Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Longevity Advances

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    people in the USA could be living to 100 now if they didnt eat so much garbage. We've made huge advances in longevity, but people somehow always manage to undo them through bad health.
    Visit First Cultural Industries
    There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
    Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General Ludd

    Comment


    • #32
      Logevity research will not get much goverment support because it would be a finacial disaster for western goverment and thier various persion systmes that need less old folks and more young workers to support them.
      Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
      Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
      "Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
      From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"

      Comment


      • #33
        The story has reached the BBC website if you wan the simple version.

        BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service


        Personally I will continue to wave two fingers at patented drugs and stick to the glass of red wine per day approach to longevity.
        Never give an AI an even break.

        Comment


        • #34
          anyone else discontent with facial skin? should I open a new poncy thread?

          Comment


          • #35
            What? the 'discontent with facial skin vaccine' thread? 'Even 500 fewer pimples would be pretty nice'.

            Eat right, exercise and keep your mind active. Uncle Red says you'll be better off heading my advice than looking for some expensive pharmaceutical solution to all your problems.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
              Logevity research will not get much goverment support because it would be a finacial disaster for western goverment and thier various persion systmes that need less old folks and more young workers to support them.
              this (perhaps) raises an interesting point. if one day in future people could be made to live to say 200, would that mean that people have a longer time to bear children. so instead of women becoming infirtile in their 40s, they could have children up until their 70s or 80s?
              "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

              "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

              Comment


              • #37
                Logevity research will not get much goverment support because it would be a finacial disaster for western goverment and thier various persion systmes that need less old folks and more young workers to support them.
                Well, that's what you would think. But the US at least is putting big money toward it.
                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                Comment


                • #38
                  And as the average lifespan advances the more the 'manditory retirement at 65' idea goes out the window. If people live to be 100 they might be working to age 85.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If increased longevity goes along with a engthening of the productive part of life, then this might jnot be a huge disaster for society: if people can be kept working 2/3 of their lives even if they live to 150-170 then fine. If not, then this type of reaserch would collapse.

                    Also, to think a few corps would be able to have these drugs under patent for a long time is silly. At any point some other gov. might just create a cheap variant and tell the US corps to screw themselves and their patent: this sort of thing could not be kept as a corporate monopoly.
                    If you don't like reality, change it! me
                    "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                    "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                    "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Proteus_MST
                      Who wants to live forever?


                      Clinical immortality or nonexistent oblivion...a hard choice
                      Speaking of Erith:

                      "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Yeah, I think that the increase in longevity would be one that would be hand-in-hand with health for that age...so yeah, I would expect this would prolong working lives in the end.
                        Speaking of Erith:

                        "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X