Anti-Aging Research: Prolonging Life or Overpopulation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Research
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the motivations behind anti-aging research, questioning its necessity given the growing global population and increasing life expectancy. Concerns are raised about the potential societal consequences of extended lifespans, including overcrowding, economic strain, and the sustainability of social security systems. While some participants acknowledge the desire for individuals to enjoy longer, healthier lives, they argue that this could lead to significant societal challenges. The conversation also touches on demographic trends, particularly in Africa, where population growth is contrasted with declining birth rates in Europe. Participants emphasize the importance of focusing on enhancing the quality of life rather than merely extending lifespan, suggesting that anti-aging research should aim to address common diseases and improve overall health. The need for a balanced approach to applying research findings is highlighted, advocating for careful consideration of the implications of extending life.
wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
I've read/watched a lot about anti-aging research over the past year, and while the topic is very interesting, I still can't understand why people are researching it. As far as I know, bassically every place in the world has a growing human population besides Africa and perhaps China (and only because of the 1 child policy). Even with AIDS, cancer, terrorism, all sorts of various diseases, global warming, the hole in the ozone layer pollution etc. the world's human population is still growing, and in most places, average life spans are increasing. Yet these scientists are still trying to find ways to make poeple live longer and longer and longer.

Of course when you look at it from an individual perspective, you might want your beloved parents to live healthy lives to 160 years old, but imagine a society with people living for that long, it would be so ridiculously over-crowded. Just to keep the economy going the retirement age would keep having to be raised, social security would either fail or take ridiculous sums of money from workers, there'd be huge amounts of trash, more and more and more cities would have to be built, oh god it would all go to hell.

Bassically, what I'm saying is, let old people die.
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
wasteofo2 said:
I've read/watched a lot about anti-aging research over the past year, and while the topic is very interesting, I still can't understand why people are researching it. As far as I know, bassically every place in the world has a growing human population besides Africa and perhaps China (and only because of the 1 child policy). Even with AIDS, cancer, terrorism, all sorts of various diseases, global warming, the hole in the ozone layer pollution etc. the world's human population is still growing, and in most places, average life spans are increasing. Yet these scientists are still trying to find ways to make poeple live longer and longer and longer.

Of course when you look at it from an individual perspective, you might want your beloved parents to live healthy lives to 160 years old, but imagine a society with people living for that long, it would be so ridiculously over-crowded. Just to keep the economy going the retirement age would keep having to be raised, social security would either fail or take ridiculous sums of money from workers, there'd be huge amounts of trash, more and more and more cities would have to be built, oh god it would all go to hell.

Bassically, what I'm saying is, let old people die.


Africa is undergoing a huge population explosion. The population of white Europeans is decreasing due to low birthrates, so some of your comments are inaccurate.

The idea is not to keep people in the state of vegatables, but to prolong the period of productive, healthy life.
 
plus said:
Africa is undergoing a huge population explosion. The population of white Europeans is decreasing due to low birthrates, so some of your comments are inaccurate.

The idea is not to keep people in the state of vegatables, but to prolong the period of productive, healthy life.
I thought that with all the AIDS in africa, a lot of the poor (mostly native african) people are dying off. But damn, Africa is just a ****hole and if their population is still growing...

I realize it's to keep people active longer, living healthy, better and longer lives. Human populations are still growing, more people are being born than are dying, and if you prolong death (even if life is good), you're still going to lead to massive over-crowding. Especially if people have productive, healthy elderly years, retirement need to be pushed back.
 
plus said:
Africa is undergoing a huge population explosion. The population of white Europeans is decreasing due to low birthrates, so some of your comments are inaccurate.
How do you know the population growth in Africa is explosive? If I look up the population growth rate of S. Africa, it is -0.25% (2004 est.).. but the country is probably one of the most hard-hit by HIV infections. Still, a lot of kids might be born in Africa, but most of them don't live very long lives..

I agree that extending lifespan is complicated by a number of factors, but with the outcome of anti-aging research more mundane diseases can be tackled too.. like heart attacks or stroke (if you know how to keep your bloodvessels young). Basically it is the obligation of researchers to understand how we age and how that information can be used to improve quality of life.

The knowledge should be applied in a commonsensical manner. Like, there are situations where benefits don't outweight the drawbacks. Liver transplatations aren't going to be performed when there is no clear advantage for doing so.
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Back
Top