Will rejuvenation actually be available if invented?

Great Debates
61

Well, if you feel like fighting the hypothetical, it’s clear this case is too extreme for you to consider as-is. It certainly makes for good TV.

But again, while some portion of humanity is desperately researching a way to avoid the nasty gotcha, you know full well that another part of humanity will have zero qualms with the cost as specified. Many will take the treatment and many will die to pay the gruesome cost of that treatment, and it will continue until either your solution is found, or everyone who can become immortal does becomes immortal at whatever cost in lives it costs.

62

Yeah, except that doesn’t really happen now does it? How many billionaires are committing murder in order to get heart transplants? Because that’s what it would be. Anyone who has had the treatment is pretty much automatically guilty of at least murder for hire. I imagine the rest of us would frown on that, and treat they accordingly.

That’s the thing with a lot of speculative fiction: we already know most people don’t act that way. It’s like post-apocalyptic fiction with cannibals all over the place. We’ve seen people starving to death en mass, and cannibalism hardly ever occurs. We still remember incidents like the Donner Party from over a hundred years ago because they are just so rare. This treatment would be the same.

63

We’ve done worse to people in the name of cheap rubber.

64

There is also the scenario in the old SciFi short story “Immortality… for some”, by J. T. McIntosh.

In this world there is a “rebirth” treatment that rejuvenates people drastically, at the cost of wiping up all memories and experiences from the mind of the person. And the treatment is available only to people who pass a series of tests expressing their “Value to the Community”; people who have qualities that make them valuable to society at large.

So, only a fraction of humanity is allowed to use the process, and then only if they accept the price (complete wipeout of their old “self”).

It is quite a nice short story.

65

I agree with all those who say it would not be kept a secret. Even beyond all the money to be made by the manufacturer or multiple teams working on the same thing and creating/finding it - most developed countries have declining population and are worried about the economic consequence thereof. This is like a dream come true in some regards - it keeps the bulk of the population working age and not as dependents eating up resources, but not “producing” as workers do. Admittedly, this is based on the situation at the present. Demographic or technological changes (automation to the point that there just isn’t enough work for people to do) would influence the government goals. But I don’t want to stack changes on top of each other, so am treating rejuvenation like it’s the only new tech when initially produced.

Expect to see old age safety nets and benefits greatly reduced, and if you are lucky, you get 10 years benefits for every 50 (or more) years worked or some such.

If you want to get dystopian about it, there are certainly ways to do so, but keeping it for only a tiny fraction of the population in the developed countries thorough artificial scarcity (hiding it, just not allowing it, etc. rather than it being very expensive personalized process that for some reason cannot be mass produced or made cheaper) is not one of them, IMO. It’s very unlikely for any company or government to try to keep it out the hands of the masses just because they “hate the poors” - there is too much to gain.

Now, it may well be too expensive for everyone (esp. in developing countries) even if not that expensive to produce, but that would be done based on what the company involved thinks would maximize total profits (and there would definitely be knockoffs made in countries that either don’t enforce patent law or declared it invalid for this process/drug).

66

It’s not so much that the status quo is optimal; rather, that many scenarios are likely to be much worse than the status quo. For example, do you really want to live in a society where Stalin could potentially be in power for 70-100 years?

67

That’s a good point. There are many more evil/shitty people than there are good people in this world, and oftentimes the evil people are the ones with the naked ambition and wherewithal to advance into positions of power where they can do real damage, possibly indefinitely as long as their security apparatus are loyal enough and given shared access to the same rejuvenation drugs. They would also quickly figure out a way to hoard this drug for their inner circle while keeping everyone else under their yoke.

So on second thought, no, I would never wish that such a fountain of youth should ever be made.

68

I’ve often thought about a related idea. A drug that doesn’t rejuvenate but prevents further aging and stops deleterious medical conditions from getting any worse.

As in, if you’re 45 years old with some of the usual effects of aging (say a bit of arthritis, no longer can read small printing, have some loss of hearing in higher frequencies – oh, and have a spot or two of cancers starting, at the 'just a small clump of malignant cells in your lungs and prostate) and then you take the drug.

No instant youth. No immunity from death from accidents or poisoning or bullets or whatever. You’re still living in that 45 year old body, but that is what your condition will be forever. Nothing gets any worse, but your knees still creak sometimes when you walk up stairs, you need glasses (or eye surgery) to read well, you never hear the triangle solos in music anymore, and the scattered clumps of cancer cells stay just that and have no effect on your well being. Sounds okay, right?

One little complication: the treatment renders you sterile. You still can enjoy a sex life, but your body no longer produces sperm or egg cells.

Assume the treatment is somewhat expensive but not impoissibly exorbitant. Maybe five hundred thousand dollars.

All sorts of interesting effects might happen. Primary question is, at what age do you take the treatment? Just as soon as you can amass the money, going for the healthiest, best looking body? I think even 80 year olds with major health problems would opt for it. Maybe it’s not great to have somewhat advanced kidney disease and a touch of forgetfulness, but doesn’t it still beat those conditions getting worse and worse and worse until they kill you?

Suppose you get the money young, from inheritance or whatever. Are you willing to sacrifice a chunk of youthful fitness to wait until you’ve had some children?

Suppose you have enough money to pay for your own treatment and your significant others and still more. Do parents fund the treatment for their ‘peak of vigor’ children, say, 18ish? and give up the idea of ever having grandchildren?

Or maybe they buy the treatment for their toddlers, because they’re just so darned cute at that age? (Endless kittenhood effect.)

Do enough people take the treatment early enough to avoid all those problems with the population expanding forever? Or so many that the population dwindles away?

69

And it’s the society where I am living until I’m 500 or whatever? Yes, of course.

In our world today there are numerous tyrants. Some age out, some are ousted in other ways. And of course, many of the ones that age out pass on the reins to their children, or some close associate, who are often worse. Citizens already live entire lives under essentially the same tyranny that they were born into.
And in the world where tyrants don’t age out, that doesn’t make them immune to all the other ways tyrannies can end.

Yeah I’m not seeing that as good grounds for passing up a fountain of youth.

70

Have we forgotten how to freeze sperm and ovum? Seems like a simple work-around to me.

Let’s say it costs the $500K you suggest. Then, if becomes a matter of “When can I afford a mortgage?” I’d pass up owning my own home for another 40 years, if it meant I could live indefinitely as a healthy mid-20s person. Store some sperm before I take the treatment, and then get on with life.

And there’s the factor that people will know they’re stuck with the tyrant, which might motivate them to do something.

In the real world, we can’t do much about Stalin-type people when we’re children. And when we get older, we figure, “Well, I’m going to die soon, so not much point in worrying about it now!” So the window for Doing Something is a couple of decades in our 20s and 30s, and if there isn’t a big movement on at that time to Do Something, most of us decide to just keep our heads down.

But if I know I’m likely to live to 500 or 1000? And so does everyone else? Are we really willing to just keep our heads down for that long? The motivation to oust Stalin would be much, much greater.

And this is the big thing I see in all these discussions: A lot of people don’t really seem to get how our perceptions of what is acceptable and what isn’t would fundamentally change if we knew we were likely going to have hundreds of more years of useful, vigorous life ahead of us. The first generation might have some problems making the change, but later generations who grow up with this understanding are going to think very differently about such things.

71

I’d only agree to a 1000-year lifespan with 2 non-negotiable conditions in the contract:

First, I’d want a different rate-of-aging mechanism than what we have currently. I have no desire to live the final ~200 years of my 1000 year life-span with the mind and body of an old geezer.

I’d want to spend 5 years with the mind and body of a baby, a decade as a toddler, 1 century as a teenager, 4 centuries as a 20-30 yo, 3 centuries as a 30-40 year old; 1 century as a 40-50 yo; a few months as a 50-60 yo, and a week as a 60-70 yo (just to remind me I’m ready to check out, and enjoy the long rest of death).

Second, to address the population problem I discussed up-thread, this must only be made available to good people…people like me, for example.

Bad people, like Stalin, the Kardashian family, and Carrot-top could only get the life-extending elixir if they agree to be shipped to and live on the moon, or Mars. They’d have to figure out how to terraform their new environment on their own, however.

72

How well do tyrannies actually pass on to successors? In royal and imperial dynasties you have a formal system (rather than the monarch’s personal power) that supports primogeniture; and although you occasionally get an XVIII or even a XXIV, by that time the monarch is a figurehead and the court eunuchs or viziers are really running things. More often, ambitious power brokers whisper in a nephew’s or cousin’s ear that with their help he could be king and you get a civil war/ usurpation. And outside of formal dynasties dictatorial power usually either fails to transmit altogether or one mediocre or incompetent successor burns through the reputation his predecessor established.

73

Human nature absolutely guaratees this will be used to inflict unlimited torment, such as applying this treatment to someone with excruciating end-stage symptoms in order to prolong their suffering. Perhaps the most cruel torture you can visit on a victim: death agonies without the release of death.

74

New Netflix movie on the topic: Paradise

75

Sometimes well, sometimes not so well. Is that much comfort to people living in autocracies, that if they do nothing, maybe their children might experience a better leader when the current one passes on?
Anyway I just think it’s a weak argument if we’re using this as a suggestion that the status quo is superior to fountain of youth.

And I think it becomes more obvious if we reverse it.

Imagine a world where humans die at 40. And not just drop dead suddenly at 40, or die from combat or hunger at 40 (as some past human societies may have widely experienced). But experience middle age in our 20s, and old age, complete with arthritis, heart disease, dementia, within our 30s.
Is that world even better than ours, because tyrants would only serve 20-25 years before ageing out? Come on.

76

Or more extreme, like the Cheela (from Dragon’s Egg), who live on a neutron star (with intense gravity). They are sesame seed-sized creatures who experience time much more accelerated than humans (1 Earth hour = hundreds of Cheela years). They evolve from primitive savages to a hyper-advanced civilization in just a short while, as we observe them. Humans quickly go from their teachers to their students. Great story. I’d like to be a Cheela (as long as I don’t end up on a hamburger bun).

77

It seems a strange reason to pass it up though…you could just live 800 years then top yourself.
Frankly, that’s my plan even for this life. I’m 44 now, I’m hoping that by the time I need help to dress myself, or even go to the toilet, they’ll be a Quit button available.

78

With techno-babble like THAT you should write for Star Trek!!!

79

These sort of concerns could block it for a decade or two, at most. Luddites never won before.

Re the example in #11, I predict that if that compound works on people, it won’t work as well as it did on the mice. Human lifespan will continue to go up, but not in such radical bumps. And old age will continue to get easier (think macular degeneration treatment, and knee replacement), but again not with radical bumps. I don’t know how people will manage psychologically when they can live to 1,000, but there will be a long time of incrementally increasing life expectancy to figure it out (or mess it up).

80

Why, thank ya! :smiley: