# Based on historical and current trends, how likely is this generation to be immortal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2009, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050 "2009-03-11T07:21:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/21 "2009-03-12T11:11:59Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > An eventual cure for aging (not other causes of death) seems to me to be biologically possible, but I would seriously doubt that Aubrey de Grey is anything but a kook when he predicts that it will be in our lifetimes. Well, his proposals (the [SENS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENS) program, mainly) are controversial to say the least, but he’s not arguing that the problem will be solved in our lifetime (at least not in our presently expected lifetime) – he’s merely arguing that some advances will be made that allow people to possibly live long enough to benefit from more advances being made and so on. I think his signature claim is that the first human to live to 1000 years of age has been already born, or somesuch – very probably optimistic, but if we’re gonna try and get a handle on this whole ageing thing, we might as well start now. Also, he’s focusing entirely to the biological side of things – combine that with some substantial breakthroughs in technology, and there’s a chance I’ll yet get my indestructible cyborg body. 😉 Philosophical quibbles about whether or not an uploaded consciousness is really ‘you’ are, I presume, rather moot to many people when the alternative is death. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/22 "2009-03-12T15:39:04Z")
> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#): > > This is crucial. Even if you can stop the cellular aging process, you still have to worry about the other things: plaque in the arteries, deteriorating liver and kidney function from use of medications like ibuprofen and Tylenol, osteoarthritis, various cancers which inevitably arise if you live long enough, etc., etc. It’s no fun living forever if your body is turning to shit. Basically, we would have to cure all chronic and progressive diseases and conditions before immortality would be a viable option. Any general biological “cure” for aging (i.e. replacing genes that result in senescence) will take care of most of these age-related ailments. All of our repair systems start to decline after a certain age and it may not be related to wear and tear. It could be that these breakdowns are not subject to selection simply because many happen after the age that reproduction becomes less likely or impossible (menopause) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/23 "2009-03-12T16:16:18Z")
> [@MichaelJohnBertrand](#): > > I think it’s possible that we’ll cure death in my lifetime (I’m 35). I can’t assign a probability to that, though. Conquering some forms of aging, that seems more likely than not. Of course people were saying this back in the **1940s**. :eek: Apparently immortality was just a matter of finding the right hormone injections to cure aging (which actually has had some limited trials with things like HGH). ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/24 "2009-03-12T18:39:06Z")
I doubt we’re anywhere close to living for 200+ years. I do, however, think that people from my generation (27 yrs old) will crack the 150 year mark. It seems like it’s only a matter of time until we figure out how to grow replacement organs from a person’s own genetic material. Once that happens, we’ll have effective cures for a whole host of problems that crop up in old age. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/25 "2009-03-12T19:01:42Z")
I just want to say this thread has an appropriate title/username combo, given the interest shown by Chinese Taoists in finding an elixir of immortality. I don’t think we should go with their methods, though. They tried to become immortal by ingesting stuff like mercury, which didn’t work very well. At least one emperor of China died from taking supposed “immortality drugs”. > [@MichaelJohnBertrand](#): > > Possibly our OS would prevent this by lossy-compression-ing our memories into oblivion. > > So you wouldn’t descend into madness, but you would remember absolutely nothing about large stretches of your life. Creepy! I think my brain is doing this now. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/26 "2009-03-13T02:17:36Z")
Billions Now Living Shall Never Die! If the Witnesses & other 2nd Advent groups are right, 100% likelihood. If not, we might break the century barrier. Maybe even the Biblical 120 (Gen 6), but not much beyond that. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/27 "2009-03-13T02:45:49Z")
Quoth **MichaelQReilly** : > [@](#): > > I doubt we’re anywhere close to living for 200+ years. I do, however, think that people from my generation (27 yrs old) will crack the 150 year mark. So you think it’s quite plausible that, some time in the next 50 years or so, we’ll be able to extend human life by 70 years, but you doubt that in the 100 years following that they’ll be able to add another 50 onto that? In other words, you’re expecting that after millenia of stagnation on the old-age problem, we’ll make a single huge leap forward, and then go back into stagnation? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/28 "2009-03-13T03:03:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **MichaelQReilly** :So you think it’s quite plausible that, some time in the next 50 years or so, we’ll be able to extend human life by 70 years, but you doubt that in the 100 years following that they’ll be able to add another 50 onto that? In other words, you’re expecting that after millenia of stagnation on the old-age problem, we’ll make a single huge leap forward, and then go back into stagnation? I think you misunderstood me; or maybe I was unclear. When I said that some people from my generation will live to 150, I meant it in the same way that some people born in the 1880’s made it to 120. I didn’t mean that that average lifespan would reach that number. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050/29 "2009-03-13T03:04:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **MichaelQReilly** :So you think it’s quite plausible that, some time in the next 50 years or so, we’ll be able to extend human life by 70 years, but you doubt that in the 100 years following that they’ll be able to add another 50 onto that? In other words, you’re expecting that after millenia of stagnation on the old-age problem, we’ll make a single huge leap forward, and then go back into stagnation? That was my thinking too. A series of treatments that just keeps adding life. Maybe trends in organ printing lead to new, young spare parts so the only worry is brain injury or something. However consider this. Hypothetical Treatment A (HTA) adds 75 years so this generation easily reaches the 150 mark. However Hypothetical Treatment B (HTB) is developed that adds 250 years. Only problem is it isn’t compatible with the effects of HTA. The next generation gets an extra 100 years, but we don’t. Consider an HTB that is compatible with HTA, but needs to be administered from an early age, because it slows aging. Giving it to an already aged person doesn’t do much good. It’s developed when this generation is on average 110. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/based-on-historical-and-current-trends-how-likely-is-this-generation-to-be-immortal/489050.md?page=1)