep buying the same ticket for millions of years and never win, you can keep humanity where it is and that magical "supervirus which no human can resist" will never show up.

The catch is that humans have millions of different genes, any one of which can either be (a) the weakest link which ends up killing us or (b) the sword and shield which saves us from an otherwise unstoppable pathogen. And since we have no idea of knowing what's good and what's bad until it's too late, there is no merit to choosing "continued genetic shuffling" over "staying put." In other words ... you're asking us to keep shuffling, but for all we know, you could be asking us to throw away the winning lottery ticket. We may have the "golden ticket" which is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% effective against disease and you're asking us to throw it away for another go of genetic reshuffling which weakens our species' genome to like 99.999999983329104742% effective at fighting off disease.

SO! That stated, I am highly in favor of finding a way to let the nearly 7 billion people who are alive today "live on forever" and put a freeze on reproduction rather than the opposite -- forcing people to die off so that others may enjoy the pleasure of being parents.

This is, of course, all a sci-fi talk (for now), so I guess my views need not frighten any diehard mummies or daddies. And by the way, I, too, want to be a dad. I'm just saying, I'd rather me and my lover live forever than that we have to die and I'd give up my chance to have kids to secure that.

Again, so as not to offend Super Moms or Super Dads, let me say that my views may change once I actually find myself in the position of being a parent.

Originally Posted by Doppel

I'd pass up immortality if given the opportunity but I don't think a lot of people would do the same.

True, true, true. I'd be one of those who'd call you "the Fool," too. But hey, it's my funeral ... or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Doppel

Thoughts? If technology permits, should people be allowed to dwell in biological stasis? Is it ethical and does it run against the grain of nature's grand plan?

In order ... thoughts provided above; yes, but I don't see the point in being cryogenically frozen if you can't wake up from it -- cryogenesis is HARDLY what I would call "eternal youth" since you've still only got ~75 years on your biological clock and the only change is how you spend those precious years; I think it is ethical and at the same time does run against the grain of what Nature had planned.

[Lindz]

Just because you wouldn't age doesn't mean you're immortal! :8 Anyway I wouldn't want to live forever but maybe abit longer past "the norm" would be neat. Although that'd mean you'd have to work much much longer. x_X;

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Lindz

Just because you wouldn't age doesn't mean you're immortal! :8

100% true. It's just that, you know, I have an awful habit of over-explaining the obvious. So I thought for once I'd just do something normal, like say "immortal" instead of "living forever so long as one does not encounter something which could cause premature death such as a stab wound, overdose of poison, falling into a black hole, etc." Neh? ;) But yeah, "immortal" implies invincibility, something certainly not prepackaged with "everlasting youth."

[just to clarify, I'm not giving you cheek. I'm explaining why I wrote something that is technically incorrect!]

[Another Fan]

I don't want to die. I want to see how the world develops as much as I can.

I'm up for this. Sorry guys.

[Sylar]

Yeah, I'd want to live for an elongated period of time, longer than the norm. :O T'would be cool.

But for it to be worth it, I'd probably have to start over somewhere new every 40-50 years, just so I wouldn't be stuck in exactly the same place for as long as I survive.

[Talon87]

Oh, you mean you would want some proviso like "Joe can't be arsed to spend 1,580,000 years in the TransGalactic Penitentiary" because that would suck balls? (Agreed, btw, but I think such a proviso is unrealistic. )

[Golden Mew]

I don't know. I don't think I'd want to live for that long.