Immortal pills around the corner . . .

Science fact or fiction?

It seems to be a fact that resource scarcity and population explosion (surely not a coincidence) are the biggest drive for expansionary policies. This would drive the space program to new heights for certain, not to mention underwater habitats and such.

I really don’t think it is an unreal situation. There isn’t a real immediate need for expansionary policy and so we don’t see the desire or drive to follow one. Doesn’t make it science fiction, just unnecessary science. At least right now.

Well, not always, but your point is well taken. Still, enhanced longevity means family planning.

Anyway, I’d not hold out too much hope for greatly increased life-spans, at least not yet. Things like this have been promised before, and have gone ‘bust’ every time. Maybe this time’s different, but I’m not holding my breath.

Tranquilis wrote:

It also means a serious revamping of the Social Security system, as well as re-thinking retirement strategies.

As some have implied in this thread, getting to live 300 healthy, productive years is very different from living 65 productive years and 235 years as a post-retirement old foagie. If you’re 200 years old, and you have the body of a 200-year-old, you’re not exactly going to be a resilient mover and shaker.

Which is why it’s vitally important, long before we perfect longevity pills, that somebody invents exercise pills!

Who says you are going to live forever anyway? If we eliminate age as a cause of death, that still doesn’t eliminate all disease, and it certainly doesn’t eliminate accidental death, homicide, and war.

Without looking at actuary data, I’d guess that if we didn’t age at all, the average lifespan would still only be a couple of hundred years. Eventually, something will get you.

It’s interesting to speculate what kind of society we would turn into. For instance, would people become insanely risk-averse? If you knew that the most likely cause of your demise was going to be an accident, would you be a lot more careful?

But the biggest change would come from the fact that the very old would be immensely wealthy. Compound interest is a wonderful thing. Put away 5 bucks a day, and in a couple of hundred years you’ll be phenomenally wealthy. What happens to society when the elderly are all millionaires and billionaires, and the young have almost nothing? Do we become a gerontocracy? What kind of civil strife would that cause?

But the good far outweighs the bad. Our economy would go through the roof! Just think - today, you spend 20-30 years being unproductive and a burden on society as you are raised and educated. Then you get maybe 30-40 productive years, only the last ten or twenty of which result in significant income. Then it’s retirement, and you become a net drag on society again for maybe another 20 years.

So out of an entire lifetime of 80 years, only 20-40 years of it are spent contributing to the wealth of society. Now imagine living 200 years, 150 of which are peak productive years. We’d all be phenomenally wealthy.

How would we change? Well, Without the constant ticking of our biological clock, and with much more wealth, I think we’d become much less rushed. People would live at home longer, take more education, take longer holidays, go back to school regularly, etc. I’m almost 40 now, and I’m at the age where I would just love to go back to university and finish a Ph.D in physics and do research. And I’d be a much better student now than I was when I was 20.

I can see people going through ‘retirement’ cycles, where they work a career and save for 30 years, then quit that one, travel, go back to school, relax, maybe have a second family and raise them full time, whatever. Then, when the money runs a little low, it’s back to school or work, and start over again. That’d be great.

wouldn’t the price of everything go up proportionally? Who’s going to work for minimum wage if they’ve got hundreds of thousands in the bank? So everything costs more. Maybe the base monetary units change. But the basic buying/living standard doesn’t really jump too much I wouldn’t think…

If it’s unevenly distributed, I can easily imagine an evil anti-utopia [sup]dang I love imaginary words[/sup] in which there’s an ever diminishing percentage of young people who ain’t saved up all their money yet who are working for peanuts to support a society run by an ever expanding society of old people amusing themselves…
Or only certain countries are producing our mythical pill, and the poorest parts of the world is still living a measly 50 years (heck, while we’re imagining how great it would be if the highest lifespans were tripled, how about if the lowest were doubled? Wouldn’t even take imaginary medical science.
Just imaginary sociopolitical changes :wink: )

Gack.

Older people can gain wisdom and experience. But they don’t have to. There’s plenty of people who’d use their extra time for a whole lot of doing nothing, learning nothing, and producing nothing and being damn proud of how long they’ve been in existence. I don’t think 200 more years will make a dent on that one.

I do like the idea that we’d all spend longer productive lives, and get really, really good at what we do (like Scotth said).

But I’d settle for just being productive right now (quoth the laid-off-with-way-too-much-time-on-my-hands :frowning: )

i don’t want to live forever and everyone will not get that pill either! If we all are hanging around and not dying to make room for others, the population will bust out all over. I bet more ways to get rid of masses of peeps will have to be used.

Nope. 300 years of worrying??? No thanks!!

I don’t think it’s ethical to try to extend the human lifespan. Even without this wonder pill people are living longer due to science. On one hand that’s good, but on the other the quality of life of these “extra” years isn’t really good, and a huge number (many reports I’ve read say as much as 50%) of people who live more than 85 years get Alzheimer’s. While they’re working on ways to treat and prevent it, there is a lot more progress that needs to be made before it’s gone. Personally, I can’t imagine wanting to live more than 75 years, never mind 300.

I’ve got a novel idea - why don’t we let people choose whether or not they want to live longer? So you don’t think you would want to live that long. Fine. How does that translate into ‘it is unethical’?

Oh, and the whole purpose of medicine is to extend the human lifespan. I take it you see nothing wrong with blood transfusions and heart transplants? Just what about this is so different?

It seems to me that it’s very ethical, for the simple reason that people who live longer will spent a larger proportion of their lives being productive, contributing members of society.

If the big worry is population pressure, I think you might see that take care of itself as well. If you live essentially indefinitely, it will probably have the effect of reducing the desire to procreate.

All of society would change. And that may be a good thing. Maybe we wouldn’t all be so concerned about family or maybe we would be MORE concerned, since there would be more people IN a family. Family reunions? This is a big concern??? :smiley:

If your whole life is just fulfilling your biological requirements… well, to each their own. But that has never been part of my life.

Maybe you wouldn’t have so many kids. Maybe more people would say - I am going to live for 300 years! I need to set myself up for this, and maybe kids aren’t the best way to do it. (In earlier days, you had to have kids to take care of you in your old age - I don’t think that is true today - and with immortality, it may not be true in the future.)

Retire whenever you can afford it - just like now - what do you say to the .com 20 year olds who retired at 20? Some people will retire at 70, some at 170, some maybe never. Some may retire at 70, and then go back to work at 170, and will be able to, because they are essentially as healthy as they were at 30.

I predicted back in 1970 or so that immortality would be discovered by the year 2020 and urged everyone to take care of themselves. It looks like they are going to meet that target. People should listen to me!!! :smiley:

/Jon Lovitch on/Get to know me! /Jon Lovitch off/

A drastic change in lifespan will probably affect socio-economic conditions differently depending on exactly how it lengthened life. Will you still be physically fit at 60? 90? 523? Delaying the againg process won’t stop arterialsclerosis (sp?), for example. It may affect cancer though-- in a bad way or a good way. Will it stop brain cell deterioration?

Living longer isn’t necessarily a gift if aging doesn’t cause many of the reasons for death, ya know? You’ll simply be alive longer than you can work, thus being-- effectively-- an economic black hole. Not only will you (as, I think, everyone does) take in more money in SS than you ever put in, but you’ll be in that status for longer than one generation works to pay for you! I can’t imagine the birth rate necessary to counteract something like that… it would have to be a steep exponential.

snermy wrote:

Nobody. All of our inventors will live longer, too, so they’ll all have enough time to build armies of robots to do the minimum wage jobs for us.

Oh well, the robot army, duh.
:smiley:

I wanna know when we’re going to have our flying cars.
And I don’t just mean when you hit that unexpected speedbump, neither.

Dang the future for not living up to my expectations!

Dang it all to heck!!!

(this has been a test of the random hijacking system. Please remain seated as we return you to your regularly scheduled GD)

Actually … I was being serious for a change. If you can believe it.

Part of the reason the average human’s standard of living today is so phenomenally higher than it was only two centuries ago has been due to technological advancements. We now have machines that can do in a fraction of the time what we used to have to do by hand. (Imagine how much less free time you’d have if you still had to wash all your clothes by hand, for example.) We’ve also vastly improved the efficiency with which we can produce both essential and luxury goods – for all the belly-aching about the evils of “factory farming”, our modern levels of food production have reduced the real cost of acquiring basic foodstuffs down to almost nil.

It is not inconceivable that we will one day replace the automaton-like cashiers at McDonalds or WalMart with real automatons, either. And don’t even get me started on what’ll happen to garment-factory “sweat shops” once someone comes up with a way to automate the stitching process. These kinds of advancements will happen at an even higher rate than they are today, if the thinkers and inventors of tomorrow have that many more productive years where they can apply what they know to the problems of their times. Why worry about who’ll be doing the minimum wage jobs, when there won’t be any minimum wage jobs (in the modern sense of the term, anyway)?

I’ll of course lend a voice of reason:

One pill that makes you live to 200, or for that matter even guarantees that you make 100, is just not going to happen any time soon. Articles as the one listed in the OP have been blown so far out of proportion by the popular press it is almost not even worth responding.

Aging is a multi-step, multi-faceted problem which each tissue in the body handles differently. Changing the levels of one enzyme, or for that matter, lengthening telomeres or any other one thing is just not gonna cut it.

Oh, and to respond to the OP, I will say that Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red/Green/Blue Mars series did quite a nice job at showing some of the side effects of upping the human life span by a factor of 2 or 3.

From someone studying genetics and physiology, I will tell you how to live to be 100:
Don’t smoke, drink in moderation, and eat a 1000-1400 calorie per day diet of lean protein and carbs with little fat. And hope that your genetics are OK. You will live a long life in constant hunger and sobriety.

edwino wrote:

As did, to a lesser extent, Greg Bear’s Moving Mars and the Weber/White Starfire novels.

Yikes! Is even 1400 calories enough for a full-grown man to stay healthy?

After we die, we spend an eternity in heaven.

Bye bye cashiers

http://journalism.arizona.edu/chronicle/2001/jeffrey1.html

Yep, a sustenance diet is as low as 800 calories for an active person, believe it or not. The populations in the mountains of the Anders and in Japan who routinely lived to 110 had one thing in common – they lived on sustenance diets. And, the only thing that has been shown to conclusively increase lifespan in all model organisms, from fruit flies to mice, is caloric restriction.

When we eat food, we really do “burn” it. We oxidize the food in the same way that stuff gets oxidized in a fire, just in a controlled chemical fashion. This doesn’t mean that the by-products of oxidation are any less reactive though. Much of aging and age-related illness is thought to be due to the damage caused by oxidation. This can range from connective tissue degradation to neuronal and muscle cell death to DNA damage leading to cancer. Excess calories leads to excess fat in the arteries and elsewhere, leading to heart disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and many other disorders.

So, the point is to burn as few calories as possible. At least that is the current view in the research world. You will live a long, skinny life, without such joys as beef fajitas on fresh lardy tortillas with sour cream, guacamole, and sauteed onions, and a salted frozen margarita.

Perhaps we could all run around with dodgy accents having sword fights (‘who wants to live forever’ classic song from Highlander… classic film… sorry too obvious to avoid ).

HOWEVER

What about quality ?

People sit about watching mindless TV now, do they really need more time ?.. They would just do more of the same.

Would people be fitter if they lived longer or just keep munching and get even fatter ?

As Ian Fleming wrote ‘I will note waste my time pro-longing my life, i will enjoy it’.

People KNOW that bad diet,fags ( I am a brit, you know what i mean, its a cheap joke ), booze and lack of exercise will reduce their lifespan BUT they still do it so perhaps most people just want to ‘end it’ soon anyway.

Socrates said that thin people live longer, had no idea why but they do.

The latest theory is that your body thinks food is scarce so slows down hoping that when the ‘famine’ is over you get a chance to reproduce.