# What's the point in expanding human lifespan ?



## Jagdpanther (May 16, 2015)

I seriously don't understand why people want so much to live longer, especially nowadays, on a planet which is soon to be broken, with a big climate change that may erase life from it, and under the threat of eventual meteorites or just these kinds of thing that could crash into it...

I mean, if life has an end, it's because it's meant to, right ? Mother Nature created death because everything has an end, and because things are meant to end one day. So why people want to live such a long life, since they'll probably get bored at 80 years old like plenty of elders who commit suicide because they can't stand living anymore ? From my point of view, doubling or tripling the human lifespan is pretty nonsensical, and even more for wanting immortality... Plus, the Earth is already pretty crowded, and we have too many people to feed, there's no enough food and resources for everyone, and humans seem to be the first cause of all of these climate changes, so why wanting to live longer ? Well, if we decrease the birth rates to a number close to zero, it could work, but if all humans became immortal or lives 3 times longer, that would be a damn pain in the ass for Earth.

What do you think about this ?


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Jagdpanther said:


> What do you think about this ?


Life is good. I want more of it. I imagine many other people feel the same way. Now, to address some of your specific concerns. 



Jagdpanther said:


> on a planet which is soon to be broken, with a big climate change that may erase life from it, and under the threat of eventual meteorites or just these kinds of thing that could crash into it...


I don't believe this to be true. Climate change might make things a bit less pleasant in some places of the world, but there will still be plenty of nice places to live. And meteors are no more likely in any given year than the previous, or the next. It might well be a hundred thousand years before another major impact. 



Jagdpanther said:


> I mean, if life has an end, it's because it's meant to, right ? Mother Nature created death because everything has an end, and because things are meant to end one day.


It's a fallacy to say that what is natural is necessarily good. If that were so, we wouldn't use technology such as medicine, corrective lenses, or the internet. 



Jagdpanther said:


> So why people want to live such a long life, since they'll probably get bored at 80 years old like plenty of elders who commit suicide because they can't stand living anymore ?


There are also plenty of elders who would want to live longer, if given the chance. Especially if they could have their youth back, which is the end goal of such technology. 



Jagdpanther said:


> Plus, the Earth is already pretty crowded, and we have too many people to feed, there's no enough food and resources for everyone, and humans seem to be the first cause of all of these climate changes, so why wanting to live longer ? Well, if we decrease the birth rates to a number close to zero, it could work, but if all humans became immortal or lives 3 times longer, that would be a damn pain in the ass for Earth.


1. The country I live in has enough land and resources to accommodate a significantly larger population. Overpopulation in other parts of the world is neither my responsibility nor my concern. We don't have to provide for the rest of the world. Further, advances in technology can potentially mitigate those concerns. 

2. The Earth isn't a sentient being. It has no feelings. It doesn't care.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Jagdpanther said:


> I seriously don't understand why people want so much to live longer, especially nowadays, on a planet which is soon to be broken, with a big climate change that may erase life from it, and under the threat of eventual meteorites or just these kinds of thing that could crash into it...


For intelligent lifeforms, expanding lifespan in the byproduct of intelligence and their biological development (more intelligence as a defence mechanism). It is necessary to release a growing consciousness from the growing perception of individual extinction, but also, to solve personal and collective issues that require the extended individual work of the smartest individuals.

You only see issues relating to lifespan extension because you apply it to the wrong individuals : those who haven't the potential to psychologically handle their biological immortality. Those who will stagnate, turn crazier or into walking tumors. If you're not ready for it, keep breeding until your progeny eventually reaches that point.


----------



## sudo (Dec 8, 2015)

World Population: 7.125 billion (2013) 
Poverty | Data

Just looking around the first world, there seems to be a lot of pain, suffering, and people living a miserable existence. However, the instinct to survive is in most of us, no matter how irrational it is. 

Life isn't about rationality.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

People innately fear death. That's it. Nothing else to be said.


----------



## sudo (Dec 8, 2015)

Not everyone. Some people commit suicide, or willfully put themselves into dangerous situations. Lots of brave soldiers and adrenaline junkies out there.


----------



## Yamato (Dec 21, 2014)

i direct efferyone to the books of asmimof , there u should find the awnser .


----------



## Misaki (Feb 1, 2015)

Perhaps it's not for everybody. Not a problem, so long as not understanding doesn't lead you to be opposed to others that are interested in pursuing this.

Let me put it to you this way, though: If you were living in a time when the average life expectancy was around 40, would you use the same arguments toward those talking about how it might be pushed up to about 80? If not, why do you do this in response to people considering life at 120, or perhaps on to biological immortality? And would you deny people access to this if you could? I think that would be extremely immoral.

I'm not sure I agree with your take on nature. The way you speak about creation and meaning seems to imply you see a higher purpose operating here, and there's no evidence for that. Next time you or someone you know gets sick, recall that illness is natural, and ask yourself if the correct response is to just accept it solely on grounds of it being natural. I doubt you would. We take pills for headaches, undergo chemotherapy for cancer...all as responses to natural occurences. If you think about it that way, you are likely not going to find yourself as committed to the whims of nature as you make yourself out to be. 

To some of your other points: yes, we face a lot of problems in the world today, and additional ones will arise with the advent of further life extension. Personally, I would rather see us try and address them, rather than giving up without even trying. We don't all have to be starry-eyed idealists, but such a gloomy attitude can serve as a barrier to forward-thinking, solutions, and progress. It's a conversation stopper, not a conversation starter. 

Look into Aubrey de Grey and the SENS Research Foundation among other related individuals and groups if you're interested in looking into the relevant research and issues further.


----------



## Wtpmjgda (Dec 15, 2014)

Biological immortality is impossible right now. But extenting life to 130-150 years may possible.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Jagdpanther said:


> I seriously don't understand why people want so much to live longer, especially nowadays, on a planet which is soon to be broken, with a big climate change that may erase life from it, and under the threat of eventual meteorites or just these kinds of thing that could crash into it...
> 
> I mean, if life has an end, it's because it's meant to, right ? Mother Nature created death because everything has an end, and because things are meant to end one day. So why people want to live such a long life, since they'll probably get bored at 80 years old like plenty of elders who commit suicide because they can't stand living anymore ? From my point of view, doubling or tripling the human lifespan is pretty nonsensical, and even more for wanting immortality... Plus, the Earth is already pretty crowded, and we have too many people to feed, there's no enough food and resources for everyone, and humans seem to be the first cause of all of these climate changes, so why wanting to live longer ? Well, if we decrease the birth rates to a number close to zero, it could work, but if all humans became immortal or lives 3 times longer, that would be a damn pain in the ass for Earth.


1. Average lifespan used to be around 30. Now it's around 80. We pretty much unanimously see that as a good thing. Living more healthy, happy years is a good thing. At no point, if I am healthy and happy, will I suddenly want to die.

2. The world is getting better. Poverty, violence, and disease have decreased, and the numbers show it. There is an illusion that has persisted for centuries now that we are always on the cusp of disaster if growth continues. However, this grim prediction always fails to take innovation into account. Indeed, if farm tech were still the same as in the year 1000, billions of people would immediately starve and die off. Climate change isn't the first looming threat we have faced. Not to downplay its significance, but let's not say we're doomed just yet.

3. There is no "meant to" in nature. Nature is just dumb physical processes. _Appeal to nature_ is indeed, as someone already mentioned, a fallacy in reasoning. We do an enormous number of things today that aren't natural, from correcting bad vision to using antibiotics. Things die not because "everything ends" or "mother nature thinks it's good" but because it happened to be what the dumb process of evolution gave us. What we consider normal could just have easily been something else. 

4. People don't get bored and suicidal at 80 because they are 80 chronological years old; they get bored and suicidal at that point because their bodies have broken down and they can barely see, hear, talk, or move anymore. If they were chronologically 80 but had the bodies of 25 year-olds, they would continue living quite productively. The goal of anti-aging research is not to keep people in a decrepit state longer. It's to keep them healthy indefinitely.

5. The Earth is not _that_ crowded. Certain places certainly are, but there are vast expanses of untapped land and resources. Consider, for instance, what will happen when lab-grown meat reaches price-parity in a few years. Suddenly, farming livestock, which is a spectacular drain on the ecosystem, will be obsolete. Now consider other such impending advances in clean energy, water desalination, and more. Technology is the reason we don't all starve right now: without it, the world could never hold 7 billion humans. And we have plenty of technological developments to look forward to that will continue to increase the world's carrying capacity. Not to mention, the birth rate of developed nations falls off precipitously.

6. An overall point on thinking about death: one thing people need to let go of at this point is rationalizations that previously took some of the sting out of the inevitable fact of dying. People who are sure they are going to die might as well perpetuate memes like "death gives meaning to life because every story needs an ending" or "living forever would just get boring" or "I want to die because having a time limit makes me want to pack more life into every moment". As someone who believes that he will probably live to see full-blown anti-aging technology, let me just say, my life is every bit as meaningful as it ever was when I thought dying was inevitable--if not more so, because now I feel I have that much more to look forward to. A certain sense of fatalistic apathy has been lifted. No longer do I say "oh well, these are things I'll never live to see anyway".


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

well I would like to live to be 250 years old.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Hmm, @IDontThinkSo, this extended life will cost a lot of money, and perhaps the state will organise it for the cleverest or most useful people. But mostly it would be used by the richest people - who are sometimes very clever, and sometimes the most cut-throat, or the pampered children of those people. That makes it a lever for powerful people to become more powerful.

But it also means they adapt more slowly, lacking the genetic recombining as they age. So you wouldn't want everyone to live longer, or the changes in environment would outpace our ability to keep up (as a species), and (as a species) we would become ever more reliant on technology to live, and more disconnected from the real world.

So yep. A few people will get it - not necessary the right ones.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

Pangelicus said:


> Hmm, @IDontThinkSo, this extended life will cost a lot of money, and perhaps the state will organise it for the cleverest or most useful people. But mostly it would be used by the richest people - who are sometimes very clever, and sometimes the most cut-throat, or the pampered children of those people. That makes it a lever for powerful people to become more powerful.
> 
> But it also means they adapt more slowly, lacking the genetic recombining as they age. So you wouldn't want everyone to live longer, or the changes in environment would outpace our ability to keep up (as a species), and (as a species) we would become ever more reliant on technology to live, and more disconnected from the real world.
> 
> So yep. A few people will get it - not necessary the right ones.


Actually it would be a humongous economic savings. The cost of decrepitude in the elderly is one of the most immense drains on how we spend our money. If no one ever got sick, we'd not only save the money we currently use treating them, but they would also be able to remain productive.

The idea that the rich will be the only ones who would get it seems fairly out of _left_ field to me (pun maybe appropriate, but not intended). That has never happened before. Right now, even the richest people still have roughly the same smart phones as you and I. When a technology is in its early stages and doesn't work that well, that's when the rich are the only ones to have it. Within years it becomes cheaper and more effective and everyone has it. Look around your home. That's what has happened with just about everything you see.

We are already nearly 100% reliant on technology; that ship has sailed. However, now that we have all this free time and wealth, it is easier than ever to reconnect with nature. You can go camping whenever you want, there are tons of places to do it, and tons of levels at which you can challenge yourself. And people _do_.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Amine said:


> Actually it would be a humongous economic savings. The cost of decrepitude in the elderly is one of the most immense drains on how we spend our money. If no one ever got sick, we'd not only save the money we currently use treating them, but they would also be able to remain productive.


Yes, the saving would be enormous. Not just because of less spending on illness. But moreso, because a person could continue learning, growing in knowledge and wisdom, and applying their skill, over 100s or years, instead of 60-70 years. Rather than one person learning, then adding a little bit to the pool of human knowledge and dying - and the next person spending time to learn that bit of knowledge, with various errors in transmission... The original person keeps building on it and applying it, in its pure form.

But it also makes it less adaptable and less receptive to new paradigms. Knowledge needs to be re-learned by the next generation, to adapt.



> The idea that the rich will be the only ones who would get it seems fairly out of _left_ field to me (pun maybe appropriate, but not intended). That has never happened before. Right now, even the richest people still have roughly the same smart phones as you and I. When a technology is in its early stages and doesn't work that well, that's when the rich are the only ones to have it. Within years it becomes cheaper and more effective and everyone has it. Look around your home. That's what has happened with just about everything you see.


Almost every technology was used by rich people for a long time before poor people got it. Washing machines, motor cars, telephones, air travel. Before those - high quality cloths, carriages, timepieces, etc. The delay is getting shorter, but a lot of things still remain too expensive for almost everyone. Artificial life extension seems like one of things, but I suppose it depends on how costly the R+D is.



> We are already nearly 100% reliant on technology; that ship has sailed. However, now that we have all this free time and wealth, it is easier than ever to reconnect with nature.
> 
> You can go camping whenever you want, there are tons of places to do it, and tons of levels at which you can challenge yourself. And people _do_.


I mean in a Darwinian sense - as a species able to survive in the world. I am not remotely talking about camping. The natural world changes, and as a species we evolve with it. Most of that evolution comes from the genetic recombining that happens with each new generation.

The reliance on technology isn't yet past the point of no return. If society broke down, a lot of people could survive, either alone or in groups. That is because **** sapiens was evolving as part of natural world until very recently, and still is in many countries.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> Hmm, @_IDontThinkSo_ , this extended life will cost a lot of money, and perhaps the state will organise it for the cleverest or most useful people. But mostly it would be used by the richest people - who are sometimes very clever, and sometimes the most cut-throat, or the pampered children of those people. That makes it a lever for powerful people to become more powerful.
> 
> But it also means they adapt more slowly, lacking the genetic recombining as they age. So you wouldn't want everyone to live longer, or the changes in environment would outpace our ability to keep up (as a species), and (as a species) we would become ever more reliant on technology to live, and more disconnected from the real world.
> 
> So yep. A few people will get it - not necessary the right ones.


As I said, _You only see issues relating to lifespan extension because you apply it to the wrong individuals

_We use the same tools to organize our ideas and our organism. If you're not intelligent enough to solve your inner problems by yourself, extending your lifespan will only extend your chances to make some mistakes you can't correct and will repeat. As I said, people will become walking cancers and it'll become more and more expensive to stop issues that come from the very self-misunderstanding of the person and their personality, their epistemological relation to the world and themselves. 3rd party technology and knowledge can just extend the lifespan a bit to give the smartest, the wisest, a bit more chances to solve their inner issues by themselves to the point of no biological death. Those who behave like a cancer to their species, refusing to die while their behavior isn't suited to that lifestyle, will have their own cells behave the very same way. Because their mind won't find any fundamental reason to stop inside what is morally supported outside. Mark my words, transhumanism is a foolish dream.

As for the pace of individual evolution, we have yet to prove that someone who's smart enough to make it couldn't keep up with the newborns.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

IDontThinkSo said:


> If you're not intelligent enough to solve your inner problems by yourself, extending your lifespan will only extend your chances to make some mistakes you can't correct and will repeat. As I said, people will become walking cancers


That's an interesting view - that life extension is self-correcting according to intelligence. Wouldn't it depend largely on physical constitutional too, like how toxins build up, or whether the immune system degrades, or muscles waste, etc?

Also on wealth, because a wealthy start in life is worth many years of aging. People who have never seen hardship seem to age remarkably well, and might easily live twice as long. While the poorest people have spent their physique on hard graft, muscles and a gradual accumulation of dents and damages - so that what does not kill them makes them stronger - but also brings death closer. They are often wearing out in a dozen ways by the time death comes, and could not last another 10 years.

ie. not just intelligence - the calibre of the brain - but also on the body, and status in life, etc.

But that doesn't address how or why intelligent people would get extended. Are you assuming intelligence brings wealth? - or that the government would choose?



> 3rd party technology and knowledge can just extend the lifespan a bit to give the smartest, the wisest, a bit more chances to solve their inner issues by themselves to the point of no biological death. Those who behave like a cancer to their species, refusing to die while their behavior isn't suited to that lifestyle, will have their own cells behave the very same way. Because their mind won't find any fundamental reason to stop inside what is morally supported outside. Mark my words, transhumanism is a foolish dream.


Life doesn't bear that out. There are plenty of "cancerous" (morally dubious) rich people who live very comfortably and very long. If their mind is not aware of its own effect on society, it doesn't kill itself.

There are also people who live by tooth and claw, and have become very rich simply through egotistical grabbing and pushing, and have no reason to change. They don't give a f* what society thinks of them.



> As for the pace of individual evolution, we have yet to prove that someone who's smart enough to make it couldn't keep up with the newborns.


Fair point. The very smartest could probably keep up, provided the brain doesn't lose plasticity.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

I used to know this one IxTP who was all like "I want to invent something to help humans live forever! Wouldn't you want to live forever!?" and I was always like "*Not* in this body."


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> That's an interesting view - that life extension is self-correcting according to intelligence. Wouldn't it depend largely on physical constitutional too, like how toxins build up, or whether the immune system degrades, or muscles waste, etc?
> 
> (...) But that doesn't address how or why intelligent people would get extended. Are you assuming intelligence brings wealth? - or that the government would choose?
> 
> ...


The more I observe us the more I think that most degradations are just errors being made and not corrected, old cells that keep reproducing themselves is just a part.. the building of an intelligence that can handle all those matters goes necessarily along with the building of a body that supports such development.. the right personnality, therefore the right immune system etc. Being immortal because of one's will to be.. it's a whole new way of functioning, not just an idea, a cultural project.. It's the whole organism (and its environment) that must work towards that direction.

(...) I assume that, by the time our technological answers to mortality are intelligent enough to make a real difference, our social intelligence will necessarily evolve to support the existence of those who are intelligent enough to solve those issues. Because _we use the same tools to organize our ideas and our organism_. People nowadays think technological immortality is the next thing, just as 1 century ago they thought flying cars, free energy and space colonies would be the next things.

(...) 100 years is very short. In order to develop the mental tools for rebuilding our bodies as an improving society that doesn't crumble every century, I think one has to use one's social environment to build that social, structural understanding, in other words, there are limits to what one can achieve without developping a deep, wide, high degree of moral understanding (not just the knowledge of it).


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

@IDontThinkSo

That's a remarkably hopeful and utopian outlook 

I favour a dash of realism and a sprinkling of human stupidity. We aren't gods, and sci-fi is often only an imagined remedy to dumb problems that will continue to trouble us, a long way into the future. For instance, the fact that 50% of people are below average intelligence (  ) which is scary enough. It is the thing which has held us back from utopia for 1000s of years. We have a very primitive political system based on tribalism. We colonise the watery bits and suck out the resources with barely a thought for our sustainable future. Population continues to explode as we do so. We are animals, not gods.

You could take the cleverest people - and I think, they would also have to be the most genetically / biologically superior, because our brains cannot override all genetic code (that too is a fantasy with limited application). You might select them like astronauts for their rounded excellence as humans. You could give them the right guidance, lifestyle, drugs, to become super-long-lived, and allow them all sorts of liberties and abilities. But the world in which they live will still be medieval, and the people who are supposed to be listening to them will still be - mostly - animals by nature. It might take 10,000 or a million years to improve on that.


----------



## the.soph.ia (Jul 21, 2015)

Elongating life spans has been a goal of mankind for many years and the subject of folklores (i.e fountain of youth or eternal life). I think it has more to do with human traits than science per se. Narcissism? Sense of accomplishment? Superior race (over other species, although elongating human life can simultaneously help elongate other species' lives)? idk


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

@_Pangelicus_ 

Yes, that's my point, it won't happen within the next thousand years. Ill point out that the current main sci-fi themes are grounded in the fear the authors have to become the weakest link in a better world. They promote the idea that only machines can make a perfect world, or that humans will always corrupt it. In some ways, it's an unconscious allegory of what happens to our species.. a war between **** the losing nature and sapiens the winning artifice... from the former's perspective.

---

We can't seize the impact of HGTs and epigenetics on the very long term and should not assume that, because the current human can't change much during a short lifespan that is essentially made of persistence in error at various physiological degrees, someone whose intelligence and lifespan greatly exceeds ours can't override individually what we override collectivelly, and at a similar speed. There might be more limitations to what 1 million of idiots can do to their genes by breeding and sneezing on each others. Who knows...


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

@IDontThinkSo

That certainly makes interesting reading. Do you think epigenetic markers can be switched on, off, back on, and willfully altered? My knowledge of epigenetics is limited, but the latest findings are profound. One person's experiences alters their own code (?) and that alters their progeny or great-progeny. It is clearly an environment-fitting exercise for better survival. I also wonder if epigenetic changes become genetic changes over time, responding with a changed organism to a changed environment. But that is the limit of my knowledge.

The above seems to be the basis of your thesis - that one person can switch on, off, back on. But as I understand it, the change doesn't become evident or expressed until the next generation.

(Sorry for the delay in replying. Life!)


----------



## Rhonda Rousey (Sep 22, 2015)

Wy would anyone want to expand this hell


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

People are afraid of things. Things that kill them. If we can't be killed, there will never be fear again.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> People are afraid of things. Things that kill them. If we can't be killed, there will never be fear again.


And when you can't lose something (ie your life) it becomes far less important. Hell, if we actually thought out lives were precious we would not be wasting them hopping from screen to screen.

Eventually we'll all live so long that we'll learn nothing but boredom and contempt for life in general. In the end the only option will be a mass-suicide. 

Isn't it awesome how the universe always finds a way to right itself when it goes too far left...or too left itself when too far right.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Fumetsu said:


> And when you can't lose something (ie your life) it becomes far less important. Hell, if we actually thought out lives were precious we would not be wasting them hopping from screen to screen.
> 
> Eventually we'll all live so long that we'll learn nothing but boredom and contempt for life in general. In the end the only option will be a mass-suicide.
> 
> Isn't it awesome how the universe always finds a way to right itself when it goes too far left...or too left itself when too far right.


Hopefully that will hold true for this nonsense going on with flat-design. Maybe they will wise up as go back to 3-D kind of icons that make you think of real objects. Otherwise they would still calling computer files, files or folders, folders.


----------



## Ausserirdische (May 2, 2015)

I'm curious. I can't just die without experiencing the maximum of world events, movies, music, games, or anything else.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

If a person can live significantly longer than hopefully that means they can also get significantly more done, and thus have a more fulfilled and purposeful life.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

Hmm , if you go around,and look at the world you would find that life is only ""sacred for humans"" that's what they call , but not for other species there is no point in increasing human lifespan , we are still what we are ,a violent species .


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> People are afraid of things. Things that kill them. If we can't be killed, there will never be fear again.


No,It ll be the fear of living :sad:


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

@Pangelicus

It'll take lots of time and clues to accept that the plasticity of 1 self-conscious individual should logically go further than that of an entire self-unconscious species, and what it implies on a most intimate, psychological level. Epigenetics is a very young scientific field that is mainly investigated/criticized by - med schools being full of Js - people who aren't friendly with the imperative ability to get rid of the old, and are personally involved against the path of their evolution. A few weeks ago a team published that they could extend the lifespan in good health of some mouses just by destroying their old cells (duh), and they were surprised (!!) that it wouldn't cause major issues. If you're concerned with your own lifespan, I think there's much more to do than waiting for them to understand what we are and how to improve.


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm not even going to get into your concerns about meteor showers, climate change, over-population, etc since it looks like plenty of other people did a pretty good job of explaining things. But seriously, you don't have to worry _nearly _as much as you are. The likelihood of the world cracking in half and ending permanently in the next few decades is very slim. 

---

Anyway here's just a few reasons why extending the human lifespan might be something that people would want: 

1) Fear of death, obviously.

2) Curiosity about the future. The longer you live, the more you'll get to see. 

3) Desire to experience as much of the world as possible. The longer you live, the more time you'll have to experience things. 

4) Previous efforts at extending our lifespan have proven not only successful, but enjoyable and appreciated. It's logical to assume that further efforts would pan out in the same way. 

5) Desire to live in a time with better technology. Like casual space exploration, or hover-boards _(please???)_

6) Completion of _long-term_ goals that would otherwise never be finished in one lifetime

7) Disbelief in an afterlife (which would basically make life all you get, _ever_)

8) Wanting to incessantly improve things is part of human nature. 

9) If we were able to extend the human lifespan to the point that most people would commit casual boredom-suicide before dying of natural causes, then we'd be changing the very meaning and significance of death itself. Yes, it would still be an inevitability, but it wouldn't be a constant black cloud that sat threateningly over us for our entire life. Death would become a _choice_. No one would have to die until they were ready, and no one would have to feel like they were racing against the clock to live a full and happy life. It obviously wouldn't solve everyone's problems, but the significance of controlling death itself would be huge.


----------



## Pifanjr (Aug 19, 2014)

It annoys me when people talk about nature and natural as if humans and everything they do isn't natural. Intelligence and everything that has come fort from it is just as much part of nature as everything else.

I think what annoys me most about it is that there isn't a good definition for it, but for some reason there is this common idea that 'natural' is 'good'. Which means that people choose a definition that fits their argument and then declare that it is 'good'.

The same happens with 'normal'. While I accept that sometimes 'normal' can be used to support an argument, you should always be aware of _why_ the definition of normal that is used is an acceptable point in the argument made and not just accept that something is 'normal' and thus 'good'.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

@IDontThinkSo

2079 news report. Scientific study finds that the cleverest people can alter their own epigenetic code. They use experience in a much more positive and malleable way than other people, changing how they think, how they behave, and how they instinctively react to situations.

I know that such things happen all the time, but I also know that such things can be an illusion, in highly intuitive people who are out of touch with physical reality. It may be an awareness of a biological process, combined with the illusion that you are in control of it, followed by a deliberate alteration to your own thought processes to make use of it. Or some combination.

I am playing devil's advocate here  Pretty sure I've done the same things, but also never quite sure if it's illusion. Only a much clearer understanding of what is going on would shed light on it. And perhaps, a clearer understanding would permit it, but perhaps not. So I have to ask - have you proved this to yourself, in unambiguous ways?


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

Jagdpanther said:


> I seriously don't understand why people want so much to live longer, especially nowadays, on a planet which is soon to be broken, with a big climate change that may erase life from it, and under the threat of eventual meteorites or just these kinds of thing that could crash into it...


Because it's a planet that experienced way more destructive climate anomalies such as Dalton (1600's) and Maunder (1800's) minimums. Mankind managed to survive the both and many other disasters. I don't think none of those disasters caused by aerosols and combustion engines.



Jagdpanther said:


> I mean, if life has an end, it's because it's meant to, right ?


I'm sorry but this is not promising as an argument, neither scientifically nor philosophically: 

"_It is what it is... Because fuck you._" 

Then, we should climb trees and throw our shits to each other. Maybe some bacteria supposed to eat your flesh until you eventually succumbed to your painful infection and that's why you shouldn't even use soap... Right?



Jagdpanther said:


> Mother Nature created death because everything has an end, and because things are meant to end one day.


Mother nature didn't create anything that didn't exist, including "the lack of existence" according to our isolated human consciousness. It's nothing but a chaotic competition by evolutionary progress to recycle resources... And... That's why you sound "problematic" while questioning Individualism from your ridiculously individualistic standpoint.



Jagdpanther said:


> So why people want to live such a long life, since they'll probably get bored at 80 years old like plenty of elders who commit suicide because they can't stand living anymore ?


Because contrary to your city dweller/sheltered teenager mindset, life is not easy and comfortable as what it is. Living until your 80's require a tremendous effort to fight with nature, including your own, with both collective and personal efforts. In the other hand, suicidal tendencies have nothing to do with the hardship and pain in life. After all, I don't know any person who can profoundly explain how this or that wealthy brat killed himself/herself after figuring out the meaning of life even without leaving his/her parents basement or why so many people who systematically experienced the most fucked up conditions are still struggling to stay alive with self-respect and determination... Life is a phenomenon you participate... Nothing is belong to you as nothing supposed to please you.



Jagdpanther said:


> From my point of view, doubling or tripling the human lifespan is pretty nonsensical, and even more for wanting immortality...


You sound like a caveman who claims that nobody should see their 30's... Actually, even worse, you sound like a caveman from future who can effortlessly see his 40's and also claims that nobody shouldn't see their 30's.



Jagdpanther said:


> Plus, the Earth is already pretty crowded, and we have too many people to feed, there's no enough food and resources for everyone, and humans seem to be the first cause of all of these climate changes, so why wanting to live longer ?


Oh dear God... Once again, somebody genuinely insightful managed to simplify entire human civilization into the musical chair's game and realized "the real problem". Come on, tell me about birth rates... I'm listening.



Jagdpanther said:


> Well, if we decrease the birth rates to a number close to zero, it could work, but if all humans became immortal or lives 3 times longer, that would be a damn pain in the ass for Earth.


Do you honestly think that immortals would feel a grain of excitement for any personal experience after a couple of hundred years? Actually, it would be such a relief for Earth. Something only you could idealise because you never understood the only functional aspect of death: Enriching the human consciousnesses with new generations to let individuals rediscover and interpret our collective culture and knowledge.



Jagdpanther said:


> What do you think about this ?


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> @_IDontThinkSo_
> 
> 2079 news report. Scientific study finds that the cleverest people can alter their own epigenetic code. They use experience in a much more positive and malleable way than other people, changing how they think, how they behave, and how they instinctively react to situations.
> 
> ...


It's the difference between wishful thinking and actual provlem solving. It's not how much we want something that makes it happen, it's what kind of issues we're focusing on, and how we process them that can change for the better our unconscious body management. Can't find them but some studies already pointed out that smarter people have smarter recovery processes, grow and age slower, or how keeping an active intellectual life at an old age slows down the aging process. In the future you'll hear more and more about cognitive epidemiology.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Jagdpanther said:


> I seriously don't understand why people want so much to live longer, especially nowadays, on a planet which is soon to be broken, with a big climate change that may erase life from it, and under the threat of eventual meteorites or just these kinds of thing that could crash into it...
> 
> I mean, if life has an end, it's because it's meant to, right ? Mother Nature created death because everything has an end, and because things are meant to end one day. So why people want to live such a long life, since they'll probably get bored at 80 years old like plenty of elders who commit suicide because they can't stand living anymore ? From my point of view, doubling or tripling the human lifespan is pretty nonsensical, and even more for wanting immortality... Plus, the Earth is already pretty crowded, and we have too many people to feed, there's no enough food and resources for everyone, and humans seem to be the first cause of all of these climate changes, so why wanting to live longer ? Well, if we decrease the birth rates to a number close to zero, it could work, but if all humans became immortal or lives 3 times longer, that would be a damn pain in the ass for Earth.
> 
> What do you think about this ?



1. You don't need to understand.

2. Nothing is meant to be. "Mother nature" didn't create anything. Things just happened.

3. The Earth is actually not that crowded. Most of it is empty, with most people heavily concentrating in certain areas, making it seem densely populated. Furthermore, we reproduce because we know we will die. Immortality may actually help control population growth and perhaps even slow it to a crawl in the long-term.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

IDontThinkSo said:


> It's the difference between wishful thinking and actual provlem solving. It's not how much we want something that makes it happen, it's what kind of issues we're focusing on, and how we process them that can change for the better our unconscious body management. Can't find them but some studies already pointed out that smarter people have smarter recovery processes, grow and age slower, or how keeping an active intellectual life at an old age slows down the aging process. In the future you'll hear more and more about cognitive epidemiology.


Actually, I totally agree with that. I've often noticed that smarter people have smarter body management, not just conscious choices but also subconscious recovery and repair. I suspect what is happening is "more rapid" neurobiological learning and reaction throughout.

I say "rapid" rather than "smart" because people with "slow" learning and reactions have different kinds of benefits. Such as more solid and permanent learning at a simpler level. Slower learners are smart in their own way, and they accumulate understandings of things, and build it up gradually. Rapid learners (aka "smart") can adapt more quickly to changes in environment, but also lose it more quickly, and they don't necessarily build on what they already knew, say, 20 years ago. I think society's focus on "rapid" learning often misses that.

So if life extension was available - perhaps (I'm not sure if I believe this, but it's worth considering) - slow learners would have a better capability for long-term accumulation of knowledge, compared with our on-going adaptations with gains and losses.

But because the slower learners don't heal or repair as efficiently, would they need help to get past the first 100 years in one piece?


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

@_Pangelicus_ 

It's not about how fast one can improve one's knowledge - fast reaction - but how fast one can improve one's understanding (high creativity and focus on reorganizing the understanding in depth), the pertinence of one's reactions. In order to quickly develop our understanding, we have to sacrifice all the lazy habits of thinking that speed up the learning process, and our attachement to knowledge. Most ideas will be sacrified so that the skills which manage them and our bodies can improve. But people are too attached to their ideas of themselves... self-idealization is killing us. We prefer to sacrifice our future rather than our ideas.


----------

