View Single Post
  #36  
Old 12-22-2019, 06:02 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by atimnie View Post
So people are just going to stop fucking, is that what you're saying? Sex is a basic biological need, that's not going to stop, and a lot of that will result in pregnancies.
Please google "birth control".

Sex does not inevitably lead to babies. The majority of sex acts performed in this world are for entertainment, not procreation. Granted, if a woman was fertile for 250 years there is more opportunity for birth control failures, but that still means conception will be rare compared to episodes of sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by truthseeker3 View Post
You could stipulate that menopause is kind of a secondary adolescence for women, so your elixir doesn't affect it (which would significantly reduce the proportion of women's lives when they can get pregnant without wanting to do so); but you'd still have to contend with freezing eggs. Even today, it's not uncommon for women to want to "keep their options open." I think harvesting and freezing some of a woman's eggs at puberty (maybe even at birth) would become almost routine. Better yet, get them all - more selection later and effective birth control right now.
Actually, freezing embryos seems to work better than freezing eggs. They do have the added complication that now you have another person involved with the potential kid. Also, whether frozen eggs or frozen sperm or frozen embryos, freezing does not eternally preserve them. Right now the viability of the above notably drops off over decades. If you remove a baby girl's ovaries at birth (and that's leaving aside the enormous ethical concerns of consent, surgical risks, long term effects of removing a major source of hormones, and so forth which are not trivial) then she might only have until her late 20's/early 30's to use them before they become non-viable... so, what would be the point? Even if you waited until puberty (and still ignored the ethical questions in mandatory spaying of every female human being, never mind the hormonal consequences) that still would limit her procreating options to just a few decades at best.

And why is it always the WOMEN who get surgically sterilized in these scenarios? It is MUCH easier and less risky to freeze sperm long term, and MUCH easier and less risky to remove a man's testicles than a woman's ovaries. There are cosmetic implants to remedy the cosmetic changes, and male hormones are just as easily replaced as female ones. So why does no one ever suggest doing this to the men, hmmm?

In this hypothetical reality, I suspect very few people would continue to have child after child like the Quiverfull people. People have already been limiting the number of children they have for decades. You didn't mention whether or not this process also gives amazing regenerative abilities, so I will assume it doesn't. Aging doesn't happen, but damage to the body can and does accumulate over time. In which case, repeated pregnancies mean the potential for fertility-limiting damage is still there and will render a portion of women sterile over time.

We might also see a rise in both sexes seeking surgical sterilization either after they have a couple kids or even without kids if, after decades, they decide they don't want to reproduce.

All of which leads to several other medical questions: does this just "stop aging" at the point the person gets the treatment, or is there some sort of regeneration involved? If you give this treatment to someone already 70 does it just "freeze" them at that point, or does it regenerate them back to what they were at 20?

Does this treatment cause regeneration? If one of the long-lived loses a finger will they regrow it, or is it a permanent loss? Because if there's no regeneration then surgical sterilization is forever and women are going to lose their fertility by their mid-50's at the very, very best (oldest natural conception with no medical involvement was at 56 if I recall correctly) even if their bodies keep menstruating simply because they will no longer have fertile ova.

Since you didn't mention any sort of regeneration I'm going to assume that physical damage will still accumulate over time. Even if arthritis due to aging is no longer a thing arthritis due to injury and illness would still exist, as an example. People will still have accidents leading to amputations. People will still suffer broken backs and broken necks. They'll get burns requiring skin grafts, disfiguring injuries requiring plastic surgery. They'll still have autoimmune diseases so there will be lupus and type 1 diabetics, kidney disease and cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease.

What about cancer? Factors involved with cancer include damage over time - your long-lived folks are going to have to worry about skin cancer sooner or later if they spend any time in the sun at all. OK, human lifespans are now 300-350... how common will cancer be around age 280 with all the chemical, radiation, and other sources of damage accumulating over time? No doubt it will vary - some people are more prone to cancer than others, and in the few animal species that can live 200+ years (giant tortoises, and possibly great whales) the very old don't seem cancer riddled. Of course, it could be the members of those species prone to cancer die young so we just don't see them in their elderly.

And it seems your long-lived people will still get sick - so some will die of the flu, or ebola, or staph or strep or listeria from bad deli meat or E. coli from romaine lettuce or other outbreaks or flesh-eating bacteria or MRSA.

Then there are problems like criminal assault where you might be shot or stabbed. Which sort of comes under injury, but that's not exactly an accident. War and terrorist attacks, too.

As previously mentioned, we'd probably see a certain number of suicides in people who tire of living.

Even if lifespans reach 350 that doesn't mean everyone is going to live that long. In fact, very few might between accidents, disease, and other calamities. It would be a potential to live that long, not a guarantee.