If you could live forever, would you?

  • Thread starter adarrow2
  • Start date
  • #51
160
0
adarrow2 said:
With the recent advancements in genetics, it may be possible in the not too distant future to double, triple or even live forever. The question I have for you is, if you would live forever, as you are now would you? Why or why not?

What about if you could turn back the hands of time genetically to a younger or ahead to an older age and remain biologically in tact at that age forever would you? Why or why not?

NOTE: In this hypothetical situation, you can still die by accidental death, by a terminal illnesses or voluntarily terminate your life.

1. You can not live forever, unless you are a perfect being and create no enthropy, for that means you need no order to survive, and when the universe is pure enthropy, you will still not die. Genetics are no where near and probally will never be able to do that.

2. If i could live forever, would I? No, i might live for extra time, but not forever, only if everyone lives forever will there be no death, and then there will be extreme over population. If there is death, then sooner or later those you love, maybe i should put care for, will all pass away :frown: :cry: :frown: . After that, what is there to live for.

3. If i could turn back the clock, would i? I am not old enough to think of my self as old, but if (i might die before im old) i do get old would i. Yes to some extent. I would not want to be in a hospital bed with a pacemaker and feeding tube, i rather be 20-30.

4. Would i remain young forever if i could? read post 2 and then add 3 to it for an answer.
 
  • #52
GeD
147
0
Telos said:
I don't know how anyone can participate in this discussion.

If we implement radical life extension, then life will by definition be radically different. We have no justifiable context to proceed with this discussion.

That's a misunderstanding of life! It has constantly changed DRAMATICALLY* especially over our last two thousand years. No other species has had its life expectancy grow double in less than a thousand years, as well as many other major life changes. To say that the discussion of changing life dramatically must have justifiable context first is just plain ignorance of history and fear of the unknown aspects of human existence.



We can't begin to imagine eternity? Then what are you talking about if you can't even grasp it? Just because we cannot prove eternity, does not mean we do not comprehend it.
 
  • #53
124
0
GeD said:
That's a misunderstanding of life! It has constantly changed DRAMATICALLY* especially over our last two thousand years. No other species has had its life expectancy grow double in less than a thousand years, as well as many other major life changes. To say that the discussion of changing life dramatically must have justifiable context first is just plain ignorance of history and fear of the unknown aspects of human existence.
This claim that we've "doubled our life expectancy" is really getting out of hand.

ca. 250 years ago, Isaac Newton lived to be 84.
ca. 400 years ago, Galileo lived to be 78.
ca. 800 years ago, Albertus Magnus lived to be 87.
ca. 1000 years ago, Saint Anselm lived to be 76.
ca. 1300 years ago, Saint Adamnan lived to be 79.
ca. 1500 years ago, Uthman ibn Affan lived to be 82.
ca. 2000 years ago, Tiberius lived to be 79.
ca. 2300 years ago, Euclid lived to be 90.
ca. 2500 years ago, Plato lived to be 74.
ca. 3300 years ago, Ramses II lived to be 90.
ca. 5000 years ago, Menes reigned Egypt for 62 years. Although his exact age is unknown, he probably lived much longer than he reigned. [Edit: and he was killed by a hippopotamus.]

The rising lines of life expectancy are statistical lies. By leading a privileged and protected life, while having plentiful access to food and leisure, people throughout all of recorded history have lived to the ages they do now.

And the above are just samples from western civilization.

The rising average life expectancy occurs because more of us live like nobles, kings, and pharaohs.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
GeD
147
0
Telos said:
This claim that we've "doubled our life expectancy" is really getting out of hand.

ca. 250 years ago, Isaac Newton lived to be 84.
ca. 400 years ago, Galileo lived to be 78.
ca. 800 years ago, Albertus Magnus lived to be 87.
ca. 1000 years ago, Saint Anselm lived to be 76.
ca. 1300 years ago, Saint Adamnan lived to be 79.
ca. 1500 years ago, Uthman ibn Affan lived to be 82.
ca. 2000 years ago, Tiberius lived to be 79.
ca. 2300 years ago, Euclid lived to be 90.
ca. 2500 years ago, Plato lived to be 74.
ca. 3300 years ago, Ramses II lived to be 90.
ca. 5000 years ago, Menes reigned Egypt for 62 years. Although his exact age is unknown, he probably lived much longer than he reigned. [Edit: and he was killed by a hippopotamus.]

The rising lines of life expectancy are statistical lies. By leading a privileged and protected life, while having plentiful access to food and leisure, people throughout all of recorded history have lived to the ages they do now.

And the above are just samples from western civilization.

The rising average life expectancy occurs because more of us live like nobles, kings, and pharaohs.
Stating the lives of a few rare occurrences doesn't impress anyone...we're not really interested in a few rare occurrences after all.
Since nowadays we also have 120+ year old people, your argument that there used to be 90 year olds just goes to show that the maximum life expectancy has increased by about 33%.
The average, however, is the more interesting part - it has clearly shown that we are living longer. The fact that more people are living like nobles and kings is already proof that human life has dramatically changed over the course of history, because of the advent of new technology and the changes in social dynamics. What else will the future bring? What would lead us to think that this is the absolute end of rising life expectancies (maximum or average)?

Thus, the statement remains:
"To say that the discussion of changing life dramatically must have justifiable context first is just plain ignorance of history and fear of the unknown [thus uncharted] aspects of human existence."
 
Last edited:
  • #55
124
0
GeD, you just revealed yourself as the object of your own criticism. Brushing aside my examples just because they weren't numerous shows that you are deliberately ignorant of history. You assume that these types of people are "rare," but in fact they shared a common lifestyle - that of nobility. Certainly the nobles were not as populous as the underclass, but the peasants often died in mandatory military service or malnutrition. It's really sad to see that you are interested in this, while claiming that you are.

Since nowadays we also have 120+ year old people, your argument that there used to be 90 year olds just goes to show that the maximum life expectancy has increased by about 33%.
90 years old was not the maximum life expectancy. I was only illustrating numerous individuals throughout history who, because of their nobility, lived to about the age people do now. Even if 90 was the maximum life expectancy, it would still be only 33%, not double, which I successfully exposed as misleading.

Thus, the statement remains:...
Your statement must be directed at someone else, because I never made the claim you mention. The topic specifically draws from life extension, not the general "changing of life dramatically." It's clear that you're not putting much thought into this, and your making an incredible amount of assumptions from my posts, which from my perspective is actually careless and rude. But most importantly it makes discussion with you impractical. You're now on my ignore list. No offense. :frown:
 
Last edited:
  • #56
GeD
147
0
Telos said:
GeD, you just revealed yourself as the object of your own criticism. Brushing aside my examples just because they weren't numerous shows that you are deliberately ignorant of history.
How do I brush history aside when I use it to compare to what is now prevalent? The point is to show how we have increased life expectancy throughout history, not that things are the same.



90 years old was not the maximum life expectancy. I was just illustrating numerous individuals throughout history who, because of their nobility, lived to about the age people do now. Even if 90 was the maximum life expectancy, it would still be only 33%, not double, which I successfully exposed as misleading.
This point is flawed! It was easy to understand that double the average life expectancy is what we should be discussing - not the dozen or so exceptions. If you are looking at the past to search for your life expectancy, do you try to see the maximum age limits are? You would be more willing to look at the AVERAGE life expectancy of the people in your environment.



Your statement must be directed at someone else, because I never made the claim you mention. The topic specifically draws from life extension, not the general "changing of life dramatically." It's clear that you're not putting much thought into this, and your making an incredible amount of assumptions from my posts, making discussion with you impractical.
It's clear that you either don't even know what you're writing, or you just want to ignore anyone who counters you. Here is your statement on the life extension and dramatic change of life stuff:
If we implement radical life extension, then life will by definition be radically different. We have no justifiable context to proceed with this discussion.
Thus you are stating that if we extend life dramatically, the definition of life will be different. And then you go on to state that because of that, there is no justification to proceed with this discussion - but how is this the case?. I argue that there is always justification for the discussion of life extension, even if it causes a dramatic change of our definition of life. This is the case because life has been and continues to dramatically change over time (if we look at history), yet we are not unjustified when we try to discuss or extend our life span.



You're now on my ignore list. No offense.
Good to see that you've put me on your ignore list - you must be the only one left that isn't on there. No offense.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
459
7
While I might be tempted to add on a few healthy years near the end of my life I would not want to live forever. Evolution relies on death to make room for new life.

I notice that the older I get the faster time seems to pass. (I'm not talking relativity theory here, just personal perspective) As a child summer vacation used to seem like a long time. Now a season passes by so quickly. A friend of mine had a child with his wife two years ago. I remember the day that he called me and told me that she was pregnant like it was yesterday. Every year that I age is a significantly smaller proportion of my total life experience.

If I were to live forever then I would have so many memories that I wouldn't know how to deal with it all. Generation after generation would pass by me and I would feel so left out. There would be no family, no friends that would last. One day they would be children and in retrospect it would seem a short time before they would be dead. By removing myself from the natural evolution of the species I would selfishly cheat myself out of any long term enjoyment. Death is a part of what makes life so valuable.
 

Related Threads for: If you could live forever, would you?

Replies
20
Views
7K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top