Living Forever - our near future

[shadow08]

Advances in science and technology have always interested me, such as the human genome project. This article of essays seems pretty confident that immortality will be arriving soon at your local hospital and drug store. Please take the 10mins to read through it and share your thoughts on what dilemmas this might bring. I do not know whether to view this as moral or immoral but it is hard to resist technology that may increase your lifespan “permanently”.

dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/living_forever.htm

 

[sing]

No one could pay me enough to live much longer than 75.

 

[Rach620]

Another instance of man trying to be God. We die because we sinned and continue to sin–to try to prolong our lives like these scientists are attempting is at least disordered, and IMO can be considered evil.

Why would someone want to live on this fallen earth for centuries? True immortality can only be found in and with God; these scientific attempts are continuing the modern notion that God is dead and man is His replacement.

Scary quote from an article in there:

Is your goal to just extend the human lifespan substantially or to enable us      to live forever?

I don’t see any inherent limit to how long it would be desirable to live. If      life is fun at the moment, because one is healthy and youthful, both      mentally and hysically, then one is not likely to      want to die in the next year or two. And if a year or two down the      road, life is still fun because one is still youthful and so on, then      the same will apply, and I can’t see a time when that would cease to      be true.

Apparently the value of life is the pleasure/fulfillment/‘fun’ we get out of it. sigh So much for a life of journeying towards heaven.

 

[Leeta]

There is something to the finding about a diet low in protein extends life. My dear old Dad is going to be 96 in August and my mother just turned 91. He ate very little meat and lots of fruit, especially watermelon. And one of the few vegetables he liked were turnip greens. He also exercised and he never overate. He ate some desserts, but always in moderation and only occasionally. He just was naturally moderate.

Now St. Anthony the Abbot lived to be more than a 100 years old and he fasted quite a bit also. Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. Moses 120 when he was assumed into heaven according to Jewish tradition.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Some of us might rather die than eat turnip greens!

Science has been claiming to be close to discovering the fountain of youth since our grandparents were kids and probably even before. I doubt they ever will because the fact is that our bodies are just not meant to last forever…at least not in this world!

 

[shadow08]

I find it a little scary that our conscious minds will be able to live “forever” on a computer. It is hardly imaginable to me, but according to the article it will be reality within 40yrs!

My biggest argument against the prolonging of human life 20, 30, 40+ years is the over-population issue. Aren’t we already facing over-population in many areas. For example, on the news last evening I saw a broadcast about a governor wanting to release inmates due to over-crowding in prisons/jails.

I don’t see how increasing longevity for the average lifespan only 10 more years will alleviate over-population and radical consumption of our dwindling natural resources. It’s hard for me to identify when this becomes a moral issue, since we accept most of the new medicines / technology and health care advances that have already enabled us to live 30+ yrs compared to early 1900’s. At what point do we say its gone far enough?

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Actually, the population of the world is beginning to go down again because of places like China and Japan where they are not having enough children to even keep the population the same. Parents in both places are only having one child, usually male. This has been going on for over 20 years now, so we are already seeing that generation grow up and not have anyone to marry because there are so many guys and so few women. That means the population is going to go down even more since many men will not be able to find wives.

Overcrowded prisons is more the result of our corrupt society. Funny but when you say that morals are a thing based on personal opinion, people begin acting IMMORALLY! There’s a shocker! :whacky:

 

[dylanschrader]

I thought human beings already do live forever.

 

[JimG]

If we are going to live forever right here on earth, then social security and medicare are going to be in even worse trouble than now. That would result in a population REALLY toploaded with old folks!

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that says we can deny life-saving medication to people, regardless of their age. If a person lives a nundred years, and there is medicine or other treatment that would allow that person to live another fifty years in good health, we cannot refuse them.

Will long life bring problems? Yes – but we have faced and solved problems before. As for Social Security and Medicare, we need to start transitioning those programs to self-supporting accounts. Right now, the government rips off and spend trillions of dollars from the Social Security surplus. Let us stop doing that and give that money back to the people that paid it in – and let them invest it. In the end, everyone who works will retire wealthy.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Advances in science and technology have always interested me, such as the human genome project. This article of essays seems pretty confident that immortality will be arriving soon at your local hospital and drug store. Please take the 10mins to read through it and share your thoughts on what dilemmas this might bring. I do not know whether to view this as moral or immoral but it is hard to resist technology that may increase your lifespan “permanently”.

dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/living_forever.htm

I wouldnt want to live too long, like someone else said I’m ready after about 75. They may prevent death, but we still age and mature, so what good would it to live for ever if you are slowly becoming a pile of dirt and unable to enjoy the long life? I already think it is sad to see all these people get so old and because it already almost always isn’t purely natural they get to high ages but pain, suffer, and agony is the last piece of their life, not for me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wouldnt want to live too long, like someone else said I’m ready after about 75. They may prevent death, but we still age and mature, so what good would it to live for ever if you are slowly becoming a pile of dirt and unable to enjoy the long life? I already think it is sad to see all these people get so old and because it already almost always isn’t purely natural they get to high ages but pain, suffer, and agony is the last piece of their life, not for me.

My wife, who is a Registered Nurse, recently had a knee replacement. That’s something that wasn’t possible in my parents’ lifetime. Forty years ago, she would have been condemned to live out the rest of her life in a wheelchair.

But right now, she’s walking up and down the halls of the Nursing Home where she’s Assistant Director of Nurses.

What a big difference in quality of life the last 40 years have made! I suspect we will see quality of life improve to keep pace with increasing lifespan.

 

[BryPGuy89]

My wife, who is a Registered Nurse, recently had a knee replacement. That’s something that wasn’t possible in my parents’ lifetime. Forty years ago, she would have been condemned to live out the rest of her life in a wheelchair.

But right now, she’s walking up and down the halls of the Nursing Home where she’s Assistant Director of Nurses.

What a big difference in quality of life the last 40 years have made! I suspect we will see quality of life improve to keep pace with increasing lifespan.

We are already seeing that it cant… Plus with how medical costs are going and the failing ability of the public assistance from the government, and increasing divide between rich and poor in our country, it really wouldn’t matter anyway as most poeple couldn’t afford it anyway. Medical advancements are becoming less available to the majority of the public every day.

P.S. Sorry about your wife and her knee. My nona has had to have several hip replacements and knee sergeries in the last 15 yrs or so

 

[Jennifer_G]

‘If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it’s not a major career problem,’ Pearson told The Observer. ‘If you’re rich enough then by 2050 it’s feasible. If you’re poor you’ll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it’s routine. We are very serious about it. That’s how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.’

And that’s only a copy of the ‘data’ that’s in your mind. No matter how many qubits (of which there will have to be to store the entire brain and perform other functions-i.e., quantum computers) there are to mimic a person, it’s only going to be a copy and not that person. Almost ironic last sentence.

Besides… with 6 billion people already, (8 billion by 2050) the world’s gonna get very over-crowded quick.

The world’s fastest computer, IBM’s BlueGene, can perform 70.72 trillion calculations per second (teraflops) and is accelerating all the time. But anyone who believes in the uniqueness of consciousness or the soul will find Pearson’s next suggestion hard to swallow. 'We’re already looking at how you might structure a computer that could possibly become conscious. There are quite a lot of us now who believe it’s entirely feasible.

As feasible as a magic trick, yes.

Imagine that, though… in 75 years (of which I think that’s how long it’ll take), there’ll probably be an android copy of a person that looks, sounds, thinks and acts just like the real thing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are already seeing that it cant… Plus with how medical costs are going and the failing ability of the public assistance from the government, and increasing divide between rich and poor in our country, it really wouldn’t matter anyway as most poeple couldn’t afford it anyway.

That’s dead wrong – in fact, medical care would be far more affordable if we simply removed some obstacles. For example, it is against the law for non-affiliated businesses to band together and bargain for employee healthcare policies from a position of strength. It is against the law for you to shop for health care across state lines. There is no universal Medical Savings Account law. Junk lawsuits cost the sick billions every year, and yet lawyers fight Tort Reform tooth and nail.

Medical advancements are becoming less available to the majority of the public every day.

Quite the contrary, they are becoming more available – and with a little common sense they would be much more available.

P.S. Sorry about your wife and her knee. My nona has had to have several hip replacements and knee sergeries in the last 15 yrs or so

Sorry? Why?

I am sorry for the pain and the tough times she went through recovering, but I am not at all sorry that the surgical technology was there for her.

 

[BryPGuy89]

That’s dead wrong – in fact, medical care would be far more affordable if we simply removed some obstacles. For example, it is against the law for non-affiliated businesses to band together and bargain for employee healthcare policies from a position of strength. It is against the law for you to shop for health care across state lines. There is no universal Medical Savings Account law. Junk lawsuits cost the sick billions every year, and yet lawyers fight Tort Reform tooth and nail.

Quite the contrary, they are becoming more available – and with a little common sense they would be much more available.

Sorry? Why?

I am sorry for the pain and the tough times she went through recovering, but I am not at all sorry that the surgical technology was there for her.

Have no idea where you get your info, but in my sociology class we use U.S. census and report information to base what we learn and they support what I say and not what you say. I think you are a little to optimistic and not realizing how big of a divide there is in our country now.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Have no idea where you get your info, but in my sociology class we use U.S. census and report information to base what we learn and they support what I say and not what you say. I think you are a little to optimistic and not realizing how big of a divide there is in our country now.

No doubt your sociology class measures things like how many people don’t have health insurance. It ignores the fact that many people choose not to have health insurance. If you are young and healthy, your out-of-pocket costs for medical insurance will exceed your your out-of-pocket costs for medical treament. That’s why Massachusetts recently passed a law to make people buy health insurance.

Does your sociology class go into detail on how Medical Savings Accounts work? Does it discuss shopping for health insurance across state lines? Does it explain how small businesses are forbidden to band together to bargain for health insurance for their employees?

Does it explain the relationship between education and income – that the poor are also poorly educated? And does it tell you the worst schools are generally in the poorest districts? And since education is a government responsibility, what do you conclude from that?

 

[BryPGuy89]

No doubt your sociology class measures things like how many people don’t have health insurance. It ignores the fact that many people choose not to have health insurance. If you are young and healthy, your out-of-pocket costs for medical insurance will exceed your your out-of-pocket costs for medical treament. That’s why Massachusetts recently passed a law to make people buy health insurance.

Does your sociology class go into detail on how Medical Savings Accounts work? Does it discuss shopping for health insurance across state lines? Does it explain how small businesses are forbidden to band together to bargain for health insurance for their employees?

Does it explain the relationship between education and income – that the poor are also poorly educated? And does it tell you the worst schools are generally in the poorest districts? And since education is a government responsibility, what do you conclude from that?

Yes we covered all of that and “most” people who dont have health insurance dont choose to, it is an income issue rather than “personal fable” ideaology. Because of the pooor education and growing poor populations. Of course there are ways to get around issues but it comes down to things out of the individuals control.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Two comments

Live forever; I read in my old psychology text that anti oxidants can increase your chances to live longer. In addition artifical implants and extending the temorle on the end of a chromsome can extend life dramatically.

ON healthcare: One way to cut healthcare cost is to use the UPN (UNiversal Product Code) as a tool to manage inventory more effectively. The UPN code is used on products when you scan your food on the bar code.
Look up

*Efficient healthcare consumer response; Improving the efficiency of the healthcare supply chain *(1996, November)

for more info

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes we covered all of that and “most” people who dont have health insurance dont choose to, it is an income issue rather than “personal fable” ideaology. Because of the pooor education and growing poor populations. Of course there are ways to get around issues but it comes down to things out of the individuals control.

Did your teacher explain why Massachusetts enacted universal health care by forcing people to buy health insurance – and taxing them heavily if they don’t?

Tell me, if people can’t afford to buy health insurance, how does increasing their taxes make them more able to buy it?

And did your teacher tell you about the Rule of 78? Has he told you about the Social Security surplus? Ask him what the cumulative Social Security surplus is over the last 10 years.