Beating the death race?

[soon2bepro]

I'm thinking, as science and technology advances exponentially, it shouldn't be too long before our average lifespan are extended by a very long time. And during that time, science will advance even more and more. Eventually we'll probably find a way to somehow prevent death from natural causes. The question is, how long?

I'm 23 years old, I'm not sure I'm going to make it, but I'm thinking healthy newborns today probably are.

This brings an interesting question and a somewhat irrelevant one:

1) Assuming one would want to beat the race, does it make sense to do anything in your power to extend your lifetime, as the rewards could possibly be infinite, or close? Should you spend all your money and effort on your health, should it be your outmost primary concern?

I used to think that concentrating on your health is nonsense, since health is needed in order to do what you like, but health alone isn't much if you can't actually do/experience what you want. But now I'm having second thoughts.

2) What do you think we -atheists- will be teaching our children, when it is generally believed that "beating the race" is not that far away? That some of they will die and some of they will not? That their parents will probably die, but they probably won't? Nowadays it's pretty simple for an atheist kid to just understand that death is natural and that it comes to all of us at a given time. It's painful but they learn to understand it and live with it. But it seems this could be much harder for them.

[madnak]

First - if by "generally believed" you mean by the adherents of Kurzweil, then okay. But most scientists would disagree. People mistake Kurzweil's sales pitch, and the fact he has some bona fide scientists behind him, for a consensus in the scientific community. This couldn't be further from the truth, and in my experience (I'm planning to go into the medical science field), a majority of doctors and medical scientists disagree with Kurzweil.

But I say, I'd like to live as long as possible - but with the emphasis on the live. Refusing to live a fulfilling life because you want to increase the probability of living longer seems absurd to me, and even if we will end up living for a very, very long time, I don't think spending your first "lifetime" just preparing for your second something you'll consider wise by the time you "get there."

Also, keep in mind that only the very wealthy will be able to afford the inital treatments - that is, the "lag" in cost will probably be greater than the "lag" in technology. So if you really want that, either make contacts among biomedical engineers and medical scientists, or make as much money as possible, or both. I don't like those strategies for the same reason I don't like the original strategy, and I don't think spending your life obsessed with money is a good idea, but it's probably a better way of achieving these goals than living healthy.

Of course, if you really want to live as long as possible, try both approaches.

[soon2bepro]

Why such negation to this, madnak?

It's not like you, but from your post it seems it's not that you don't think this will happen, but you don't WANT it to happen. I did a quick search on Kurzweil on wikipediea, most of what I saw tht he predicts makes sense, maybe not as fast as he says, but still.

Finally, you didn't even try to counter-argument.

Why do you think what I said above isn't right?

[madnak]

No, I disagree with Kurzweil, but this isn't the place for those arguments. Again, certainly many people in the medical and scientific professions also disagree with him, which I don't mean as an appeal to authority but a counter to your claim that Kurzweil is "generally accepted." He is most definitely not, at best he's controversial.

As for whether I want it or not, it's a hard question. If it became available, I'd definitely take advantage of it. And I even have a semblance of an excuse, given that I don't intend to have children. But of course, if people keep having kids at the rate they do, and the average lifespan increases by hundreds of years, the implications in terms of population and society are tremendous. I guess if I live to see it, I'll be part of the "aged elite," so I may not have anything to worry about personally. But, Beggars in Spain. Moreover I can't see it being good for the poor, who almost certainly won't be able to afford it for centuries to come.

But my main points were about the value of life, not about medical technology. And I come very close to saying that it's better to live a fulfilling life, however short, than to live an unfulfilling life, however long.

[soon2bepro]

The point is that you can live a short unfulfilling life and then live a very long, fulfilling life.

Im not sure overpopulation is going to be an issue at the time. We're going to colonize a large portion of the sea, most of the available land portions (many of which are deserted), and eventually build space stations, or even colonize small asteroids like the moon.

Of course, if the capitalist system is still on by then, most poor people will probably just die off and become extint, so this will even be less of a problem. In any case, for people with money, overpopulation isn't going to be an issue.

[revots33]

Interesting article on a similar topic in a recent New York magazine article (link to article) (http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Ultra-Extreme+Calorie+Restriction+Diet+Test+--+New+York+Magazine&amp ;amp;amp;amp;amp;expire=&urlID=19913057&fb=Y&url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2F23169%2F &partnerID=73272).

Evidently some people are borderline starving themselves in an attempt to live until (they hope) actuarial escape velocity is reached.

It comes down to the value we place on the things that give us pleasure vs. the value we place on just being alive. I like to eat. Food is good.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that you can live a short unfulfilling life and then live a very long, fulfilling life.


[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think this? If a short life is unfulfilling, why would a longer life be fulfilling?
Balderdash! (sorry i just read that word and it's awesome)

[soon2bepro]

Um, maybe you should re read and see what we were talking about. I didn't say that.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, maybe you should re read and see what we were talking about. I didn't say that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry then. Kind of an empty post, hence this sentence.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting article on a similar topic in a recent New York magazine article (link to article) (http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Ultra-Extreme+Calorie+Restriction+Diet+Test+--+New+York+Magazine&amp ;amp;amp;amp;amp;expire=&urlID=19913057&fb=Y&url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2F23169%2F &partnerID=73272).

Evidently some people are borderline starving themselves in an attempt to live until (they hope) actuarial escape velocity is reached.

It comes down to the value we place on the things that give us pleasure vs. the value we place on just being alive. I like to eat. Food is good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean starving as in restricted calorie diet which might be able to extend life-span?

[Metric]

Just have your head frozen. After the singularity, they'll know what to do with it. ;-)

[madnak]

Go bowling?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Go bowling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alas, whenever I've tried bowling with human heads, I can never get them all the way down the lane.

Perhaps the freezing would help with that, though.

[madnak]

You could shave off the rough edges, add a little polish...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You could shave off the rough edges, add a little polish...

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just hike up your skirt and put a little mustard on it, Sally.