B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
And is there anything in current Church theology to suggest that consumption of the pill would be sinful?
Of course, the above scenario is hypothetical
Of course, the above scenario is hypothetical
Scientists develop a pill that extends your life span by 500+ years. Would you take it?
- Status
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
Come to think of it, I can actually picture a scenario in the future where activists claim it is against human rights to deprive developing countries of the pill simply because they canāt afford it.
R
Rolltide
Guest
I am presuming that this theoretical pill also preserves a reasonable quality of life and health as well?
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
Yes; apologies that I forgot to mention that.
meltzerboy
New member
I donāt know what Church theology would say to this, but as for myself, I donāt see anything wrong with taking the pill, provided oneās quality of life is maintained reasonably well; one doesnāt show oneās age to a marked degree; oneās family, friends, and others in society also choose to take the longevity pill; something is done to ameliorate the job, health, housing, population, and other social problems, including war and terrorism, facing the world; and thereās an abundant supply of reading material, cultural activities, and technological gadgets available.And is there anything in current Church theology to suggest that consumption of the pill would be sinful?
Of course, the above scenario is hypothetical
O
odile53
Guest
Why? So I can stand in the checkout line of WalMart for a good part of that 500 years? Purgatory sounds a little more attractive than that, IMHO; youād know you were going to heaven (eventually.)
Seriously, though, longevity for its own sake is a neutral, and therefore, somewhat pointless good, when it comes to oneās eventual eternal salvation. Iād really have to think long and hard about what Iād do with that five hundred years before taking it, or better yet, what God would have assigned for me to do for five hundred years.
Seriously, though, longevity for its own sake is a neutral, and therefore, somewhat pointless good, when it comes to oneās eventual eternal salvation. Iād really have to think long and hard about what Iād do with that five hundred years before taking it, or better yet, what God would have assigned for me to do for five hundred years.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A more interesting question is whether you would take a pill which extends your life indefinitely and keep you in good health! Those who believe there is no afterlife probably would but I regard āeternalā life in this universe as the equivalent of hell. There would be no end to evil and injustice - nor would every tear be wiped awayā¦
J
JRKH
Guest
Quite honestly I think most people would be inclined to take the pill, myself included.
As to whether I actually would or not would depend on the result of much prayer AND on whatever the Church had to say about the matter.
I believe there is a passage in the OT where Godās sets manās life span at 120 years - I tried to find it but couldnāt - maybe someone could clarify this for me.
That said, there are many unknowns with such a thing. As someone mentioned above, there would be questions of work, population control and sufficient resources, which would be directly effected by such a development. Other matters that already exist, would be exasperated by it, things like war and terrorism.
Thankfully no one has developed such a pill so we do not have to worry about it.
Peace
James
As to whether I actually would or not would depend on the result of much prayer AND on whatever the Church had to say about the matter.
I believe there is a passage in the OT where Godās sets manās life span at 120 years - I tried to find it but couldnāt - maybe someone could clarify this for me.
That said, there are many unknowns with such a thing. As someone mentioned above, there would be questions of work, population control and sufficient resources, which would be directly effected by such a development. Other matters that already exist, would be exasperated by it, things like war and terrorism.
Thankfully no one has developed such a pill so we do not have to worry about it.
Peace
James
S
Samuel63
Guest
The church promotes life and is opposed to early termination by euthanasia. This is a small exhibit that suggests the church would support this pill, provided it was created in an ethical manner (i.e. no fetal stem cell research).And is there anything in current Church theology to suggest that consumption of the pill would be sinful?
Of course, the above scenario is hypothetical
The church would also take the opportunity to remind us, eternal life is available too and does not cost much. This is arguably infinitely more valuable that the so called āpill.ā
P
Phemie
Guest
Could I take just 1/4 of it?
G
GEddie
Guest
Why would you want only 125y when you could have 500???Could I take just 1/4 of it?
Personally, I canāt think of any concrete moral reasons why the Church would dislike this pill. Ankle-jerk opposition to social change is not a Catholic attribute; it derives more from the liberal-philosopher crowd.
Personally, I like the idea of increasing my odds of being physically alive for our LORDās return
ICXC NIKA
J
JRKH
Guest
On the surface it seems like there should not be opposition from the Church, but as others have pointed out, there are other matters that fit into this relating to resources, population control and such.
There are too many unknowns. For instance:
Is the Pill a one time deal or must it be taken repeatedly over the life span?
What is the efficacy of the Pill if started at various ages?
If started in childhood will it delay reaching maturity?
If taken when young does it extend ones childbearing years?
How does this effect the workforce, creation of new jobs?
Iām sure that others could come up with even more questions - things not addressed by the OP.
Overall - I wonder if taking such a pill to hang on to this physical life is really something that God would want us to do.
Personally, I like the idea of increasing my odds of being physically alive for our LORDās return
Quite honestly - I donāt find this idea appealing. While I desire Christās return, I know that there will be much tribulation right before this occurs. To be honest, I am not sure if my faith is strong enough to survive it (are any of us that sure of our faith). It is much more appealing to have passed on and be in heaven or purgatory when time is fulfilled and the second coming occurs.
Peace
James
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Despite the cognitive dissonance there exists people that both donāt want to die and also donāt want to live forever. Give me 125 extra healthy hears and I could use it to see my grand children grow up and hopefully make some small accomplishment that will contribute to the health and well being of future generations.
Y
You
Guest
If I was one of the first humans on the planet I could see the benefit and the logic of living for 500 years or even for 900 years, there would be a lot of work to do on an empty planet. Also as one of the first humans in existence my genetics would not be good, they would be perfect, no genetic mutations whatsoever, so no reason I could not live for hundreds of years.
And since this has already happened once
how could there be any serious objective objection to it happening again apart from warnings that it might get a bit crowded now there are more people around this time.
And since this has already happened once
how could there be any serious objective objection to it happening again apart from warnings that it might get a bit crowded now there are more people around this time.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
We all wish for long life to do the things we need to do to earn eternity. But science can do nothing about altering the fact that when we enter eternity, living to 500 will then seem relatively short and unimportant.
The man at 500 still has to answers for his thoughts and deeds, and will have many more to answer for.
The man at 500 still has to answers for his thoughts and deeds, and will have many more to answer for.
G
GEddie
Guest
James: OK, we can agree to disagree.
Personally, I donāt think God will allow scientific development of something if it is truly not his will.
Odile53: Walmart IS a form of penance
ICXC NIKA
Personally, I donāt think God will allow scientific development of something if it is truly not his will.
Odile53: Walmart IS a form of penance
ICXC NIKA
R
ricmat
Guest
I wrote the essay below a few years agoā¦I hope I took out all the html tags
Living to be 1000 Years Old
How real is this? Can genetic engineering actually take us there? Nobody knows. But if you could live to be very very old, would you want to? I donāt see a lot of benefit to living to age 1000. However, there may be some side effects of this research which could help more people live to the current standard age 75, or live a more healthy life than they do now. So what is it, you ask, that could be bad about living to 1000?
Retirement. Can you imagine working for 975 years at more or less the same job, then retiring? No? But perhaps if you go back to college every 10 years or so, and get another degree, then you could do something different. Actually, you would probably need the retraining just to keep up, if you wanted to stay in the workforce. And youād need to do it many, many, many times. OK - I do know some āprofessional studentsā, and maybe this would be their version of heaven.
OK then, suppose we could work until age 65, as we do now, then live in retirement for another 935 years. I just canāt imagine this either. If there is a demographics problem NOW in terms of paying for social security (too many retired people, not enough working people), then this new increasingly larger group of retired people would make the situation much worse. You couldnāt retire at 65, or 650, youād probably HAVE to work to age 935, instead of (currently) HAVING to work until 65. And if you actually had a few hundred years to goof off, what would you actually do? Really. Hundreds of years would be a long time to (continue to) find fulfillment in your golden years. Thereās the old saying that āNobody on their death beds wishes they had spent more time at the office.ā Can you imagine hundreds or thousands of years at the office?
If nobody dies of natural causes for the next 950 years, that leads to another problem, population growth. With nobody dying, and births still occurring, then the worldās population is going to get much larger. Much much larger. And 900 years later itās going to be dang hard to remember the names of all those grand grand grand grand grand grandkids. I hope theyāre not upset when they donāt get something for their birthdays.
And one final point. Perhaps such long life would be actually become less valuable, than our current 75 years. If you live in the desert, you appreciate rain much more than those who live in the jungle.
Have you heard of āmay fliesā. Or 17 year cicadas? These are insects which have very short lifespans, on the order of a few days or weeks. They emerge from their eggs, frantically eat, mate, then die, all in this short period of time. But every second is important to them, and Iām sure they donāt get bored. They have enough time to do what needs done, and every action they take is meaningful. Every second of their lives is valuable, and valued. We currently have 75 years to figure out what is meaningful, and do it. For some people this is not enough time. For some people, 1000 years might not be enough time. But for those who need only 75 years, what are they truly going to do for the last 900?
The current ārushā to do all in 75 years and then be replaced by new generations leads to a relative vigor in our current society. If your society consists of people who have almost limitless lifespans, then I could see that they might waste most of their lives (e.g. until 950 or so) before finding the meaningful and acting on it. And those that find it earlier either commit suicide or spend a lot more time at the office. This couldnāt be good for society as a whole.
But as I said at the beginning, if a side effect of all this research can help people live a more healthy 75 years, Iām all for it. And Iām sure there are more sides to this story. I tend to be pessimistic, or at least skeptical about these things.
Living to be 1000 Years Old
How real is this? Can genetic engineering actually take us there? Nobody knows. But if you could live to be very very old, would you want to? I donāt see a lot of benefit to living to age 1000. However, there may be some side effects of this research which could help more people live to the current standard age 75, or live a more healthy life than they do now. So what is it, you ask, that could be bad about living to 1000?
Retirement. Can you imagine working for 975 years at more or less the same job, then retiring? No? But perhaps if you go back to college every 10 years or so, and get another degree, then you could do something different. Actually, you would probably need the retraining just to keep up, if you wanted to stay in the workforce. And youād need to do it many, many, many times. OK - I do know some āprofessional studentsā, and maybe this would be their version of heaven.
OK then, suppose we could work until age 65, as we do now, then live in retirement for another 935 years. I just canāt imagine this either. If there is a demographics problem NOW in terms of paying for social security (too many retired people, not enough working people), then this new increasingly larger group of retired people would make the situation much worse. You couldnāt retire at 65, or 650, youād probably HAVE to work to age 935, instead of (currently) HAVING to work until 65. And if you actually had a few hundred years to goof off, what would you actually do? Really. Hundreds of years would be a long time to (continue to) find fulfillment in your golden years. Thereās the old saying that āNobody on their death beds wishes they had spent more time at the office.ā Can you imagine hundreds or thousands of years at the office?
If nobody dies of natural causes for the next 950 years, that leads to another problem, population growth. With nobody dying, and births still occurring, then the worldās population is going to get much larger. Much much larger. And 900 years later itās going to be dang hard to remember the names of all those grand grand grand grand grand grandkids. I hope theyāre not upset when they donāt get something for their birthdays.
And one final point. Perhaps such long life would be actually become less valuable, than our current 75 years. If you live in the desert, you appreciate rain much more than those who live in the jungle.
Have you heard of āmay fliesā. Or 17 year cicadas? These are insects which have very short lifespans, on the order of a few days or weeks. They emerge from their eggs, frantically eat, mate, then die, all in this short period of time. But every second is important to them, and Iām sure they donāt get bored. They have enough time to do what needs done, and every action they take is meaningful. Every second of their lives is valuable, and valued. We currently have 75 years to figure out what is meaningful, and do it. For some people this is not enough time. For some people, 1000 years might not be enough time. But for those who need only 75 years, what are they truly going to do for the last 900?
The current ārushā to do all in 75 years and then be replaced by new generations leads to a relative vigor in our current society. If your society consists of people who have almost limitless lifespans, then I could see that they might waste most of their lives (e.g. until 950 or so) before finding the meaningful and acting on it. And those that find it earlier either commit suicide or spend a lot more time at the office. This couldnāt be good for society as a whole.
But as I said at the beginning, if a side effect of all this research can help people live a more healthy 75 years, Iām all for it. And Iām sure there are more sides to this story. I tend to be pessimistic, or at least skeptical about these things.
G
GEddie
Guest
Ricmat: Thanks for your contribution.
I donāt agree, as for me, physical life is itās own reward, independent of any meaning it may have; Iād rather remain alive without any meaning than find meaning and then die. And my guess is that the vast majority of average citizens being nonphilosophers would in part agree with me.
Still, thanks again.
ICXC NIKA
I donāt agree, as for me, physical life is itās own reward, independent of any meaning it may have; Iād rather remain alive without any meaning than find meaning and then die. And my guess is that the vast majority of average citizens being nonphilosophers would in part agree with me.
Still, thanks again.
ICXC NIKA
J
JRKH
Guest
Well there are many things āscientifically developedā that we as Catholics may not use on pain of sin. One is even commonly just referred to āThe Pillāā¦
Science has also developed ways to Blow up the world, Poison the world, or infect the world with horrible viral diseases.
So I donāt think that scientific development is tied to Godās will in a strictly good way.
But
Since this is all hypothetical - to each his ownā¦
Peace
James
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
1, Do I only I get to take the pill? Or does everyone have access to it?
If the answer to #2 is āNo,ā then my answer is also āNoā - This would greatly change the nature of society, as people would become incredibly careful and avoid risk-taking to preserve the extra life they were guaranteed. Life would become boring and cosseted. If the answer to #2 is āYes,ā than my answer is still āNoā - Men would still be subject to the same passions and desire for conquest and evil, and the violence and destructive power of the weapons of war would increase exponentially to accomodate our increased invulnerability. As men would have less fear of Hell, many would be more likely to commit crimes such as rape and sexual abuse of children, as the prospect of divine retribution would seem very far off (although a life prison sentence would be very costly - maybe the punishment would be to deny the offender the immortality pill.)
If the answer to #3 is āYes,ā my answer is āNoā - the extra number of mouths to feed would quickly outstrip our ability to feed them, and bread riots would break out around the world. Our inability to supply all the extra people with resources and energy would also cause widespread suffering, conflict, and warfare. If the answer to #3 is āNo,ā I would also say āNo,ā as the pill would be a form of artificial birth control, and also because children are among the greatest joy our mortal lives, and I (and most people) would not trade our ability to pass on children for 400-odd more years of life. Imagine how dull a world without children would be. And how sad and desperate, with us deprived of the ability to act as parents. Watch the movie āChildren of Menā to get an idea of how twisted that world would be.
Ultimately, it sounds kind of boring. Iād like to live a longer life with my family in an indestructible young new body, but Iāve already got a chance of that in a perfected world.
- Would the pill also make you impervious to physical harm? So if you got shot or stabbed or hit by a truck you would still survive? I would presume the regenerative and restorative power of the pill would not protect against major trauma, such as being blown up by an explosive.
- Would you still be fertile during that time? Would you be able to keep having children, each of whom would have children, and all of those descendants also eligible to take the pill?
If the answer to #2 is āNo,ā then my answer is also āNoā - This would greatly change the nature of society, as people would become incredibly careful and avoid risk-taking to preserve the extra life they were guaranteed. Life would become boring and cosseted. If the answer to #2 is āYes,ā than my answer is still āNoā - Men would still be subject to the same passions and desire for conquest and evil, and the violence and destructive power of the weapons of war would increase exponentially to accomodate our increased invulnerability. As men would have less fear of Hell, many would be more likely to commit crimes such as rape and sexual abuse of children, as the prospect of divine retribution would seem very far off (although a life prison sentence would be very costly - maybe the punishment would be to deny the offender the immortality pill.)
If the answer to #3 is āYes,ā my answer is āNoā - the extra number of mouths to feed would quickly outstrip our ability to feed them, and bread riots would break out around the world. Our inability to supply all the extra people with resources and energy would also cause widespread suffering, conflict, and warfare. If the answer to #3 is āNo,ā I would also say āNo,ā as the pill would be a form of artificial birth control, and also because children are among the greatest joy our mortal lives, and I (and most people) would not trade our ability to pass on children for 400-odd more years of life. Imagine how dull a world without children would be. And how sad and desperate, with us deprived of the ability to act as parents. Watch the movie āChildren of Menā to get an idea of how twisted that world would be.
Ultimately, it sounds kind of boring. Iād like to live a longer life with my family in an indestructible young new body, but Iāve already got a chance of that in a perfected world.
- Status