Immortality: Is it desirable?

If it were possible to turn off the human gene that causes aging, would it be desirable? Why? Why not?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Aging
• Immortality
• Career

[JHP962111]

Oxidative damage to a genome causes errors in its ability to create perfect copies of itself over time. The genomic structure itself is "immortal" and has no self-destruct mechanism.

Preventing involuntary death can only be moral in a society if life extension technology is made available to everyone.

Overpopulation: Birth rates decline naturally in advanced societies already and over time, human habitats will logically extend into outer space.

Radical life extension is easily worthwhile.

[Largo64]

Thanks for your comment. I just wonder how it would be going on another thousand years as I am now (66, obese, not very healthy). It might seem more worthwhile to me if I could be assured of my 25-year-old body!

[alargedog]

there is no death only metomrophisis, wish the fuck i could spell that word

[Largo64]

Which word. You got "fuck" right! ;<)

[mobiltec]

What would happen if you broke your neck and were parilyzed? What would it be like to get cancer at 75 and have to live with it because you are immortal? There would be a whole lot of permanent sick people.

[Largo64]

@mobiltec I was just re-reading the comment section after 2 years now. You raise a really frightening prospect. Given our current laws, euthanasia is forbidden. Unless we had advanced in social laws as far as in science, the possibility of living in pain or incapacity seems dreadful.

[KainSlash]

We can go on as much as we like and die whenever we feel like it. We would just have to stop breeding, to have a decent life.

[1NX9]

@mobiltec

A cure would be found. Nanotechnology is still advancing.

[outofthegreenmist]

I think a lot of rich celebs would want it. Isn't the world overpopulated already? This is the sort of Frankenstein science that drives people towards religion. On the other hand, this is the kind of world some Christians tell us we could have had without Adam and Eve's sin, when physical death came into the world. LOL! Imagine the size of the Earth's population now if Adam and Eve had never died, if none of us did! What a nightmare!

[mobiltec]

@Herufaia Tell us what you have accomplished thus far in your short life and that should reflect how long it would take you to do anything else. I think your supposition would only work if you were the only one to live forever and if you did, what purpose would your long life hold? None I suspect. You would just sit on your duff and watch the world go by.......... Forever.........

[mobiltec]

@Pawn2King4 Death must be the biggest rush of all. Why else would it be saved for last? :) Love the way Thunderf00t puts it. Death does give life purpose.

[Danielnoctis]

Bet your ass it is.

[gerladiant]

Brilliant and well thought out, unfortunately I will not benefit from this , only the rich will. As it says in the bible" The rich shall inherit the earth" or was it meek ummm< let me think, that is what he meant about mortality, yes that is it. , death is the Eternal Abysse. If I was rich I would choose immortality.

[neoaeonian]

I have thought about this question for over 40 years. No, that's not true. I thought of this question for the first time 45 years ago, and decided, shortly after that, that I'd want it.

"Rich enough" is a moving target. Rev 1 would be expensive, not work well, but rev 20 would be cheap and available to anyone.

We'll solve the ability to get younger soon.

The population of earth will only grow by people having children. If you're not having children then you're not raising the population

[amoto333]

There are some negatives, but if it were available to everyone and we were able to educate and govern better.... Then we would have the WHOLE UNIVERSE to explore!