Can Humanity Handle Immortality?

[OzzyKP]

Someone (Lord Shiva?) said in another thread that they may "cure" aging in our lifetimes and drastically extend human life spans. What would that mean for society?

Can our civilization, culture and society continue in such a world?

[SlowwHand]

No. The world isn't prepared to cope with people living to be 125. Living to be 125 doesn't speak to anything of your ability to function and "contribute".

[LordShiva]

Was I drunk?

[SlowwHand]

When aren't you?

[LordShiva]

If you mean drunk on teh joy of existence, the answer is NEVARRR!

[SlowwHand]

Only way to be.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No. The world isn't prepared to cope with people living to be 125. Living to be 125 doesn't speak to anything of your ability to function and "contribute".

[Verto]

If the life span is extended, along with how long one is actually USEFUL, yes. But what's the point of living to be 200 years old, if you are decrepit and useless at 75?

[Adalbertus]

No.

[Addled Platypus]

once I start to need depends, end my horrible existance

especially if I cant change them myself

[Eli]

The idea is not to merely extend the life expectancy of senile, blind and deaf really old people, but to extend the healthy life expectancy. Otherwise the discussion is pointless.

Would you want to live to 200/500/infinity(make your choice) if you knew you'd be as healthy as, say, a 40 year old?

[Jon Miller]

How life is now? No, not really.

JM

[Sandman]

Re: Can Humanity Handle Immortality?

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Someone (Lord Shiva?) said in another thread that they may "cure" aging in our lifetimes and drastically extend human life spans. What would that mean for society?

Can our civilization, culture and society continue in such a world?

It would mean we'd have to chuck most of society out and start again. Not a particular problem.

[Tattila the Hun]

Overpopulation would be a biatch...

[Impaler[WrG]]

I don't think overpopulation would really be that big a problem (any larger then it already is and is expected to be over the next 100 years) with a large (200 year) lifespan developed gradually over the next 50 years, in every nation life extent ion has brought down the children born per women.

Look at Japan their Elder population is greater then any society the earth has ever known, its a stress but its not tearing their society apart and their developing a lot of compensating technology (robots) in the US drug research is the focus.

Humans have basically conquered infectious disease in the developed world and this doubled average life expectancy but did nothing for maximum life expectancy. That will require a similar thrashing of degenerative disease which is now the focus. Their a two parts to that tissue regeneration/replacement technologies that keep the physical body usable longer, and drugs that can slow or halt the breakdown of the brain. That could give use the 200 years, beyond that will probably require some kind of whole body genetic repair/upgrade process.

I think society could adapt to the 200 year span much as its adapted to the 80 year life span. People would see our current lives as nasty brutish and short. More liberal views on euthanasia both voluntary and involuntary would keep senility from being a major burden for society or the individual. Over 200 years your getting into the zone ware society as we know it is fundamentally altered, people would really start to get tired of living before the onset of senility and choose to euthenics themselves or forgo medical treatment. True immortality or lifespans in excess of 500 years would likely only be appealing to a small number of people who would likely be somewhat shunned by the rest of society. Theirs a slim chance people alive today could live forever (which for betting purposes we will just put at 10,000 years), I'd put odds at 100/1.